By Riad Kahwaji*

The United States is widely believed to have the strongest conventional and non-conventional force worldwide and none of its competitors possess even half the size of its projection power capabilities. Yet U.S. influence and political clout is dwindling in many regions, especially the Middle East. Russia, which has only one aircraft carrier compared to America’s ten aircraft carriers, seems to be gaining the upper hand in the Middle East and the growing public perception is that it is the new boss in town. Thousands of American troops and assets are still in the region but do not seem as effective as before and the main reason is the non-consistent foreign policies and the bad utilization for the “economy of force” principle.

Many war strategists and historians wrote about the “economy of force,” and the most known ones are Major General John C. Fuller and Carl Von Clausewitz. To simplify it, the economy of force is basically how to use just the adequate size of force at the right place and time with the strong will to follow through preset plans with resilience and determination in order to achieve the objectives of the war strategy. Clausewitz said “Every unnecessary expenditure of time, every unnecessary detour, is a waste of power, and therefore contrary to the principles of strategy.”

In the U.S. there has actually been a lot of “detours” and waste of time over the past 17 years – beginning with the initiation of the Global War on Terrorism in 2001. The problem has become worse in the last decade with constantly changing policies and strategies for Iraq, Iran and Syria. Many in the United States would attribute this to either the country suffering from war-fatigue or to the American democratic system. But in fact what seems to be the problem is failed political leadership with inconsistent and sometimes impulsive policies that have turned military gains into political disasters.

The same U.S. democratic system under previous leaderships saw the U.S. support the Allies to consecutive victories in World War I and World War II, to emerge victorious from the Cold War, and to elevate America as the sole global superpower. The “economy of force” principle was used so efficiently during the Cold War that the U.S. beat the Soviet Union without ever having a direct military confrontation. Now the Soviet Union’s successor, the Russian Federation, is bullying the U.S. on various fronts in Europe and the Middle East.

The current doctrinal manual for the U.S. Army describes and defines the economy of force as follows: “Allocate minimum essential combat power to secondary efforts. Economy of force is the reciprocal of mass. It requires accepting prudent risk in selected areas to achieve superiority—overwhelming effects—in the decisive operation. Economy of force involves the discriminating employment and distribution of forces. Commanders never leave any element without a purpose. When the time comes to execute, all elements should have tasks to perform.”

The principles of “economy of force” are applied by Armed Forces worldwide across all types of military operations. However, it is most important for militaries that want efficient power projection capability. Superpowers that dispatch troops to combat missions thousands of miles away from home must ensure they are well-equipped to accomplish the tasks allocated to them in the execution of their country’s foreign policies. Having bases abroad must be part of a policy upon which the military leadership decides the size of force in each base and what sort of assets are required. In the U.S. case the military wants to have as little boots on the ground as possible in the Middle East by relying on airpower, standoff weapons and local partners.

If one examines the implementation of the “economy of force” in the U.S. military deployments in the Middle East since 2003, it will not be hard to conclude that America greatly succeeded militarily but failed miserably on the strategic level. American military commanders did a brilliant job militarily in achieving control of Iraq within three weeks with a very small number of casualties. However, managing Iraq subsequently proved a big failure because the war strategy the military prepared for was to remove weapons of mass destruction from Iraq while the political leadership had a different, hidden agenda. Even when the U.S. military succeeded in regaining control of the situation there through gradual buildup of forces and the training of local groups to combat Islamist insurgents – what was known then as the “surge” – the change of leadership at the White House ended it through the withdrawal of all forces from Iraq, leaving a huge vacuum for both Iran and Al-Qaeda terrorists to occupy.

When the public revolts in Syria and Iraq created turmoil and ignited sectarian conflicts allowing tens of thousands of militants of Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) to occupy vast areas in both countries, an opportunity presented itself for the U.S. to deploy its forces to combat terrorism and to contain Iran’s rapid expansion.

Iran has sent tens of thousands of Shi’ite militias led by the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) into Iraq and Syria under the pretext of combating terrorism. However, the war strategy during President Barak Obama’s administration, which was normalizing ties with Tehran, was to limit U.S. military involvement to airpower and provide support to land forces made up of the IRGC, Iraqi Shi’ite militias known as the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), and regular Iraqi troops. The new U.S. administration under Donald Trump reversed course and no longer coordinates with the PMF and Iran in the war on ISIS in Iraq, which has come to an end largely due to America’s powerful air support and intelligence capabilities. The current U.S. forces deployed in Iraq might have become insufficient to deal with a rising threat from PMF and IRGC if Tehran decides to escalate activities against the U.S.

In Syria, the U.S. “no boots on the ground” policy worked very well. After a brief but unsuccessful trial with the rebels of the Free Syrian Army, the U.S. military decided to use Kurdish fighters in ground offensives against ISIS in northeastern Syria. Only 2,000 U.S. troops were deployed to train and assist the Kurdish fighters who now control the Syrian territories east of the Euphrates River, and with some Arab tribesmen control the Tanaf area along the Iraqi-Syrian-Jordanian borders. So not only did the U.S. manage to defeat ISIS, but also sandwiched the Iraq-Syria main highway that Iran had been using to establish its land bridge connecting Tehran with the Mediterranean. This was a brilliant application of the “economy of force” because it achieved the objective with minimum resources. However, President Trump surprised not least of all his own National Security Council colleagues, especially military members, with a request to pull out U.S. forces from Syria as soon as possible.

Russia, in turn teamed up with Iran and the Syrian regime to pave the way for its big comeback to the Middle East region. With a few air force squadrons, the S-400 air defense system and several hundred special operations forces at hand, Moscow has established itself as the main powerbroker in Syria after helping the Syrian regime and Iranian-backed militiamen recapture vast areas from ISIS and Syrian rebels. Moscow even brought its only aircraft carrier for a few weeks to the Syrian coastline to demonstrate its projection power and assert itself regionally. Russia has signed treaties with the Syrian regime granting it a long term military presence in Syria and is leading the talks with Iran and Turkey to draw the map for the future of Syria, which will certainly impact the future of all countries bordering Syria: Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Israel. So the economy of force employed by the Russians in their war strategy in Syria seems to be in full sink with the Kremlin’s agenda.

It is not a question of how many aircraft carriers a county has or how advanced its military technologies are but how resources and assets are allocated to achieve a war strategy with a consistent policy. The continuous policy changes in successive U.S. administrations – and in today’s case within one administration – has severely impacted its image and standing in the world as well as its military which has seen resources spent and lives wasted with few rewards. Impulsive policies related to U.S. military deployments have a huge impact – short- and long-term – and their damage can be irrecoverable.

Now that the war on ISIS is almost over what will be the subsequent task of U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria? If it is to contain the IRGC and their allied militias – as the White House called for repeatedly – are U.S. forces well-equipped and at the right operational size for this mission? If the U.S. forces were to pull-out from Iraq and Syria today, would they not be leaving room for ISIS to return or the IRGC to take full control? How will the U.S. deter the Syrian regime from further use of chemical weapons against the civilian population if it does not have assets deployed to punish the regime when it crosses a red line? Moscow and Tehran seem clear on what they want in Iraq and Syria and are doing well achieving their objectives with minimum resources. It is time for Washington to decide on a firm and consistent policy that will enable its military to prevail with a proper use of the “economy of force.”

*Riad Kahwaji, CEO INEGMA

The evolution of wild species, adapting them to human management practices, can cause localised extinctions when those practices rapidly change. And in a new study published in Nature, Professors Michael C. Singer and Camille Parmesan have used more than 30 years of research to fully document an example of this process.

A large, isolated population of a North American butterfly evolved complete dependence on an introduced European weed to the point where the continued existence of the butterfly depended on the plant’s availability. The insects then became locally extinct when humans effectively eliminated that availability, confirming a prediction made by the same authors in a 1993 Nature paper.

Thus the advent of cattle ranching more than 100 years ago set an eco-evolutionary trap that the insects obligingly fell into, and the trap was sprung when humans suddenly removed the cattle, withdrawing their ‘gift’, and driving the butterflies to extinction.

European conservation biologists have long believed this to be the process underlying many local extinctions across Europe, and this study provides the first hard evidence of the process in action in real time. It also foreshadows an increasing importance of maintaining historical land use practices, including cattle ranching, as conservation measures in North America.

The authors, affiliated to the University of Plymouth, the University of Texas at Austin and CNRS Moulis, have spent more than three decades studying changes in the diet of Edith’s checkerspot (Euphydryas editha) in a spring-fed meadow surrounded by semi-desert sagebrush and pine forest on a family-run ranch in Nevada.

In particular, the authors assessed the impact of narrow-leaved plantain (Plantago lanceolata), which was introduced to the USA in hay brought from Europe and flourished under cattle-grazing, probably arriving in Nevada more than 100 years ago.

As soon as the butterflies encountered the plantain, their caterpillars survived better on it than on their traditional host, Blue-Eyed Mary (Collinsia parviflora), causing the adults to evolve preference for laying eggs on the plantain. By the mid-2000s, they were 100% reliant on the plantain and the Collinsia had been abandoned.

However, within three years of the ranch’s cattle being removed due to financial pressures, the butterflies became locally extinct as the grasses around their favoured new host were no longer grazed, and the plantains became embedded in those grasses, cooling the micro-environment. The Collinsia was unaffected by removal of cattle, so if the butterflies had not evolved so rapidly in response to the introduction of the plantain, they would most likely have survived.

Around five years after the extinction, Edith’s checkerspots recolonized the meadow. Since they were all found feeding on Collinsia, the original host plant, scientists believe these colonists to be a new population, and that the lineage which had called the ranch home for several decades no longer exists.

They say the results are similar to that seen in British species such as the large blue butterfly, which went extinct across southern England following a reduction of grazing by both rabbits and sheep. Once this process was understood, the butterflies could be successfully re-introduced.

Professor Singer, who has been studying the diet of Edith’s checkerspot for more than 50 years and led the current study, said: “This is a clear example of how humans are able to change habitats faster than even rapidly-evolving species can change their behaviour. This cannot be not an isolated phenomenon, so unless we become aware of the potential consequences of such actions we will continue to inadvertently cause population extinctions of native species, without recognizing what we are doing. Species-level extinctions are possible when human activities are synchronized across wide areas.”

Professor Parmesan, a lead contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, said the study had potentially wider implications beyond the scope of changes to farming practices.

She added: “Climate warming is another form of anthropogenic change that is occurring faster than past natural changes, and is likely to cause problems for species whose evolution is unable to keep pace. If climate change were natural, it is likely that many wild species would be able to adapt, both through current evolution and through flexible changes in behaviour and life history. But human-driven climate change is occurring at a much faster rate than most past major climatic shifts. Ecologists have long been arguing that this is likely to lead to more extinctions than have happened with past climatic changes and this study supports the arguments that rapid climate change will prove detrimental to biodiversity both in the short and long term.”

The transition in Chinese leadership since November 2012 has been observed with significant changes in Chinese foreign policy under the leadership by President Xi Jinping. The initiation of Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) is seen as one of the major contour of Chinese foreign policy and can be linked with the ‘peaceful rise 2.0. In this behavior, Beijing adhered to declare ‘peaceful development’ policy which not only aimed to maintain a strong and stable external environment conducive to its ascendance, but the manner in which it did seek are magnificently different.

In the context of BRI, the rhetoric casts it in terms of economy but it has also well-organized security and strategic aspects which contributes to the overall Chinese national security. Many Chinese sources suggest that BRI investment is being used as a means of securing energy supply routes, stabilizing border regions, and cultivating stronger economic and diplomatic relations with partner nations. However, the goals are constrained by dual security challenges; both traditional and non-traditional security threats which are intertwined.

The global great powers in the area of BRI have already put forward their own regional initiatives aimed seeking the regional influence. Other than the great power geopolitical games, Chinese territorial and island disputes, and regional political turmoil in host countries, Beijing is countered with multiple strong and serious non-traditional security threats. The growing activities of three important forces (terrorist forces, national separatist forces and religious extremists), threatening the BRI initiative is becoming one of the grave asymmetric security threats in the region.

Despite the basic difference in these organizations’ political objective, personal composition, organizational forms, the common feature stands same; they reject secular regimes and propose to set up an Islamic state. Basically, as a result of regional security plan, and international anti-terrorism situation, these organizations are characterized by a guiding ideology, decentralization, cross-cutting of personnel, fragmentation and strong linkages with other International terrorist organizations. The activities of East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM) against Chinese targets are one such threat to Chinese people’s property and personal safety.

In addition, maintaining secure sea access is one of the key features of BRI initiative which will make it sure the sea channels remain open. The Indian Ocean routes are strategically significant for world’s trade such as the Strait of Hormuz, the Strait of Mendoza and the Strait of Malacca. Most of Chinese oil trade is passed through the Strait of Malacca, and the Indian Ocean to Middle East and North Africa thus making these channels the lifeline of China’s economic growth.

Therefore, it becomes imperative for China to maintain secure these sea routes. The security challenge mainly comes from the United States which also endeavors to control the Strait. In this scenario, any security breach in the Strait of Hormuz may result in deteriorating security situation within the region. Moreover, pirate threat in the Mande Strait can not be ignored especially off the Somali coast and the Gulf of Aden.

Besides the terrorist activities and open sea access, BRI initiative is also affected by the regional economic integration pressures. The core purpose of BRI initiative is to establish trade and economic ties with Central Asia, Southeast Asia, the Middle East and Europe, to promote China’s economic rebalancing and upgrading, to develop mutual cooperation, and to encourage regional prosperity through investment and technology. In this situation, the United States proposal to establish Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TTP), Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership agreement (TTIP) and later to divide the ASEAN-led Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) have actually tried to block the BRI objectives.

It is worth mentioning here that transnational organized crime has increasingly become rampant and has affected the social stability and economic development of BRI partner countries. According to the United Nations General Assembly, ‘three major world catastrophes’ are not only hampering the economic and trade relations of BRI countries but also having direct impact of China’s national security. Other transnational organized crimes such as the large production of opium and its spread to the world from Afghanistan, religious extremism in Central Asia, transnational economic crimes (specially telecommunication frauds and money laundering), and illegal immigrant crimes are having direct impact on BRI’s overall security.

Facing these security challenges by the Beijing, the effective interaction lies in playing the role of a ‘pivot’ state as BRI initiative is having common areas of interest for Pakistan and India in South Asia. Since China and India have long-standing territorial disputes, Pakistan can play the role of a ‘pivot’ state which can be ensured by China-Pakistan all-weather strategic cooperative partnership. To secure the western China, Pakistan’s influence can be used on Afghanistan including ETIM forces in Central Asian region. Moreover, China can also use Pakistan as a bridge for security cooperation between China and the United States.

Subject to naval forces constraint, China needs to participate multi-level exercises with Pakistan to ensure the safety of sea lanes. The China’s growing influence in Gwadar port also plays an important role in fighting against piracy in Indian Ocean west coast thus ensuring the energy security in the Gulf region.

Well-aware of all these risks and security threats, Beijing is not only marshalling all its resources to create a secure and safer context for BRI but also improving its ability to undertake non-traditional security operations such as disaster relief missions and non-combatant evacuations for longer period.

At a security level, China is also encouraging other options such as host nation support, law enforcement initiative and private security firms for securing BRI assets and personnel. Whereas, at a strategic level, high-level engagements, economic inducements, and public diplomacy are being carried out to decrease the potential risks and competition with other major powers. Furthermore, Beijing also needs to set up more cooperative and open concept to mobilize the region in active participation and implementation of BRI initiative thus ultimately achieving a win-win situation.

*Zaheema Iqbal is a Research Associate at Institute of Maritime Affairs (IMA), Islamabad. Her areas of expertise are cyber security, cyber terrorism, cyber threats, terrorism, non-traditional security threats, radicalization. She can be reached at zaheemaeckbaull@gmail.com

The April Consumer Price Index (CPI) shows no evidence of accelerating inflation, in spite of the 18-year low in unemployment. The overall CPI rose 0.2 percent for the month, while the core index rose just 0.1 percent. Over the last year, the two indexes are up 2.5 percent and 2.1 percent, respectively.

Even this modest inflation is largely attributable to rising housing costs. The shelter index was up 0.3 percent in the month and was up 3.4 percent over the last year. A core index that also excludes shelter actually fell by 0.1 percent in April and is up by just 1.2 percent over the last year.

There are two important points about how housing costs drive inflation. First, this is not a classic wage–price spiral type of inflation. While the overall inflation rates remain low (even including shelter costs), insofar as shelter is a leading factor in pushing them higher, the rise in shelter costs is not due in any important way to rising wages and construction costs.

Second, virtually all analysts agree that the problem of higher housing costs is overwhelmingly due to limited land and building restrictions in desirable metropolitan areas. These factors are not going to be changed by the Federal Reserve Board’s interest rate policies. While the Fed views higher interest rates as a tool against inflation, the impact is likely to go the wrong way in the case of rents. By making it more expensive to build, higher rates are likely to worsen housing shortages in the most desirable markets.

The other point is that because the rapid rise in housing costs is primarily due to a limited number of metropolitan areas with overheated markets, there are large differences in the rate of inflation seen in different areas. For example, while the national CPI rose 2.5 percent over the last year, it rose just 1.9 percent in the New York metropolitan area and 1.4 percent in the Philadelphia metro area. By contrast, it rose 3.5 percent in the Miami metro area and 4.0 percent in the Los Angeles area. A worker seeing a 2.6 percent increase in hourly pay over the last year is coming out ahead in New York and Philadelphia, but falling badly behind in Miami and Los Angeles.

Outside of shelter, there is really no evidence of inflationary pressures elsewhere in the core. Inflation in the health care and insurance sectors, traditional problem areas, remains under control. The medical care index rose just 0.1 percent in April and is up just 2.2 percent over the last year. Education costs also rose 0.2 percent in April and up 1.8 percent over the last year.

Even motor vehicle insurance costs, which have surpassed both education and medical care as a contributor to inflation, may be coming under control. They fell by 0.2 percent in April, although they are still up by 9.0 percent over the last year.

Inflation in other major components is negligible or negative. New vehicle prices fell 0.5 percent in April, while used car and truck prices fell 1.6 percent. For the year, prices are down in these categories by 1.6 percent and 0.9 percent, respectively. Apparel prices rose by 0.3 percent, bringing the increase over the last year to 0.8 percent. Airline fares fell 2.7 percent in April and are down 6.9 percent over the last year.

Two areas where costs are rising are legal services — flat in April, but up 4.3 percent for the last year — and financial services, the price of which rose 4.6 percent last month, bringing the increase for the last year to 6.5 percent. Perhaps this is attributable to the policies pursued by the new leadership at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The overall picture in April remains the same as in prior months. The only place where there is notable evidence of inflationary pressures is in housing. Outside of housing, inflation in the core index is virtually nonexistent. Energy prices, which have risen 7.9 percent over the last year, are the only other potential problem on the horizon.

On April 23rd, a peaceful warning shot was fired in Armenia’s capital of Yerevan, resulting in the resignation of Prime Minister, Serzh Saksyan. Why it happened is revealed by a closer look at what transpired during the civilian protest and what was said by the parties in conflict and by influential international voices:

Opposition leader and MP, Nikol Pashinyan, stated clearly during the protests that the “corrupt system” could not be tolerated;

The now former Prime Minister broke his earlier promise to not assume the office after 10 years as President;

Scrutiny has been consistently raised from the diaspora, from international NGO bodies and academics alike as to Russia’s permeating influence in the region, including in its electoral decision-making; and…

Saksyan resigning and in doing so, admitting, “I was wrong”.

Armenia is a country unique as much for it’s history as for the challenges it faces and relationships it holds close. Armenia’s alliance with Russia for national and economic security, for example — Russian troops guard Armenia’s borders with 5,000 troops and provides $200 million in credit for arms purchases.

This has been a status quo policy that leadership thought best served the country. But the day was coming when it might realized that this approach wouldn’t be as promising as the Armenian people were led to believe, with foreign observers concurrently looking inward to asses the relationship Russia holds with perhaps proxy Armenia from an influence standpoint, in the lobbying and ‘information and intelligence’ circles in the United States, for example.

At the heart of the protest — and what ignited it — was not necessarily Armenia’s relationship with Russia or its relationship with the EU through CEPA; it was purportedly the Prime Minister’s reneging on his pledge not to serve in that office.

However and ultimately, rather than act on fears of political survival, it’s now time, taking a cue from the former Prime Minister, to act in self-awareness and based on reality, that the time has come for the country at-large to act together in its best interests, as called for by its people.

In the U.S., the time has also come to reassess organizations that seemingly so too act in the interest of Armenia, but perhaps also emanate an ‘old guard’ underbelly of Kremlin influence assertion.

Here at home, the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) in the U.S. continues to serve as the echo chamber for the ruling Party and its influencers (e.g. the Armenian Consul General to the United States is a former Russian oligarch who does not speak Armenian, for example) – Will it also awaken to the aspirations of the Armenian people assembled on April 23rd?

The mirror has two faces and ‘self reflection’ of State influence at home is upon us at this monumental juncture.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard for example visited a politically tumultuous Armenian-occupied region of Azerbaijan (an odd point of interest for the Representative from the great State of Hawaii) and has been an outspoken supporter of a perhaps skewed geopolitical rhetoric; Mayor Garcetti of Los Angeles has been to Armenia multiple times during his tenure in office in tandem with ANCA Senior Officials. There is a seemingly opaque web of influence operating like an Armenian lobbying outfit but pursuing Russian interests that Americans, much like the international community, must re-analyze and re-assess.

The question, in other words, is whether ANCA still values the status quo or will it take part in the value unleashed in the power of the people in seeking change and a brighter future?

Whether or not this happens, what is certain, is that Armenia’s current situation is to be re-evaluated internally and externally. What is certain is that the peaceful warning shot has been fired.

Those in power are now on notice — “Are you part of the old and lingering problem or will you collaborate and share in the future marking a brighter way”?

*David Mercer is a former representative and advocate for the American-Turkish Council, former Deputy National Finance Director of the DNC and regular television pundit. The views expressed are his own.

The DPRK readjusted its time zone to match South Korea’s, moving its clocks half an hour forward by the decree of the Presidium of the Supreme People’s Assembly of the country.

“The time-resetting is the first practical step taken after the historic third North-South summit meeting to speed up the process for the North and the South to become one and turn their different and separated things into the same and single ones,” the Korean Central News Agency says.

On April 27, Kim Jong-un of North Korea and Moon Jae-in of the South for the first time met at the border point of Panmunjom and agreed to work to formally end the Korean War in 2018.

“The North and the South agreed to declare the end of war this year, […] replace the Armistice Agreement [of 1953] with a peace accord and actively promote the holding of North-South-US tripartite or North-South-China-US four-party talks for the building of durable and lasting peace mechanism,” says the Panmunjom Declaration on Peace, Prosperity and Reunification of Korean Peninsula.

Meanwhile, the results of a survey conducted by the South Korean МВС channel on May 1 show a sharp increase in the popularity of the DPRK leader Kim Jong-un among South Koreans, which grew from 10% to 77.5% in a month and a half. Thus, the support for the North Korean leader in South Korea reached values comparable to the ranking of Moon Jae-in, which makes 86%.

“If this goes on, our next president will be Kim Jong-un,” somberly joked Hong Jun-pyo, Chairman of the leading opposition Free Korean Party, representing the interests of the most conservative circles in the country.

Commenting on the significant warming of bilateral relations, Clive Williams from the Australian National University stressed the extreme importance of the summit.

“The meeting was important as it showed a willingness on the part of both leaders to break new ground in relation to the bilateral relationship. There is already peace on the peninsula in the sense that there is a lack of conflict. A peace agreement would however bring to an end what is effectively a ceasefire arrangement and replace it with a more positive framework with which to move forward,” the expert told PenzaNews.

At the same time, the only way of achieving lasting peace on the peninsula would be through reunification – and that is not going to happen, he said.

According to him, in the current situation, the international community should let the main parties – China, the US, and North and South Korea – work out a positive way forward.

“It seems unlikely that the North will be prepared to denuclearise to the point of discarding its nuclear missiles given the US’s record of overthrowing non-nuclear regimes and its failure to meet its commitments to North Korea under the 1994 Agreed Framework – soon after the agreement was signed, control of the US Congress passed to the Republican Party which did not support the agreement,” Clive Williams suggested.

He also reminded that the history of the US-North Korea relationship “since 1953 is in fact littered with broken promises by both parties.”

“At some point therefore the UN may need to step in and broker a new agreed framework [on the establishment of relations between South Korea and the DPRK],” the analyst added.

In turn, Patrick Sensburg, German MP from the CDU/CSU fraction, paid special attention to the lack of proper level of initiative from the United Nations in the settlement of the situation on the Korean peninsula.

“The international community can help, but Pyongyang has to give up its nuclear programs and has to accept controls. It is most unfortunate, that the UN is not acting strong in this issue, but weak – like in so many other fields in the last years,” the politician said.

In his opinion, the rare summit became possible after months of little steps of improving relations between the two countries.
Read also

International experts concerned about escalating North Korea crisis ahead of Olympics

“Maybe, one important factor could have been the power of the Olympic Spirit. In my opinion, the present situation can be a starting point for a process to normalize the bilateral relations. On the other hand we must not forget that there were similar talks in recent years which unfortunately didn’t lead to an improvement of the situation between the two countries,” Patrick Sensburg reminded.

From his point of view, the international community should support these small steps of North and South Korea towards the peace treaty.

“Yet, everything is still open, but the direction is right. Trade can be a key to help the process and support talks on an international level. When the USA, China, Russia and the EU will assist the process, it can be successful,” the Bundestag deputy said.

Meanwhile, Grant Newsham, Senior Research Fellow at the Japan Forum for Strategic Studies in Tokyo, with experience as a US Diplomat and US Marine Officer, was skeptical about the bilateral meeting between Kim Jong-un and Moon Jae-in in the demilitarized zone.

“The two Korean leaders said some nice things, but keep in mind that different Korean presidents and different Kim’s have had similar meetings and said similar things in the past. Is there some reason to believe this time the outcome will be different? That’s hard to imagine,” the analyst said.

“Kim Jong-un seemed to be in a good mood, but I don’t think that translates into better prospects for peace on the peninsula – or North Korea giving up its nuclear weapons,” Grant Newsham added, suggesting that the DPRK leader might genuinely reform.

At the same time, he recalled earlier charges of killing Kim Jong-nam in Kuala Lumpur, and a functioning system similar to the Gulag, “where tens of thousands of Koreans are foully treated.”

According to the expert, South Korean president Moon Jae-in is “dangerously naïve and too keen to reach an agreement with the North.”

“I would imagine Kim will gladly take whatever Moon has to offer, but will never quite get to point where he gives up North Korea’s nuclear weapons,” the former US Diplomat stressed and added that for the last 25 years the DPRK was offered up money, food, oil, and security guarantees, but the Kim’s have been developing nuclear weapons and long-range missiles.

In his opinion, the Americans and the international community should keep up the pressure on North Korea and on China.

“Not the Americans and South Koreans should convince Kim to accept their security guarantees and economic aid, […] but Kim must prove to the civilized world that he is no longer a cruel tyrant, and deserves to be allowed into polite society. What can Kim do as an initial sign of good faith? Close down his North Korean ‘Gulag.’ This is a reasonable requirement. If Kim does something similar, then I’ll be impressed. Otherwise, we’ve seen this movie before,” Grant Newsham said.

In turn, Xu Jin, Research Fellow at Institute of World Economics and Politics of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, called the inter-Korean talks “a very good beginning of the reconciliation process of the two sides.”

“The discourses in the statements are positive and it is the first time that the leaders of North and South Korea commit to end the state of war in the peninsula. Peace has existed there since 1953, but the problem is the hostilities of the both sides. The cessation of hostilities will be a long process,” the analyst said.

In his opinion, the parties really take a small step but the prospect is not clear at this stage.

“There is still possible that the reconciliation process will be stopped or reversed by the unexpected events,” Xu Jin suggested.

From his point of view, the international community cannot do much to resolve this difficult issue.

“Let’s wait and see. But the concerning parties should create a good conditions to the process and don’t do anything so as to stimulate the DPRK and South Korea or worsen the atmosphere,” the Chinese expert concluded.

Source: https://penzanews.ru/en/analysis/65360-2018

This is an open letter to UN Secretary General Mr. Antonio Guterres regarding US’ unlawful exit from the Iran nuclear agreement and the re-imposition of nuclear-related sanctions in direct violation of the agreement as well as the UN Security Council Resolution 2231 (July, 2015).

Whereas Mr. Guterres has rightly expressed his “concerns” over US President Trump’s fateful decision and has urged the international community to fulfill their obligations under the agreement known as the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), it is important to take the necessary follow-up action and to bring this crucial matter before the Security Council, in light of the Secretary General’s own confirmation that Iran has fully complied with its obligations under the JCPOA.

US’ unilateral imposition of sanctions is unlawful and illegitimate and risks international peace and security. There is absolutely no justification for these new sanctions and, in fact, Mr. Trump himself failed to provide any justification in his televised address to the world, other than citing a dubious Israeli claim about past Iranian nuclear behavior as the only evidence, when in fact it is nothing short of disinformation calculated to provide a timely rationale for US withdrawal from the JCPOA. Israel’s claim has been rebuked by the IAEA, which has responded by stating that it possesses no credible information of any Iranian nuclear-weapon related activity.

UNSC 2231 is incumbent on all member states including the US, which must honor its agreement under the terms of the JCPOA and to refrain from interfering in Iran’s trade relations with other nations. US’ bullying tactic vis-a-vis Iran is a clear affront to the UN Charter and an insult at the world’s civilized norms and principles that dictate harmony among nations instead of a unilateral “strategy of tensions,” to paraphrase French President Emmanuel Macron’s description of US’s approach toward Iran.

Henceforth, the UN as a whole and the Security Council in particular has a crucial role to play in safeguarding an international agreement that supports the core values of the UN with respect to peaceful settlement of conflicts. Failure is simply not an option and a recipe for disaster. The White House ‘war party’ is openly questing for direct confrontation with Iran, seeking to wreak more havoc on the Middle East in order to protect the American hegemony (in decline), and it is up to the international community how to respond: either act passively and allow the dark scenario of another calamitous war engulf the region that has suffered so deeply as a result of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq on the false pretext of weapons of mass destruction, or reaffirm the international norms by firmly and resolutely standing up to the US war designs against Iran.

Notwithstanding the disastrous results of US’ military interventionism and the explicit commitment of the UN in defense of the JCPOA, all measures at UN’s disposal to prevent the complete collapse of the JCPOA, which could prove to be a prelude for another war in the Middle East, must be undertaken immediately, without allowing the passage of time and the likely sabotage of such efforts by the United States and its regional allies.

Undoubtedly, this represents a litmus test of UN’s leadership and ability to put into practice the UN doctrine of war-preemption, which will hopefully be successfully put into practice by Mr. Guterres and other high UN officials, otherwise UN’s record will be marred by yet another inglorious defeat.

The 2018 Asia-Pacific Economic Statistics Week (APES) closed Thursday in Bangkok with a strong focus on strengthening the capability of Member States to produce core economic statistics and improve monitoring of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Senior economic statisticians from statistical offices and central banks of countries in the region, as well as international development experts gathered at the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) in Bangkok for the four-day forum to exchange research priorities and best practices, and help close the data gaps for sustainable development.

Economic statistics are specifically required for almost half the current indicators in the global monitoring framework for the SDGs, yet many countries continue to struggle with getting the basics right such as population and economic statistics. Therefore, there is an urgent need to improve data collection in order to present a complete picture of the region’s development.

“It is critical that governments invest in national statistical systems to address monitoring needs of the SDGs,” said UN Under-Secretary-General and Executive Secretary of ESCAP Dr. Shamshad Akhtar. “The support that different development partners give to advance statistical capacity development is crucial to promote evidence based policy making for the benefit of the regions’ most vulnerable populations.”

The forum included a two-day seminar, which covered big data, modern technologies for production of economics statistics, administrative data, System of National Accounts, Islamic finance, natural resources and communication, and the use of statistics. The seminar was held back to back with the fifth meeting of the Steering Group for the Regional Programme on Economic Statistics, where delegates outlined research priorities for the region such as the digital and creative economy.

Participants decided on priority topics for collaboration including the use of big data technologies and national accounts statistics. The forum also provided a platform to expand the knowledge repository of national studies to improve data collection.

APES was established in 2016, within the Regional Programme on Economic Statistics, to provide substantive, consistent support to countries to ensure effective production and dissemination of basic economic statistics, and share national research studies across the region.

Chinese businessman Sheng Kuan Li didn’t worry about sanctions when he decided in 2010 to invest $200 million in a steel mill in Iran that started producing ingots and billet within months of the lifting of punitive measures against the Islamic republic as part of 2015 international nuclear agreement with Iran.

With no operations in the United States, Mr. Li was not concerned about being targeted by the US Treasury. Mr. Li, moreover, circumvented financial restrictions on Iran by funding his investment through what he called a “private transfer,” a money swap that was based on trust and avoided regular banking channels.

In doing so, Mr. Li was following standard Chinese practice of evading the sanctions regime by using alternative routes or establishing alternative institutions that were in effect immune.

To be able to continue to purchase Iranian oil while sanctions were in place, China, for example, established the Bank of Kunlun to handle Chinese payments.

The Chinese experience in circumventing the earlier sanctions will come in handy with Beijing rejecting US President Donald J. Trump’s renewed effort to isolate Iran and force it to make further concessions on its nuclear and ballistic missiles programs as well as the Islamic republic’s regional role in the Middle East by walking away from the 2015 agreement and reintroducing punitive economic measures.

Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said in response to Mr. Trump’s announcement that the People’s Republic was committed to the deal and would “maintain communication with all parties and continue to protect and execute the agreement fully.”

China’s likely willingness to circumvent US sanctions is one factor that will influence Iran’s decision on whether it will stick to the agreement. Iran’s decision depends on the readiness and ability of the other signatories – Britain, France, Germany and Russia – to also stand up to the United States.

China’s experience in circumventing sanctions could come in handy as Europe, that like China has rejected Mr. Trump’s move and vowed to ignore the sanctions, weighs ways of putting its money where its mouth is by attempting to shield European companies from potential US punitive action. One possibility would be to use alternative Chinese financial networks.

Nonetheless, this time round, rejecting and violating US sanctions may prove for China as well as the other signatories to be a trickier undertaking. Last time round, China and the other signatories were part of an international consensus that aimed to force Iran to accept restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program even if they at times circumvented the sanctions.

China and other signatories are in the wake of the re-imposition of US sanctions likely to be operating in a far more confrontational environment in which the subtext of Mr. Trump’s decision as well the positions of Saudi Arabia and Israel appears to be a policy that seeks to achieve regime change in Tehran.

Saudi Arabia as well as the United Arab Emirates have suggested in recent months in their 11-month old economic and diplomatic boycott of Qatar that they are willing to quietly sanction those who fail to support them.

There is little reason to doubt that they would do the same in their confrontation with Iran with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman describing the dispute with Qatar as “trivial’ in comparison to the kingdom’s existential battle with Iran.

Saudi Arabia demonstrated its greater assertiveness by forcing major multi-national financial institutions to choose sides in the Gulf spat. In response to Saudi pressure, JP Morgan and HSBC last month walked away from participating in a $12 billion bond sale.

Earlier, Doha Bank, Qatar’s fifth-biggest lender, was forced to reduce the size of a two-year, $575 million bank loan that it had raised in December 2015 to $400 million, when it sought a one-year extension of the facility because Chinese, Hong Kong and Japanese banks opted not to participate.

In the utmost consequence, China’s concerted effort to remain aloof of the Middle East’s multiple conflicts could be severely compromised if it were forced to take sides in a conflict between Iran, a country with which China feels that it has much in common and that it in the past has helped develop its ballistic and nuclear programs, and Saudi Arabia, a more recently found friend that is economically important to the People’s Republic.

To be sure, greater Saudi assertiveness does not mean that the kingdom does not have to tread carefully in potentially seeking to penalize China and others for their potential refusal to go along with Mr. Trump’s confronting of Iran.

Saudi Arabia desperately needs foreign investment to implement Prince Mohammed’s Vision 2030, a far-reaching plan for social and economic reform that aims to diversify the kingdom’s conservative society and oil-dependent economy and turn it into a 21^st century, knowledge-based state.

China, moreover, is one of Saudi Arabia’s foremost oil export markets. While the Saudi military remains focussed on US and European arms purchases, China, at a time that a military confrontation with Iran is not beyond the realm of the possible, is a source of weaponry the United States has been so far unwilling to sell to the kingdom.

With the United States refusing to share its most advanced drone technology, China agreed last year to open its first overseas defense production facility in Saudi Arabia. State-owned China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC) will manufacture its CH-4 Caihong, or Rainbow drone as well as associated equipment in Saudi Arabia. The CH-4 is comparable to the US armed MQ-9 Reaper drone.

The stakes in the battle to save the Iranian nuclear deal in the wake of Mr. Trump’s decision go however far beyond a belief that the nuclear deal is serving its purpose in curbing potential Iranian nuclear ambitions and economic opportunity.

Leveraging its experience, an effort by China together with Russia and Europe that keeps the Iranian nuclear deal in place and thwarts US sanctions would deliver one of the heaviest body blows to US credibility and perceptions of US power since Mr. Trump came to office in January of last year.

Said a Middle Eastern diplomat: “A successful countering of US sanctions would demonstrate beyond doubt limits to America’s ability to impose its will. That would have wide-reaching consequences, not in the least question marks in Saudi Arabia and Israel on the degree to which they can risk continuing putting most of their eggs in Washington’s basket.”

The NATO-Georgia Public Diplomacy Forum, which was held as part of the NATO Days organized by NATO and EU Information Centre, ended in Tbilisi on May 1.

The main topics of the event were challenges of international security, role of people’s diplomacy, traditional and social media in the modern world, as well as issues of countries’ cooperation in the field of strategic communications.

The honorary guests of the forum were Georgian President Georgi Margvelashvili, Prime Minister Giorgi Kvirikashvili, Parliamentary Speaker Irakli Kobakhidze, NATO Assistant Secretary General for Public Diplomacy Tacan Ildem and US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Wess Mitchell.

“You are actively moving forward the path of institutional reforms. This is a very strong and hard way. This strengthens democracy, investment and faith in the soul of every citizen of Georgia. Georgia has gained the name of a democratic country in this region. We call on the Government of Georgia and Parliament to strengthen the judiciary system and enhance judiciary independence. It should be done not only for implementing reforms but also in real practice,” Wess Mitchell said at the opening of the NATO-Georgia Public Diplomacy Forum.

In addition, he assured that the United States would support Georgia’s steps to build a security system.

“The Government of Georgia works to strengthen the military system and works closely with the US Armed Forces. We support the commitment of Georgia to create a strong military base and system. This is important not only for Georgia’s defense capabilities, but also for global security. I spoke with American military officers, and they highly value Georgia as a partner. Taking into account its total population, Georgia makes the biggest contribution from a military point of view. We thank the country, every soldier and family of soldiers whose blood has spilled. We are ready to work harder to strengthen security in the region. The stronger you are, the stronger the West is,” Assistant Secretary of State said.

Commenting on the progress made by the country on the road to North Atlantic integration, James Nixey, Head of Russia and Eurasia Program at Chatham House drew attention to the successes of Georgia in the military sphere.

“Relative to the other countries [striving for NATO membership] Georgia has done spectacularly well. It has reformed its military and it has become more interoperable with NATO systems. There is still a large popular support for NATO membership. On the other hand, it is by no means certain in the current climate that there is any kind of positive vibe towards NATO membership from NATO member-countries. This is because of two things: one is the unwillingness to – as they see it – unnecessarily irritate the Kremlin and, perhaps more important, it is seen as something that would not necessarily improve NATO’s security, which is prerequisite for membership,” he said.

Moreover, according to the expert, the problem of “amputated” territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia makes the situation quite difficult.

“Georgia is obviously closer [to joining the alliance] than it has ever been before but actually a very-very long way away,” James Nixey stressed.

Analyzing the consequences of Georgia’s potential acceptance into NATO, he noted that Tbilisi will receive much more from this than the West.

“The benefits from NATO membership would clearly be more for Georgia in the sense that it would mean – again we’re talking very theoretically and hypothetically here – but it would obviously mean that Georgia is fully integrated into Euro-Atlantic structures.

So, on the one hand, Georgia is far further advanced than anybody else. But It is harder to see what the benefits to the West are, other than the fact that NATO has an open door policy and clearly needs to act on principles rather than on the basis of what Russia says. So I think the benefits should be seen that anybody can join if they meet the requirements of the club. But I think the benefits to Georgia ultimately are greater,” James Nixey explained.

According to Arno Khidirbegishvili, the editor-in-chief of Gruzinform agency, Tbilisi is an indisputable executor of all the instructions provided for by the substantial NATO-Georgia package (SNGP) adopted at the Welsh summit in 2014.

“The Agile Spirit and Noble Partner exercises, the joint NATO–Georgia military training center at the Krtsanisi Military Facility, the Javelin ATGM purchased for 100 million dollars and the expenses for defense and arms exceeding NATO requirements, and most importantly – participation in the NATO Resolute Support mission in Afghanistan with the largest contingent of up to 900 military personnel and participation in the peacekeeping mission in the European Rapid Reaction Force in the Central African Republic and Mali, as well as the leading role in the NATO Black Sea regional security doctrine is an incomplete list, which clearly shows that the Georgian authorities try to fulfill and even exceed the acceptance criteria of the alliance,” the expert said.

According to him, NATO has no reason not to accept Georgia in its ranks, except for the fear about Russia’s response.

“If the leader and main sponsor of NATO – Washington, inspired by an unpunished Syria strike and the success of anti-Russia sanctions will give its go-ahead for Georgia’s admission to the alliance, then it will happen according to the plan of Luke Coffey, Director of the Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. It implies accepting Georgia into NATO without Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which will not be covered by Article 5 of the Charter on Collective Security,” Arno Khidirbegishvili explained, stressing that in this case both republics immediately will become part of the Russian Federation.

Meanwhile, the rhetoric of the Georgian authorities, in his opinion, “is completely devoid of logic,” which makes any forecasts unreliable.

As an example, the journalist reminded of a situation when the authorities constantly declare the need for exclusively peaceful solution of the Georgian-Abkhaz-Ossetian problem and discuss the new initiative of Prime Minister Georgy Kvirikashvili Step to a Better Future, which describes the benefits for the inhabitants of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, but at the same time they state that Russia is the main danger for Georgia, which conducts a hybrid war against it in all possible ways.

“On the one hand, Georgia’s non-alignment with US and EU economic sanctions against Russia, the profitable trade with Russia and the hospitable reception of millions of Russian tourists, and on the other hand, the constant defamation of Russia on all international venues and the expulsion of the Russian diplomat in solidarity with Britain,” Arno Khidirbegishvili continued.

In turn, Vadim Kozulin, Deputy Chairman of the Eurasian Commission for Foreign Affairs and Economic Policy, (EECO), Director of the Asian Security Project at PIR Center think tank, said that NATO encourages the leadership of Georgia to fulfill the requirements necessary for the admission to the alliance.

“At the same time, it is stressed that this is Georgia’s own decision, not imposed from the outside. I think that this is indeed so. Georgia participates in some NATO missions abroad, that is, it makes a small contribution militarily, but politically it means readiness to follow NATO lead, which is more important,” the expert said.

According to him, the formal accession to NATO is currently difficult for Georgia even theoretically, which is due to the existing territorial dispute, but the authorities are seeking the support of a powerful ally who will solve security problems.

“NATO looks like such a partner for Georgia. In reality, the desire to become NATO member has become for Georgia one of the main causes of the conflict with Russia. This conflict of interest will not disappear. Therefore, probably, it is not necessary to hurry if the authorities want to develop relations with Moscow,” the analyst explained, adding that “the situation may look different from Tbilisi.”

At the same time, in his opinion, there is obvious warming in the relations between the peoples of Russia and Georgia.

“Georgia has become a place of attraction for Russian tourists, Georgian wines are popular in our country. It seems that a new model of consumer good-neighborliness arises with relatively cool political relations. Russians enjoy Georgian hospitality, and Georgian entrepreneurs have the opportunity to make profit from tourism and food market in Russia. This is a good trend,” Vadim Kozulin said.

Meanwhile, Uwe Halbach, Senior Associate at Eastern Europe and Eurasia research division of the German Foundation for Science and Politics, said that in Georgia NATO-membership is regarded as a priority of foreign policy and security.

“68 percent of respondents in opinion polls in 2017 approved Georgia’s joining the NATO, 21 percent disapproved. Most of those who approved expected that NATO-membership will provide greater security for the country; a smaller number expected that it will improve the chance to restore territorial integrity and protect Georgia from Russia. Most of those who disapproved expected that it will cause conflict with Russia. The latter expectation is also strong in the Euro-Atlantic world,” the analyst noted.

Insofar it is not clear how far an imminent NATO-membership of Georgia would be beneficial for United States or other NATO-members like Germany and France which voted against a Membership Action Plan for Georgia ten years ago at the Bucharest summit, he said.

“Apart from the question of imminent membership, however, there is a broad consensus [in the West] about deepened and enhanced cooperation between NATO and Georgia with different tools for strengthening the partnership. NATO-representatives remain committed to the 2008 Bucharest Summit Declaration that ‘Georgia will become member of NATO.’ The doors are open. But there is no clear schedule for Georgia’s final entrance into the Alliance. There are new approaches like the recent Heritage Foundation’s article which discussed an alternative scenario: Georgia joins NATO, but collective defence – Article 5 – will not be applied to Abkhazia and South Ossetia. They are, however, highly disputed in Georgia itself,” Uwe Halbach said.

At the same time, George Hewitt, professor of Caucasian languages at the School of Oriental and African Studies, a fellow of the British Academy and the honorary consul for Abkhazia to the UK, shared the opinion that “in theory NATO’s raison d’être should have disappeared with the disintegration of the USSR and the disbandment of the Warsaw Pact.”

“However, it remained in place and allowed itself to be drawn into such areas outside its basic remit as certain countries’ unwise determination to get involved in Afghanistan. But, as it still exists, it is not surprising that membership of the organisation and indeed of the EU should have seemed attractive to the former Warsaw Pact states. But was it advisable for NATO to disregard the promise given to Gorbachev that it would not move closer to Russia’s frontiers and to allow them membership?” the analyst wondered.

“Russia quite rightly recognised both South Ossetia and Abkhazia after the short war with Georgia and since then Georgia has constantly presented itself as the victim and taken every opportunity to gain international support for its ‘territorial integrity’, non-existent in terms of its Soviet borders for a quarter of a century, and acceptance of its claim that a significant portion of ‘Georgian’ soil is under Russian ‘occupation.’ If maintaining that international support and acceptance of this absurd claim are to count as ‘achievements’, then Georgia has been highly successful,” George Hewitt said and added that these might prove to be mere Pyrrhic victories as long as tensions remain in the region.

In his opinion, NATO membership is not in the long-term interests of either Georgia or the Ukraine.

“It is a pity that reckless counsels in the organisation are still encouraging the two states to think otherwise. As soon as – particularly in the wake of US interference in the politics of the Ukraine – Kiev turned exclusively towards the West and there seemed a real risk that the home of the Russian Black Sea fleet at Sevastopol might come within the Western or NATO’s orbit, it should have been obvious that this could not be tolerated in Moscow,” the honorary consul for Abkhazia to the UK said.

From his point of view, Tbilisi should learn the lessons of recent events in the Ukraine and abandon forever the bear-baiting.

“If decision-makers in Washington allow themselves to forget the very existential threat posed by Tbilisi to the Abkhazian and South Ossetian populations and think in terms of Georgia being a regional ‘beacon of democracy’, they are likely to continue offering support, including military, to Tbilisi, which will be wholeheartedly welcomed. Georgia, of course, presents Washington with a convenient base for any future operations in and against Iran, but, given the proximity to Russia’s southern flank and the Kremlin’s current close relations with Tehran, one again has to ask: is this really sensible politicking?” George Hewitt wondered again.

He suggested that Georgian leaders no doubt intend to continue as before to rage against Russian ‘aggression’ and its so-called ‘occupation’ of ‘Georgian’ territory.

“In the climate of the anti-Russian hysteria which has developed over recent years, greatly intensifying following the Skripal case, they might very well continue to garner ‘achievements’ in this regard. As an example I might mention that in the UK the Chairman of the Parliamentary Foreign Affairs’ Committee, Tom Tugendhat, has been a frequent interviewee across our media-outlets, and he almost invariably refers in passing to Russia’s ‘occupation of Georgia’ as one of his criticisms of the Kremlin’s behaviour. In doing so, he – along with others who do the same, and there are plenty of them – betrays ignorance of the history of Georgian-Abkhazian relations in the 20th century. Those who do know that history need to do more to educate the likes of Tugendhat in order to help Georgia’s Western friends come to a better understanding of what is really in the best interests of Georgia in the long term,” the expert said.

“Speaking about the relations between Georgians and non-Georgians in the region, I see little prospect of change, unless and until Georgians can bring themselves to abandon the delusional and self-defeating approach of the last quarter century, recognise the independent states of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and establish good-neighbourly relations with both republics and with Russia, too,” George Hewitt concluded.

Source: https://penzanews.ru/en/analysis/65346-2018

On May 8th, Syria’s Government bannered, “6th batch of terrorists leave southern Damascus for northern Syria” and reported that “During the past five days, 218 buses carrying … terrorists with their families exited from the three towns to Jarablos and Idleb under the supervision of the Syrian Arab Red Crescent.” Jarablos (or “Jarabulus”) is a town or “District” in the Aleppo Governate; and Idleb (or “Idlib”) is the capital District in the adjoining Governate of Idlib, which Governate is immediately to the west of Aleppo Governate; and both Jarabulus and Idlib border on Turkey to the north. Those two towns in Syria’s far northwest are where captured jihadists are now being sent. The Government is doing that because at this final stage in the 7-year-long war, it wants civilian deaths and additional destruction of buildings to be kept to a minimum, and so is offering jihadists the option of surviving instead of being forced to fight to the death (which would then require Syria’s Government to destroy the entire area that’s occupied by the terrorists); this way, these final clean-up operations against the terrorists won’t necessarily require bombing whole neighborhoods — surrenders thus become likelier, so as to end the war as soon as possible, and to keep destruction and civilian casualties at a minimum.

On May 7th, the Syrian Government headlined “Preparations for evacuating fifth batch of terrorists from Yalda, Babila and Beit Sahem towns started”, and reported that, “more than 60 buses entered Beit Sahem town to transport terrorists who reject the settlement [offered by the Government] along with their families from the towns to Jarablos in coincidence with the continuation of the military operation carried out by the army on the northern parts of al-Hajar al-Aswad paving the way for declaring the area of southern Damascus free of terrorism.”

Thousands of conquered jihadists (or “terrorists”) that the U.S. and its allies had been arming and assisting to overthrow and replace Syria’s elected Government, are surrendering in large numbers now, and are being loaded by Syria’s army onto buses and sent northward, mainly to the town of Jarabulus (such as the instances here and here and here and here and here and here) — that being one of the few towns where opposition to Syria’s elected President, Bashar al-Assad, has been favored by a majority of the population, and where Al Qaeda (which in Syria is called al-Nusra and other names) and ISIS (which also is called by additional names) have been more popular than Syria’s secular elected President, Assad. The entire Governate of Idlib is the most pro-jihadist Governate in all of Syria.

Here’s a breakdown of the regions (called “Governates”) of Syria, and showing each one’s support for Syria’s Government, versus their support for the U.S.-and-allied opposition to it (i.e., for the jihadists):

http://web.archive.org/web/20160205214555/https://gowans.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/syria-poll-table-2.jpg

As can be seen there, only 9% of people polled in Idlib (“Idlip”) favored Assad, while 70% of them favored Nusra (Al Qaeda in Syria).

Those figures are from a 2014 poll taken by the British polling firm Orb International, in order to assist the U.S. and its allies to overthrow and replace Syria’s Government. That poll was commissioned for a reason — NATO wanted this information:

On 31 May 2013, the non-mainstream news-site, World Tribune, had headlined “NATO data: Assad winning the war for Syrians’ hearts and minds”, and reported that:

After two years of civil war, support for the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad was said to have sharply increased.

NATO has been studying data that told of a sharp rise in support for Assad. The data, compiled by Western-sponsored activists and organizations, showed that a majority of Syrians were alarmed by the Al Qaida takeover of the Sunni revolt and preferred to return to Assad, Middle East Newsline reported.

“The people are sick of the war and hate the jihadists more than Assad,” a Western source familiar with the data said. “Assad is winning the war mostly because the people are cooperating with him against the rebels.”

The data, relayed to NATO over the last month, asserted that 70 percent of Syrians support the Assad regime. Another 20 percent were deemed neutral and the remaining 10 percent expressed support for the rebels.

The sources said no formal polling was taken in Syria, racked by two years of civil war in which 90,000 people were reported killed. They said the data came from a range of activists and independent organizations that were working in Syria, particularly in relief efforts.

The data was relayed to NATO as the Western alliance has been divided over whether to intervene in Syria. Britain and France were said to have been preparing to send weapons to the rebels while the United States was focusing on protecting Syria’s southern neighbor Jordan.

A report to NATO said Syrians have undergone a change of heart over the last six months. The change was seen most in the majority Sunni community, which was long thought to have supported the revolt.

“The Sunnis have no love for Assad, but the great majority of the community is withdrawing from the revolt,” the source said. “What is left is the foreign fighters who are sponsored by Qatar and Saudi Arabia. They are seen by the Sunnis as far worse than Assad.”

And, if this is the way that Sunnis felt about Assad, and about his opposition the ‘rebels’ (that the U.S. supported), then obviously Shia (including Alawite) Syrians were even more supportive of him, and so too were Christian Syrians.

So, this British polling firm became commissioned to obtain more-reliable figures, and those figures confirmed the earlier estimates.

—

On 12 April 2018, three days after U.S. and its allies alleged a Syrian chemical attack in Douma in East Ghouta, Russia’s Sputnik News bannered “E Ghouta Mop-up: Militants Surrender Another Haul of Israeli, European-Made Arms” and reported that, “3,792 people, including 1,384 militants and members of their families, are being evacuated from Douma and taken to the town of Jarabulus in northeastern Aleppo, northern Syria on 85 buses.” Then, on the night of April 13th, the U.S. and some allies launched a missile-invasion against Syria based on charging Syria’s Government as having been the alleged source of the alleged chemical attack that had allegedly occurred in Douma.

Now that the U.S. alliance has failed to conquer Syria, the U.S. is trying to break off the northern third of the country, and is trying to include, in that U.S.-allied area, as much of Syria’s oil-producing region, around Deir Ezzor, as possible, so as to steal from Syrians as much of Syria’s oil as possible — oil that until recently was being stolen instead by ISIS.

None of the news-reports indicate why Jarabulus and Idlib were chosen by Syria’s Government, as the places in which to concentrate the jihadists; but, presumably, a sympathetic population exists there, to receive them. Perhaps, since they’re on the border with Turkey — which, like the U.S., has been trying to overthrow Assad — Syria’s Government is also hoping to make the jihadists become Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan’s problem to deal with, and not only Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s problem. Maybe doing that would reduce some of Erdogan’s ardor for regime-change in Syria.

Most of Syria’s ‘rebels’ are not Syrians, but instead are jihadists from around the world, fundamentalist Sunnis who have been recruited, with funding provided mainly by the Sauds who own Saudi Arabia, and by the Thanis who own Qatar, and by the six royal families who own UAE. All of these royal families are themselves fundamentalist Sunnis, and virtually all jihadists except the ones that attack Israel are Sunnis. America’s Presidents lie about “radical Islamic terrorism” by saying that Shiite Iran is the “top state-sponsor of terrorism,” and even that Iran caused 9/11; but none of that is at all true. Israel gets attacked both by Sunni terrorists and by Shiite terrorists — and Shiite terrorism is exclusively against Israel. By contrast, Sunni terrorism is against U.S., EU, Japan, and virtually every non-Islamic country. Israel is allied with the Sauds, who hate Shiites and have hated them since 1744. And U.S.-allied ‘news’media hide all of these essential facts, from their respective publics, so as to redirect The West’s anti-terrorist anger against Iran as the villain, and away from the Sauds and their friends as the villains. This lie protects the fundamentalist Sunni Governments of Saudi Arabia, UAE, and America’s other Middle Eastern allies — the very countries that are behind the Islamic terrorism that plagues the U.S. and Europe. Syria is instead allied with Iran — not with the Sauds, who are Iran’s sworn enemies. The U.S. Government is allied with Sunni terrorists now, just as it was in 1979 when it worked with the Sauds to create Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

On 21 December 2015, the U.S.-allied British think-tank Center on Religion and Politics, issued a research-report “Ideology and Objectives of the Syrian Rebellion”, and opened: “At least 65,000 militants in Syria share key parts of the ideology of ISIS, with 15 of its rivals ready to take its place if it is defeated. They reported:

Key Findings

Sixty per cent of major Syrian rebel groups are Islamist extremists

Our study of 48 rebel factions in Syria revealed that 33 per cent – nearly 100,000 fighters – have the same ideological objectives as ISIS. If you take into account Islamist groups (those who want a state governed by their interpretation of Islamic law), this figure jumps to 60 per cent.

Unless Assad goes, the Syrian war will go on and spread further

Despite the conflicting ideologies of the rebel groups, 90 per cent of the groups studied hold the defeat of Assad’s regime as a principal objective. Sixty-eight per cent seek the establishment of Islamic law in Syria. In contrast, only 38 per cent have the defeat of ISIS as a stated goal.

Nonetheless, they insisted on overthrowing Bashar al-Assad, based on the incredible claim: “Unless Assad goes, the Syrian war will go on and spread further.” They obviously think that the public — the readers of their report — are extremely stupid. Furthermore, their report ignored that all of these terrorist groups are fundamentalist-Sunni, and that all of the non-ISIS groups are led by Nusra — Syria’s Al Qaeda. The intent there to deceive is clear, but their report that “nearly 100,000 fighters have the same ideological objectives as ISIS” (which likewise is a fundamentalist-Sunni group) was probably true.

If the devil incarnate ruled the U.S. and its allies, then how would they be any different from this? What does “evil” even mean? Syria is trying to rid itself of jihadists, but the U.S. and its allies rely upon the jihadists as the U.S. alliance’s proxy-forces or “boots on the ground” to attain their goal of stealing Syria’s oil and so forth. That’s bad, but The West’s hypocrisy about these matters makes its evil even worse than that, like evil-squared — evil compounded by lies about itself.

*Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010

Recent decades have seen a tremendous technological progress in computing and telecommunications. Contemporary world will see huge impacts of this technological development on society and policy makers. This study will specifically focus on the impacts of technological development under the China Pakistan joint development project namely China-Pakistan Economic Corridor through establishing IT Parks in Pakistan.

Pakistan is an important country in China’s one belt one road initiative (OBOR) in which China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project is a collection of infrastructure projects worth of 62 billion throughout the country. These projects have a potential to bring significant changes at different levels i.e. economic, social and financial within the country.

Information technology plays an important role in reducing the distance which has potential to resolve many problems related to economic productivity, intellectual property rights, privacy, protection, and affordability of and access to information.

The geographical distribution of work is changing dramatically in contemporary times. For instance, industries can outsource their manufacturing to other countries and telecommunications play a significant role in marketing, research and development. Furthermore, technology can enable the people of both countries to take benefit from each other in various types of work and employment.

Through the development of different industrial parks and information technology parks under China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) in Pakistan, there will be more freedom to firms to locate their economic activities, creating greater competition among regions in infrastructure, labor, capital, and other resource markets.

Social interaction in organizations will be improved by use of computers and communication technologies. The importance of distance will be reduced by computers and communication technology also favors telecommuting, and thus, has implications for the residence patterns of the citizens. As workers find that they can do most of their work at home rather than in a centralized workplace, the demand for homes in climatically and physically attractive regions would increase.

Apart from industrial sector, information technology plays a momentous role in educational sector. This can affect the craft of teaching, for instance, the role of an instructor is a supplier of services to the students, who might be regarded as its customers. but a good teacher or a supervisor of students would play a role in motivating, encouraging, evaluating, and developing students. Technological progress inevitably creates dependence on technology. Indeed the creation of vital infrastructure ensures dependence on that infrastructure. As surely as the world is now dependent on its transport, telephone, and other infrastructures, it will be dependent on the emerging information infrastructure.

China Pakistan Economic Corridor Project (CPEC) is of great importance for both China and Pakistan. China’s government is striving to consume its supporting role to build an environment for the open economic system and logistic system under the CPEC. It is considered as the corridor of peace, prosperity and development having potentials for a promising future for Pakistan.

China and Pakistan has signed an Economic and Technical Cooperation Agreement, as well as pledged to “China-Pakistan Joint Cotton Bio-Tech Laboratory” as part of CPEC. The two countries also pledged to establish the “China-Pakistan Joint Marine Research Center” with State Oceanic Administration and Pakistan’s Ministry of Science and Technology. Also as part of the CPEC agreement, Pakistan and China have agreed to co-operate in the field of space research.

In February 2016, the two countries agreed to establish the “Pak-China Science, Technology, Commerce and Logistic Park” near Islamabad at an estimated cost of $1.5 billion. The park will be situated on 500 hectares, which will be provided by Pakistan to China’s Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, with all investments expected to come from the Chinese side over the course of ten years.

In May 2016, construction began on the $44 million 820 kilometer long Pakistan-China Fiber Optic Project, an optical fiber cable that will enhance telecommunication in the Gilgit-Baltistan region, while offering Pakistan a fifth route by which to transmit telecommunication traffic.

China will build $1.5 Billion National Science & Technology Park under CPEC in H-12 Islamabad near NUST.

CPEC will uplift Pakistan’s economy through immense investment in various sectors such as industrial, agricultural, and technological. This development would transform the standards of living of Pakistani people and bring social change in the country.

*Asia Maqsood has a degree of M. Phil in Defence and Strategic Studies from Quaid-i-Azam University Islamabad. She has done Masters in International Relations from the same Institute. She frequently writes on China Pakistan affairs, CPEC, South Asia’s Regional Issues which have been published in various national, international blogs and newspapers. She can be reached at asiamaqsood.09@gmail.com

China is in the midst of sweeping military reforms that will affect the force structure, administration, command and control mechanisms of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Among the major steps taken is the creation of the PLA Rocket Force (PLARF), which replaced the former Second Artillery that controls China’s nuclear forces and land-based ballistic and cruise missiles.

The Gulf War was the major benchmark for the modernization of the Chinese military. According to military and strategic experts around the world stress the importance that China was attracted to the technical-military power shown by the US in Gulf War. It gave a new focus to China’s military modernization involving such developments as the reprioritizing of the modernization program to give priority to developing the air force and the navy and its missile development program. The immediate result was the enhanced accuracy of medium range missile of the sort that was fired near Taiwan in March 1996. 1

During the Gulf War, China was convinced that it could no longer base its defence on the weight of numbers by looking at the use of precision weapons in Operation Desert Storm by the Americans Another event which gave a new turn in its modernization process is when the PLA was hectoring Taiwan with missile tests in 1996. China had to back down. The collapse of the Soviet Union persuaded China’s leaders that an arms race with the world’s only superpower could squander enough money to pose a threat to the party’s grip. China made efforts into affordable “asymmetric” weapons. This unorthodox strategy has made the PLA’s progress harder to measure.2 Thus, China’s analysis of the 1990–91 Gulf War provided further motivation for transforming the PLA so that it would be better prepared for future conflicts along China’s periphery.

Against this backdrop of the modernization process, Jiang Zemin’s “Military Strategic Guidelines for the New Period,” promulgated in January 1993, reflected this assessment and codified these imperatives. Following Jiang’s speech to an enlarged CMC meeting in December 1995, Chinese “army building” has been guided by the “Two Transformations” policy line, which calls for the PLA to prepare to win “limited local wars under high-technology conditions,” emphasize quality over quantity, and shift from being personnel-intensive to being science- and technology-intensive.3China took immediate steps to update its military technology, generally through purchasing the most-advanced Soviet hardware.

Strapped for cash, Russia was eager to make deals, and didn’t worry overmuch about the long-range consequences of technology transfer. China also attempted to acquire technology with military applications from Europe, but sanctions associated with the Tiananmen Square massacre hamstrung this effort. Finally, China accelerated efforts to increase the sophistication of research and development in its own military-industrial base.4

Within a few years, China’s nascent conventional missile capability reached the forefront of its coercive diplomacy toward Taiwan. During the ensuing 1995–96 Taiwan Strait Crisis, the conventional missile force conducted two “large scale conventional deterrence firing exercises.” These exercises included a total of 10 SRBM launches into designated waters off the Northern and Southern Taiwan ports of Keelung and Kaohsiung.

In any case, during the next few years, plans were apparently implemented for the SAF to begin establishing five SRBM brigades opposite Taiwan. Still another important milestone with implications for the development of the SA’s conventional missions and capabilities came in 2002, when China updated the “Military Strategic Guidelines” that were issued almost a decade earlier.

In revising the guidelines, President Hu Jintao directed the PLA to focus on “local wars under informatized conditions,” meaning that the PLA had to improve the utilization of information technology and networks and be prepared to degrade or deny an adversary’s capability to use its own information technology and networks.

The development of China’s conventional missile force has subsequently been driven by several factors. These include a desire to influence politics in Taiwan and deter US intervention in a regional crisis or conflict and the relative advantages offered by emphasizing missile force modernization rather than relying primarily on the development of capabilities such as stealth aircraft to conduct precision strikes.5

Further changes took place on the eve of 2016 as the SAC was recommissioned as the PLA Rocket Force (PLARF) on December 31, 2015. Additionally, the PLARF was elevated from an independent branch to the fourth military service alongside the PLA, PLAN, and PLAAF. Though the decision to reconstitute the PLARF as a military service indicates the importance China puts on maintaining modern missile forces, at this point it seems unlikely that the PLARF’s roles and responsibilities will differ substantially from the SAF.6

Implications of the PLA Rocket Force

The changing nuclear dynamics around the world especially with China on growing conflicts with its neighbours on issues such as South China Sea and East China Sea China seems to shift away from minimum deterrence to that of limited deterrence. 7 In view of this, China seems to be moving from a strategy of simply possessing warheads as a form of deterrence to that of a strategy which favors a build-up of capabilities to deter any type of threat. 8

China seems to have adapted to the concept of A2/AD9. The A2/AD concepts are extremely similar to the application of what is known in the U.S. as A2/AD capabilities. The applications of these concepts are similar to the actions that preventing the outside power (such as the U.S.) from entering into a theatre and operating freely within a theatre.10

The DF 21D which is formidable an anti-access weapon is theoretically capable of credible performance with respect to its assessed increased range and payload.11The DF-21D is developed by China Changfeng Mechanics and Electronics Technology Academy. The latest DF-21D was said to be the world’s first anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM).12 The DF-26 is an intermediate range ballistic missile (IRBM).

The standard land attack DF-26 missile is nicknamed the “Guam Killer’ because it would be used to barrage the American island stronghold and other US bases in the region during a conflict. It has a range of roughly 2,000 to 2,500 miles. So an anti-ship variant of the DF-26 would likely have over double the range of the DF-21D. It still isn’t clear what the operational status is of the anti-ship variant of the DF-26, but it is clearly an ongoing program for the Chinese military. Seeing that the DF-26 anti-ship missile concept would not be feasible without robust long-range naval targeting capabilities, its very existence is an indication that China has progressed significantly in this area over the last seven years or so.13

Cruise missiles often do not receive the same attention as ballistic missiles but they serve as both a method of delivering nuclear weapons and can provide precision strikes with conventional weapons. As such, they are as important – if not more important in terms of probable use and the ability to conduct lethal attacks – than most SRBMs and MRBMs without high-yield nuclear weapons.14

Indeed, cruise missiles form a vital part of China’s A2/AD concept and present a serious threat to any force that engages the PLA in battle. The PLA has a wide variety of cruise missiles that can be launched from land, air, sea, and sub-surface platforms.15 Cruise missiles have several advantages over ballistic missiles; they can be updated during flight on battlefield changes, their low flight altitude makes them very stealthy against air defense radars, and fuel efficient turbofan engines allow cruise missiles to be lighter and cheaper than their ballistic counterparts.

The flexibility of the DH-10 is its greatest strength. The 1550 mile-ranged H-6K bomber can carry 7 KD-20s (the DH-10’s air launched variant), giving the PLAAF the ability to reach Pacific targets distant as Hawaii. The next generation of this family will be the YJ-100, a proposed DH-10 anti-ship variant that will have an on-board radar and 800km range, potentially China’s answer to the U.S. Long Range Anti-ship Missile.

More broadly, future Chinese cruise missiles are likely to branch off into two families, one optimized for stealth, and the other focused on hypersonic flight. China is already investing large amounts of money into hypersonic engines and stealth technology; stealthy cruise missiles would be used to achieve operational surprise while hypersonic missiles would run past heavy enemy defenses. Other advancements would likely include electromagnetic attack technology, data links and distributed sensors/networks and improved AI to autonomously hunt targets in denied environments.16

The operational flexibility of PLA rocket force gives China to fight a successful limited or theater war. The PLA Rocket force gives flexibility to engage targets on land sea and air in the entire battle space from Arabian Sea to Malacca Strait. It is a force multiplier and has the potential to disrupt mobilization, buildup and concentration of forces for offensive and defensive military maneuver. It can achieve simultaneity of operations by striking targets along the tactical battlefield area, strategic lines of communication and battle space to erode war waging capability.

China is rapidly improving infrastructure in the Sino-Indian border region as part of development plans for Tibet as well as prepare for possible defensive or offensive operations.17 China has constructed roads along the disputed areas, built airbases and logistics sites that will facilitate easy deployment of its military and operations in the difficult terrain if war breaks out. India too has improved infrastructure on its side of the border and deployed additional military forces.18

The infrastructure and logistics build-up shall double up as base support for the PLA to facilitate military operations. The modernisation of the communication network in terms of fibre optic cable and satellite communication indicates an up gradation of the command and control elements capable of conducting operations effectively and sustaining increased force levels in the future. Tactical / strategic missiles can be moved up and preserved in the TAR, thus maintaining surprise and deception, besides achieving increase in engagement ranges covering complete India, South Asia and much of Central Asia. 19

Conclusion

While the Gulf War, was one of the lessons which was learnt by most militaries in the world that the idea of the prowess of the military being dependent on its manpower is an idea of the past. China, in particular, took these lessons to heart in their modernization drive, focusing on enhancing its capabilities in other domains of warfare, focusing more on its modernization drives to ensure that the efficiency of the PLA, PLAN, PLAAF and the PLA Rocket Forces will be the deciding factor in future confrontations.

The PLARF is an elite branch of China’s military. The PLARF is becoming increasingly versatile as its missiles have become smaller, more powerful, and more accurate. The modernization of the PLARF can be seen as one of the more significant drives in its modernization as a means of creating an effective deterrent against any threat.

The PLARF can also be seen as an extension of China’s strategic interests and how it intends to protect those from encroachment or international pressures in the future, signaling its clear military dominance, showcasing not only its ability to protect its own strategic interests now, but also making room for an expansion of the same in the near future. Therefore, China has built its Rocket Forces, keeping the need of protecting its interests as its number one priority, while at the same time acting as an effective deterrent against any perceived aggression from those it considers its adversaries.

*Anushree Dutta, Research Associate with Indian Air Force Think Tank’s “Centre For Air Power Studies, based in New Delhi. Currently, working on a project named “China-Japan Relations: Prospects and Challenges”.

Notes:
1. Evolution of China’s Military Strategy:
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news/evolution-of-chinas-military-strategy/
2. The fourth modernization: http://www.economist.com/node/17601487
3. The Conventional Missile Capabilities of China’s Second Artillery Force: Cornerstone of Deterrence and Warfighting: file:///C:/Users/All%20in%20one%20Web/Downloads/Second-Artillery-Conventional-Deterrence_AS_2012-2.pdf
4. What Scares China’s Military: The 1991 Gulf War: http://nationalinterest.org/feature/what-scares-chinas-military-the-1991-gulf-war-11724
5. Supranote 16
6. The PLA Rocket Force: Evolving Beyond the Second Artillery Corps (SAC) and Nuclear Dimension: https://www.csis.org/analysis/pla-rocket-force-evolving-beyond-second-artillery-corps-sac-and-nuclear-dimension
7. Chinese Nuclear Proliferation: Susan Turner Haynes
8. Johnson, “China’s New ‘Old Thinking’
9. How China Plans to Utilize Space for A2/AD in the Pacific: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-china-plans-utilize-space-a2-ad-the-pacific-17383
10. How China Plans to Utilize Space for A2/AD in the Pacific: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-china-plans-utilize-space-a2-ad-the-pacific-17383
11. China’s ‘Anti-ship Ballistic Missile’ based Anti-access Concept Implications of a Southward Re-orientation: https://idsa.in/system/files/jds_7_1_KamleshKAgnihotri.pdf
12. China used DF-21D “carrier killer” anti-ship ballistic missiles during military drills: http://defence-blog.com/news/china-used-df-21d-carrier-killer-anti-ship-ballistic-missiles-during-military-drills.html
13. http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/13511/is-this-chinas-df-21d-air-launched-anti-ship-ballistic-missile-toting-bomber
14. The PLA Rocket Force: Evolving Beyond the Second Artillery Corps (SAC) and Nuclear Dimension
15. China’s Second Artillery Corps: Dr Carlo Kopp
16. China Shows Off Its Deadly New Cruise Missiles: https://www.popsci.com/china-shows-its-deadly-new-cruise-missiles
17. Supranote 3
18. Border standoff: China moulded its Western Theater Command keeping India in mind: http://www.ibtimes.co.in/borderline-aggro-china-moulded-its-western-theater-command-keeping-india-mind-733808
19. Infrastructure Development and Chinese War Waging Capabilities in Tibet, :http://www.idsa.in/jds/5_3_2011_InfrastructureDevelopmentandChineseWarWagingCapabilitiesinTibet_ShailenderArya

The United States and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, in cooperation with the Republic of Indonesia and under the auspices of the Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF), held the second of three regional workshops on the Initiative on Addressing the Challenge of Returning Families of Foreign Terrorist Fighters in Bali, Indonesia on May 7-8, 2018.

The GCTF is working to address the problems posed by returning foreign terrorist fighters who have accompanying family members. Some family members may have committed terrorist acts while in Syria and Iraq or pose a threat to the community. Others may be victims of ISIS, particularly young children, who may have witnessed unspeakable violence, been indoctrinated, or otherwise become desensitized to ISIS’s brutality.

The yearlong initiative will bring together national and local governments, international organizations, medical and psychological assistance communities, and family support organizations over a series of three region-specific workshops. The first workshop was held in Tunis, Tunisia on February 8-9, 2018.

Participants in Indonesia discussed key themes from the Tunisia workshop in the context of Southeast Asia. This workshop was held in coordination with the GCTF Countering Violent Extremism Working Group, and was planned in consultation with its co-chairs, Australia and Indonesia. These discussions will help to shape the Families Initiative non-binding good practices, which will be put forward for endorsement at the 2018 GCTF Ministerial Meeting this September.

(RFE/RL) — U.S. President Donald Trump says he will meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un next month in Singapore.

“The highly anticipated meeting between Kim Jong Un and myself will take place in Singapore on June 12th. We will both try to make it a very special moment for World Peace!” Trump said on Twitter.

The announcement comes just hours after Trump welcomed home three U.S. citizens freed by North Korea.

Trump welcomed the three — Kim Dong-chul, Kim Sang-duk, also known as Tony Kim, and Kim Hak-song — when the military plane transporting them landed at Joint Base Andrews near Washington early on May 10.

Trump thanked North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Un for releasing them, saying he believes Kim wants to reach an agreement on denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had secured their release on May 9 in Pyongyang after meeting Kim and other North Korean officials on final plans for the Trump-Kim summit.

North Korean state media said the men, one of whom had been held since 2015 and the other two since last year, were arrested either for subversion or for “hostile acts” against the government.

Their arrests were widely seen as politically motivated at the time and had worsened already tense bilateral ties over the isolated nation’s nuclear weapons.

The United States and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) jointly took action to disrupt an extensive currency exchange network in Iran and the UAE that has procured and transferred millions in U.S. dollar-denominated bulk cash to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) to fund its malign activities and regional proxy groups, according to the US Treasury.

Specifically, the US Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated nine Iranian individuals and entities. Iran’s Central Bank was complicit in the IRGC-QF’s scheme and actively supported this network’s currency conversion and enabled its access to funds that it held in its foreign bank accounts. This network of exchangers and couriers has converted hundreds of millions of dollars.

“The Iranian regime and its Central Bank have abused access to entities in the UAE to acquire U.S. dollars to fund the IRGC-QF’s malign activities, including to fund and arm its regional proxy groups, by concealing the purpose for which the U.S. dollars were acquired. As I said following the President’s announcement on Tuesday, we are intent on cutting off IRGC revenue streams wherever their source and whatever their destination. Today we are targeting Iranian individuals and front companies engaged in a large-scale currency exchange network that has procured and transferred millions to the IRGC-QF,” said Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin. “The Treasury Department thanks the UAE for its close collaboration on this matter. Countries around the world must be vigilant against Iran’s efforts to exploit their financial institutions to exchange currency and fund the nefarious actors of the IRGC-QF and the world’s largest state sponsor of terror.”

The IRGC-QF was designated pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13224 on October 25, 2007. The IRGC itself was also designated on October 13, 2017 pursuant to E.O. 13224 for it support to the IRGC-QF, and consistent with the Countering America’s Adversaries through Sanctions Act.

Mas’ud Nikbakht, Sa’id Najafpur, and Mohammad Hasan Khoda’i

Mas’ud Nikbakht, Sa’id Najafpur, and Mohammad Hasan Khoda’i are being designated pursuant to E.O. 13224 for acting for or on behalf of the IRGC-QF. Nikbakht, an IRGC-QF official, has worked with Meghdad Amini, a currency exchanger also being designated today, to conduct financial activities on behalf of the IRGC-QF. Najafpur is the managing director of Jahan Aras Kish, an IRGC-QF front company which is also being designated today. Khoda’i partnered with Mohammadreza Khedmati, another currency exchanger also being designated today, to establish front companies for the benefit of the IRGC-QF, and worked with Sa’id Najafpur and his associate, Meghdad Amini, to conduct financial activities on behalf of the IRGC-QF. Khoda’i also is an official at IRGC-QF front company, Jahan Aras Kish.

Mohammadreza Khedmati Valadzaghard, Meghdad Amini, and Foad Salehi

Mohammadreza Khedmati and Meghdad Amini are being designated pursuant to E.O. 13224 for assisting in, sponsoring, or providing financial, material, or technological support for, or financial or other services to or in support of, the IRGC-QF. Foad Salehi is being designated pursuant to E.O. 13224 for assisting in, sponsoring, or providing financial, material, or technological support for, or financial or other services to or in support of, the IRGC-QF and Mohammadreza Khedmati.

IRGC-QF financial facilitators Mohammadreza Khedmati, along with Meghdad Amini and Foad Salehi, transferred cash out of Iran to the UAE and converted it into USD banknotes with the help of currency exchange enablers, including Rashed Exchange, which is also being designated today.

Khedmati, the managing director Rashed Exchange, worked with the IRGC-QF to forge documents to conceal their illicit financial activities from UAE authorities. Meghdad Amini is an official at the IRGC-QF front company Jahan Aras Kish, which is also being designated today.

Salehi has assisted Khedmati in exchanging currency for the IRGC-QF and has transferred large amounts of currency to the UAE and exchanged it for the benefit of the IRGC-QF.

Jahan Aras Kish, Rashed Exchange, and Khedmati and Company Joint Partnership

Jahan Aras Kish is being designated pursuant to E.O. 13224 for assisting in, sponsoring, or providing financial, material, or technological support for, or financial or other services to or in support of, the IRGC-QF. Jahan Aras Kish, and IRGC-QF front company, is involved in transferring and converting funds for the IRGC-QF, and was involved in retrieving oil revenue from foreign bank accounts held by the Central Bank of Iran for IRGC-QF activities.

Rashed Exchange is being designated pursuant to E.O. 13224 for being owned or controlled by Mohammadreza Khedmati. Rashed Exchange was used to convert currency for the IRGC-QF.

Iran-based Khedmati and Company Joint Partnership is being designated pursuant to E.O. 13224 for being owned or controlled by Mohammadreza Khedmati and Mohammad Hasan Khoda’i.

As a result of these actions, all property and interests in property of those designated today subject to U.S. jurisdiction are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in transactions with them. In addition, foreign financial institutions that knowingly facilitate significant transactions for, or persons that provide material or certain other support to, the individuals and entities designated today risk exposure to sanctions that could sever their access to the U.S. financial system or block their property and interests in property under U.S. jurisdiction.

As a reminder, due to President Trump’s May 8, 2018 decision to cease the United States’ participation in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), as of August 7, 2018, the United States Government will re-impose sanctions on the purchase or acquisition of U.S. dollar banknotes by the Government of Iran.

European countries boosted imports of Russian gas to unprecedented levels in April with overall supplies in 2018 expected to climb above 200 billion cubic meters for the first time ever, ignoring the impact of strained relations.

In the first quarter of this year, Gazprom’s gas deliveries to Europe reportedly increased by 6.6 percent against the same quarter a year ago. The deliveries to European countries kept on growing last month, even after the winter heating season ended.

In April, the Russian energy giant shipped some 15.9 billion cubic meters of gas to non-CIS countries, reports RIA Novosti. The number is seen as record-breaking with shipments reportedly soaring to rates that are unusual for warmer months.

Sales of the Russian gas to Europe reached 70 billion cubic meters from January to April. The high demand for the fuel was triggered by an extreme cold spell as the European states passed through one of the coldest winters over the past decade. Europe continued purchasing higher volumes, even after the winter, to refill gas storage that had been drained during cold months.

Earlier this year, Gazprom’s Deputy Chairman of the Management Committee Aleksandr Medvedev said the energy firm was shipping as much gas to Europe as it usually shipped in winter months. The official added that Gazprom expected demand in summer 2018 to get close to winter levels.

According to rough estimates, the company may sell a record volume of natural gas throughout the entire history of gas exports, including the Soviet period. Gazprom’s gas supplies to European countries hit an all-time high in March, beating a previous record reported by the firm in January 2017.

The recovery of prices for energy products boosted the the country’s energy revenues. According to customs data, Russia’s revenues from natural gas exports in January-March increased by 22.6 percent, to $12.4 billion. The Russian fuel is currently purchased by 30 countries with three quarters of supplies going to the EU.

Apart from the cold winter that evoked low storage levels, Gazprom’s rivals decreased supplies due to various issues at facilities. In April, Norway had to fight with an unplanned outage at the Skarv gas field and Kollsnes processing plant. Russia’s closest competitor had to reduce flows as a compressor at the Skarv field failed.

Libyan gas failed to reach Italy due to technical issues at the offshore gas field Bahr Essalam, while Algeria had to reduce gas supplies after the European buyers were disappointed with the high prices for the fuel. Unlike Gazprom, the North African state has its prices for gas tied to crude, so surging prices for oil unavoidably push gas bills higher.

Meanwhile, the Russian gas monopoly continues hurdling antitrust barriers to build the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that is aimed at doubling the existing capacity of the Nord Stream pipeline from Russia to Germany. Gazprom also completed the deep-water section of first thread of the Turkish Stream gas pipeline.

Last month, the company said it was ready to build the Nord Stream 3 pipeline, if necessary.

Iran has gained such immense power and deterrent capabilities that the enemies would not come to think of taking military action against the country, the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps’ deputy commander said.

Addressing a ceremony in Iran’s southeastern city of Zahedan on Thursday, Brigadier General Hossein Salami said Iran has learned how to overcome bullies and developed and organized the tools for such a victory.

“Today, we have acquired a modern arrangement of an immense power in sea, space and on the ground that we have blocked the enemies’ path to military option,” he added.

Assuring the Iranian nation of the impossibility of a war against the country, the commander said Iran’s success to gain deterrent power and national security in the region’s critical conditions has turned it into regional “anchorage of stability”.

He further slammed the US administration for walking away from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), saying the only way to counter the US and its economic war against Iran is to strengthen national resistance.

In a speech from the White House on Tuesday, US President Donald Trump accused Iran of sponsoring terrorism and seeking nukes before announcing the US withdrawal from the nuclear deal.

On Wednesday, IRGC Chief Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari called for boosting Iran’s defense capabilities, saying the US withdrawal proved that America is against Iran’s defense and missile power and is using Tehran’s peaceful nuclear program just as an excuse.

Like watchmakers choosing superior materials to build a fine timepiece, physicists at the Centre for Quantum Technologies (CQT) at the National University of Singapore have singled out an atom that could allow us to build better atomic clocks.

The CQT team report in Nature Communications that a previously neglected element – lutetium – could improve on today’s best clocks. Lutetium (Lu) is a rare earth element with atomic number 71.

“The ultimate performance of a clock comes down to the properties of the atom – how insensitive the atom is to its environment. I would call lutetium top in its class,” said Murray Barrett, who led the research.

Barrett is so confident because data in the team’s paper, published 25 April, show Lu to have lower sensitivity to temperature than atoms used in clocks today. These measurements add to earlier results showing lutetium could make a high-performance clock.

Atomic clocks have set the global standard for measuring time for over half a century. But since the second was defined with reference to caesium atoms in the 1960s, there has been world-wide competition to improve the accuracy and stability of atomic clocks.

Time signals from caesium clocks still support the Global Positioning System and help to synchronise transport and communication networks, but atoms of many other species, such as ytterbium, aluminium and strontium, now vie to make the most precise measurements of time.

These new generation clocks, with uncertainties around one part in a billion billion, are proving their mettle in testing fundamental physics – from measurements of gravity to looking for drifts in fundamental constants.

The ‘tick’ of an atomic clock comes not directly from the atom, but from the oscillation of a light wave. The oscillation frequency is fixed by locking it to resonant frequency of the atom.

In practice, this means a laser is tuned to make one of atom’s electrons leap from a low energy level to a higher energy level. How much energy this jump takes is a fixed property of the atom. The laser’s frequency is matched to deliver just the right amount of energy in a single light particle (a photon).

Once this sweet spot is found, the clock counts time by measuring the oscillations of the light wave.

Caesium clocks run at microwave frequency – or exactly 9,192,631,770 ticks per second. The most recent generation of atomic clocks run at optical frequencies, which tick some ten thousand times faster. Counting time in smaller increments allows for more precise measurement.

Lutetium will also run at optical frequencies, but there’s more to making good clocks than a quick tick: that tick also needs to be stable over time. This is where lutetium may shine.

One source of inaccuracy in the clock frequency is sensitivity to the temperature of the environment surrounding the atom. Barrett and his colleagues have just measured the strength of this ‘blackbody radiation shift’ for clock transitions in lutetium.

The six-month effort, involving a high-power laser like those used for industrial cutting, gave a result for the blackbody radiation shift for one energy level transition that is closer to zero than for any established optical atomic clock.

“We have definitively shown that Lu is the least sensitive to temperature of all established atomic clocks,” said first author Kyle Arnold. That will not only help to make a lab-based clock more accurate, but also make clocks that come out of the labs more practical, allowing them to operate in a wider range of environments.

In earlier papers, the team have reported other properties of lutetium relevant to building clocks, finding they can compete with today’s best clock atoms. “If you can build a good really ytterbium clock, you will inevitably build a better lutetium clock, or at least it will be an easier job for you to build a lutetium clock that’s just as good,” said Barrett.

For now, the researchers are working towards building clocks with single ions, but ultimately they’d like to make clocks based on lattices or networks of many ions. They begin with lutetium in bulk form – as a silvery-white metal foil – before boiling a few atoms off into their apparatus.

The team don’t know of any other groups working with lutetium. One reason lutetium was untried is that it needed a new technique, discovered by Barrett and his collaborators, to cancel certain sources of inaccuracy in the clock. This ‘hyperfine averaging technique’ is described in earlier papers. “I don’t see it as anyway being an overly technical, difficult thing to do, but I think people are waiting to see how this works out,” says Barrett.

New research has revealed a deadly disease that threatens the survival of the world’s frogs originated from East Asia, and global trade was almost certainly responsible for the disease’s spread.

The frog chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) has long been identified as a cause of the decline and extinction of species of amphibians across several continents since the 1970s.

It has spread around the world but until now it has remained unclear where killer strains of the pathogen first emerged.

An international team of researchers led by Imperial College London, including four scientists from the One Health Research Group at James Cook University, traced the ancestor of the pathogen to a single strain in East Asia.

Their findings support the idea that rather than dating back thousands of years, as previously thought, the range of the disease expanded greatly between 50 and 120 years ago, coinciding with the rapid global expansion of intercontinental trade.

According to the researchers, human movement of amphibians – such as through the pet trade – has directly contributed to spreading the pathogen around the world.

JCU’s Dr Lee Skerratt, one of the authors of the paper, said the findings highlight the importance of global biosecurity measures.

“Australia has strict rules and regulations surrounding biosecurity and this finding confirms why regulations are so important,” Dr Skerratt said.

“We hope this news will push policy change in countries with less strict biosecurity measures.”

The team also uncovered additional strains of the fungus that could cause further species decline, highlighting the importance of strict biosecurity policies.

“If more strains are allowed to spread we could see additional extinctions,” Dr Skerratt said.

“Countries need to act now to improve regulations before these additional strains spread.”

Chytrid fungus causes a disease called chytridiomycosis that leads to heart failure, and is responsible for the decline or extinction of hundreds of species of frogs.

The paper, Recent Asian origin of chytrid fungi causing global amphibian declines, was published in Science today.

These findings come on the 20th anniversary of Dr Lee Berger’s discovery during her PhD that the chytrid fungus is the cause of global amphibian species decline.

Dr Berger led the Australian contribution and was an Australian Research Council Future Fellow and Postdoctoral Fellow at James Cook University from 2004 to 2016.