WAR 01-23-2016-to-01-29-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

[Housecarl]

(199) 01-02-2016-to-01-08-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...08-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(200) 01-09-2016-to-01-15-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...15-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(201) 01-16-2016-to-01-22-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...22-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

___

Sorry folks, I had to attend to some meat world issues.....HC

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-missile-defense-hawaii-idUSKCN0V0008

Business | Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:01am EST
Related: U.S., Aerospace & Defense

Exclusive: U.S. weighs making Hawaii missile test site operational - sources

WASHINGTON | By Andrea Shalal


The U.S. military has stepped up discussions on converting its Aegis missile defense test site in Hawaii into a combat-ready facility that would bolster American defenses against ballistic missile attacks, according to sources familiar with the discussions.

The proposal, which has been discussed sporadically for several years, was given fresh impetus by North Korea's fourth nuclear test on Jan. 6 and by recent strides in China's missile technology capabilities, said current and former U.S. military officials, congressional aides and other sources.

A Chinese official in Washington suggested that Beijing would see such a U.S. move as counter-productive to relations.

Aegis, developed by Lockheed Martin Corp for use on U.S. Navy destroyers, is among the most advanced U.S. missile defense systems, integrating radars, software, displays, weapons launchers and missiles.

Setting up its land version -- Aegis Ashore -- in Hawaii and linking it with Aegis destroyers would add a permanent missile defense site to the Pacific, providing an extra layer of protection for the U.S. islands and the West Coast at a time when North Korea is improving its missile capabilities.

Ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California provide the current defense for Hawaii and the continental United States against missile attacks.

The Navy also relies on deploying Aegis-equipped destroyers based on U.S. intelligence warnings about imminent threats. North Korea's development of mobile missile launchers has made it more difficult to predict launches in advance.

To make the test site combat-ready, the U.S. military would need to add personnel, stockpile live missiles and beef up security, at an estimated cost of around $41 million, said the sources, who were not authorized to speak publicly.

It would also need to integrate the site into the larger U.S. ballistic missile defense system, with control likely shifting from the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency to the U.S. Navy, the sources said.

U.S. Navy Admiral Harry Harris, commander of U.S. Pacific Command, has been engaged in high-level discussions about ways to protect Hawaii, Guam and the continental United States from threats like North Korea, his spokesman, Captain Darryn James told Reuters.

James said no decisions had been made, but the Aegis Ashore site in Hawaii had a "proven test capability."

"Admiral Harris is always exploring options to forward deploy and operationalize the latest advancements in ballistic missile defense technologies in the Pacific, where we face increasingly sophisticated threats to the homeland," James said.

It remains unclear when the U.S. administration could reach a decision, but implementing the changes could be done swiftly, the sources said.


STRENGTHENING THE SHIELD

North Korea's nuclear test in January underscored U.S. concerns that the secretive state has the ability to place a bomb on a long-range ballistic missile that could reach the U.S. West Coast.

Any moves to boost missile defenses could inflame growing military rivalry between China and Washington and its allies.

Converting the site on Hawaii's Kauai island into combat use could rankle China at a time of heightened tensions with Washington over the disputed South China Sea. Beijing has already expressed concern about the possible deployment of the mobile U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system to South Korea.

Zhu Haiquan, spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, said Beijing believed the nuclear proliferation issue would be best resolved diplomatically.

"All measures seeking to increase military capacities will only intensify antagonism and will not help to solve the problem," he said when asked about the possible U.S. move.

"China hopes the relevant country will proceed on the basis of regional peace and stability, adopt a responsible attitude and act prudently in regard to the anti-missile issue."

Russia, meanwhile, has repeatedly objected to the U.S. Aegis Ashore site in Romania, which is due to become operational in the coming weeks. A similar site is due to open in Poland in 2018.

The Missile Defense Agency explored the prospect of putting the Hawaii test site into full operation in a classified report to Congress in September 2014, according to one of the sources.

Congress requires the agency to update its estimate of the cost, feasibility and effectiveness of adding more Aegis Ashore sites this spring.

The Aegis Ashore test site in Hawaii completed its first intercept test in December, using a Raytheon Co Standard Missile-3 Block 1B to destroy a target that replicated an Iranian Ghadr-110 medium-range missile.

Riki Ellison, who heads the non-profit Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, said the new Aegis installation would in effect give the U.S. military three chances to shoot down a missile aimed at Hawaii, up from one currently.

"If you have the assets on the island, why not use them to protect against possible missile attacks from North Korea?" Ellison said.

The December test proved the Aegis Ashore system could fire two different Raytheon Co missiles -- one inside the earth's atmosphere and one outside -- at an enemy missile.

Expansion of military operations in Hawaii have sparked protests by residents in the past.

But Hawaii Representative Mark Takai, a Democrat and member of the House Armed Services Committee, said the conversion is "the best way to ensure we have protection for Hawaii’s critical defense infrastructure against increasingly belligerent actors that threaten our country."


(Additional reporting by Matt Spetalnick and Jeff Mason; editing by Stuart Grudgings)

 

[Housecarl]

U.S. says prepared for military solution against Islamic State in Syria
Started by smokiný, Today 06:52 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...itary-solution-against-Islamic-State-in-Syria

Obama Raises the Stakes as U.S. Military Illegally Occupies Airfield in Syria
Started by JohnGaltflaý, 01-20-2016 06:02 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...Military-Illegally-Occupies-Airfield-in-Syria

Are U.S. Special Forces Facing a Syrian 'Black Hawk Down'?
Started by medic38572‎, Yesterday 07:06 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...pecial-Forces-Facing-a-Syrian-Black-Hawk-Down


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-turkey-biden-idUSKCN0V10J9

World | Sat Jan 23, 2016 5:56pm EST
Related: World, Turkey, Syria, Davos

U.S. says prepared for military solution against Islamic State in Syria

ISTANBUL | By David Dolan and Asli Kandemir


U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said on Saturday that the United States and Turkey were prepared for a military solution against Islamic State in Syria should the Syrian government and rebels fail to reach a political settlement.

The latest round of Syria peace talks are planned to begin on Monday in Geneva but were at risk of being delayed partly because of a dispute over who will comprise the opposition delegation.

Syrian armed rebel groups said on Saturday they held the Syrian government and Russia responsible for any failure of peace talks to end the country's civil war, even before negotiations were due to start.

"We do know it would better if we can reach a political solution but we are prepared ..., if that's not possible, to have a military solution to this operation in taking out Daesh," Biden said at a news conference after a meeting with Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu. Daesh is the pejorative Arabic acronym for Islamic State insurgents who hold parts of Syria.

A U.S. official later clarified that Biden was talking about a military solution to Islamic State, not Syria as a whole.

The Saudi-backed Syrian opposition ruled out even indirect negotiations unless Damascus took steps including a halt to Russian air strikes.

Biden said he and Davutoglu also discussed how the two NATO allies could further support Sunni Arab rebel forces fighting to oust President Bashar al-Assad.

The United States has sent dozens of special forces soldiers to help rebels fighting Islamic State in Syria although the troops are not intended for front line combat.

Along with its allies Washington is also conducting air strikes against Islamic State militants who hold large chunks of Syria and Iraq and support opposition fighters battling the group.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Saturday he was confident Syria peace talks would proceed, after he held talks with Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states in Saudi Arabia.

Kerry also met in Riyadh with Riad Hijab, chair of the Syrian opposition's High Negotiations Committee and other HNC delegates representing the Syrian opposition.

"They discussed the upcoming U.N.-sponsored negotiations regarding a political transition in Syria and all agreed on the urgent need to end the violence afflicting the Syrian people," U.S. State Department spokesman John Kirby said.

Kerry also emphasized the importance of maintaining the momentum of the International Syria Support Group, a grouping of big world and regional powers backing peace efforts, Kirby said.

After his GCC talks, Kerry said all in the meeting had agreed that the Support Group should meet again immediately after completion of the first round of the Syria negotiations.


DISAGREEMENT OVER SYRIAN KURDISH GROUP

Saleh Muslim, co-chair of the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD), the main Kurdish political grouping in Syria, said on Friday the Syria peace talks would fail if Syrian Kurds are not represented.

While the United States draws a distinction between PYD, whose fighters it supports, and the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in Turkey, Davutoglu reiterated the Turkish position that the PYD's military wing is part of and supported by the PKK.

The PYD's military wing, the People's Protection Units (YPG) has seized swathes of Syria from Islamic State with the help of U.S.-led strikes and declared it an autonomous administration, to Ankara's chagrin.

Davutoglu said on Saturday the YPG had become an increasing threat to Turkey. According to local media, on the way to Turkey from Davos he also told reporters Ankara would strike YPG in northern Syria just like it hits PKK targets in northern Iraq.

Ankara has fought a decades-long insurgency against Kurdish PKK separatists which in July reignited into a violent confrontation with Turkish security forces.

Biden strongly criticized the PKK which is designated a terrorist organization by the United States, the European Union and Turkey.

In his speech following talks, Davutoglu also reiterated Turkey's respect for the territorial unity of Iraq, where it deployed troops despite Baghdad's objections.

Biden went on to meet with President Tayyip Erdogan, but an expected joint statement was not issued. Presidential sources later said Erdogan reemphasized that Turkey's operations in Bashiqa, where the troops were stationed, were for training local forces there.

He called for serious efforts to clear Iraq of terror - starting with Ramadi and followed by Faluja and Mosul.


SLAM OVER FREEDOM OF SPEECH

On the first day of his visit, Biden met members of the ruling AK Party, the secularist opposition CHP and the pro-Kurdish HDP largely to discuss the mainly Kurdish southeast. He criticized the Turkish state for intimidating media, curtailing Internet freedom and accusing academics of treason.

On Saturday, local media reported that on the flight back from Davos Davutoglu told reporters Biden had not spoken with the right people to get a clear picture of what was going on.

Turkey was cited by Washington as an example for the Middle East of a functioning Islamic democracy in the early years of the AK Party, which Erdogan founded. More recently, reforms have faltered and Erdogan has adopted a more authoritarian style of rule.

Last week, he denounced as "dark, nefarious and brutal" more than 1,000 signatories of a declaration that criticized Turkish military action in the southeast. Security forces briefly detained 27 academics on accusations of terrorist propaganda, while dozens face investigation by their universities.

In an apparent rebuke, Erdogan told Biden on Saturday that he expected sensitivity from Turkey's allies and that they should avoid statements which may equate to support for those trying to hamper Turkish efforts to fight terror, presidential sources said.


(Additional reporting by Murad Sezer and by David Brunnstrom in Riyadh; Writing by Dasha Afanasieva; Editing by Raissa Kasolowsky, Hugh Lawson and Mary Milliken)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-kerry-idUSKCN0V10DD

World | Sat Jan 23, 2016 1:34pm EST
Related: World, Saudi Arabia, Syria

U.S. Secretary of State says confident Syria talks can proceed

RIYADH

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Saturday he was confident Syria peace talks would proceed, after he held talks with Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states in Saudi Arabia.

"We are confident that with good initiative in the next day or so those talks can get going and that the U.N. representative special envoy, Staffan De Mistura, will be convening people in an appropriate manner for the proximity talks that will be the first meeting in Geneva," he told reporters in Riyadh.

The Syria peace talks are planned to begin on Jan. 25 in Geneva, but there is uncertainty around the date, partly because of a dispute over who will be part of the opposition delegation.

Kerry said major countries would convene after the first round of negotiations.

"I won't announce a date, but we all agreed that immediately after completion of the first round of the Syria discussions, the International Syria Support Group will convene, and that will be very shortly, because we want to keep the process moving," he said.

Peace efforts face huge underlying challenges, among them disagreements over President Bashar al-Assad's future and worsening relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran.


Related Coverage
› Syrian rebel groups hold Assad, Russia responsible for any failure of talks: statement

Tensions between the two regional rivals escalated this month after the Saudi execution of a Shi'ite Muslim cleric. That triggered an attack by Iranian protesters on the Saudi embassy in Tehran embassy, leading the kingdom to cut diplomatic ties.

"None of us are under any illusions that obstacles don't still exist to trying to seek a political settlement in Syria," Kerry said. "We know its tough. If it were easy, it would have happened a long time ago."

Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir said his country was working with the U.S. to find ways to remove Assad from power. He downplayed any change in U.S.-Iran relations after an agreement with world powers on Iran's nuclear programmed led them to lift sanctions on Iran.

"We work with our American friends on ways to remove Bashar al-Assad from Syria and move the country towards a better future," he said.

"I don't see a coming together of the United States and Iran, as some of the pundits have described it. Iran remains the world's chief sponsor of terrorism."

Kerry said the lifting of sanctions presented an opportunity to work together with Iran to address some of the worries Saudi Arabia and other countries had.

"Now we have the ability to begin to work together to address the concerns that Saudi Arabia and other countries have and that we have," he said.

Kerry met earlier in Riyadh with representatives of the six nations of the GCC, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates. He is due to hold talks with Riad Hijab, chair of the Syrian opposition's High Negotiations Committee, which was formed in Riyadh last month.

(This version of the story was refiled to fix reporter's byline. No change in text.)


(Reporting by David Brunnstrom; Writing by Maha El Dahan; Editing by Mark Heinrich)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-afghanistan-taliban-talks-idUSKCN0V10HZ

World | Sat Jan 23, 2016 3:28pm EST
Related: World, Afghanistan, United Nations

Taliban want removal from U.N. blacklist before peace talks

DOHA/PESHAWAR, PAKISTAN


Afghanistan’s Taliban want to be removed from a U.N. blacklist before considering rejoining peace talks aimed at ending a 15-year civil war, a senior member said, as its political wing met activists at an unofficial forum in Qatar.

After months of worsening fighting, with the province of Helmand slipping out of government control and frequent suicide bombings in the capital, Afghanistan and its neighbours are trying to get troubled negotiations back on track.

Prospects of the Taliban, an increasingly strong presence on the battlefield since the withdrawal of most international troops in 2014, joining any talks had appeared slim.

But a Taliban member told Reuters that the group could participate if the U.N. Security Council canceled a resolution freezing assets and limiting travel of senior figures.

"We conveyed them to first remove us from the ýblacklist of the United Nations and allow us to freely travel around the world and then we can think about holding peace talks," said the Taliban member, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Pakistan hosted the first formal talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government in July 2015 but a second round was canceled after it emerged that Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Mullah, who sanctioned the talks, had been dead for two years.

Relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan have since deteriorated amid an upswing in fighting between the Taliban and Afghan forces.

On Saturday morning, activists, former Afghan officials and Taliban representatives arrived at a hotel in downtown Doha for a two-day meeting on resolving the war organized by Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, a Nobel peace prize-winning crisis group.

"The meeting is providing us an opportunity to express our views about the future of Afghanistan," said Zabihullah Mujahid, spokesman for the Taliban which is itself riven by factional infighting.

The Afghan government did not send any serving officials but an adviser to the president, Malalai Shinwari, and the country's former interior minister, Umer Daudzai, were present.

Anwar Ahady, a former minister of finance taking part in the Doha talks, said the Taliban had not yet shown any willingness to engage in direct talks.

"So far they have not proposed any concrete ideas about how to move forward. Hopefully by tomorrow we will know if they want peace and if so what their conditions are," Ahady told Reuters.

Even if the Taliban were to join the peace talks, those present would only represent part of the Islamist militant movement fighting to topple the government in Kabul and restore strict Islamic rule in place before it was ousted in 2001.

Leadership divisions could also impede progress, with some militant factions, such as a splinter group led by Mullah Mohammad Rasool Akhund, refusing to take part.

Members of the Taliban have lived in Qatar for years and briefly opened a political office there in 2013.

In 2010 Afghanistan said the United Nations had agreed to remove some Taliban members who renounced ties to al Qaeda from the U.N. blacklist on a "gradual" basis to try and help Afghan efforts to engage some insurgents in talks.

The Afghan government submitted a list of 20 names and five were removed from the list.


(Reporting by Jibran Ahmed in Peshawar, Tom Finn in Doha; Editing by Andrew Heavens)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-china-idUSKCN0V109V

Markets | Sat Jan 23, 2016 3:50pm EST
Related: World, China, United Nations, Davos

Iran's leader says never trusted the West, seeks closer ties with China

DUBAI | By Bozorgmehr Sharafedin


Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Saturday called for closer economic and security ties with China, saying Iran had never trusted the West, as the two countries agreed to increase bilateral trade more than 10-fold to $600 billion in the next decade.

Iran's most powerful figure told Chinese President Xi Jinping during a visit Iran wanted to expand ties with "more independent countries", adding the United States was "not honest" in the fight against terrorism in the region.

"Iranians never trusted the West... That's why Tehran seeks cooperation with more independent countries (like China)," Khamenei said.

"Iran is the most reliable country in the region for energy since its energy policies will never be affected by foreigners," Khamenei was quoted by his official website as saying at a meeting with Xi.

Xi is the second leader of a U.N. Security Council member to visit Tehran since the nuclear deal Iran struck with world powers last year. Russian President Vladimir Putin visited Tehran in November.

Iran emerged from years of economic isolation this month when the United Nations' nuclear watchdog ruled it had curbed its nuclear program, clearing the way for the lifting of U.N., U.S., and European Union sanctions.

"Iran and China have agreed to increase trade to $600 billion in the next 10 years," President Hassan Rouhani said at a news conference with Xi broadcast live on state television.

"Iran and China have agreed on forming strategic relations (as) reflected in a 25-year comprehensive document," he said.

Iran and China signed 17 accords on Saturday, including on cooperation in nuclear energy and a revival of the ancient Silk Road trade route, known in China as One Belt, One Road.

"China is still heavily dependent on Iran for its energy imports and Russia needs Iran in terms of its new security architecture vision for the Middle East," said Ellie Geranmayeh, policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations.

"Iran plays quite an integral role for both China and Russia’s interests within the region, much more than it does for the Europeans," Geranmayeh said.


NEW MARKETS

Khamenei said Iran would never forget Chinese cooperations during the sanctions.

"The China-Iran friendship ... has stood the test of the vicissitudes of the international landscape," Xi was quoted as saying by China's Xinhua news agency.

The Chinese state-backed Global Times newspaper said in an editorial on Saturday that China hoped to improve ties with Iran as part of its sweeping plan to rebuild trade links with Europe and Asia and carve out new markets for its goods.

"China is of course considering its self interest in strengthening cooperation with Iran, especially at a time when China is in the midst of expending efforts to push forward the One Belt, One Road initiative, Iran is an important fulcrum," the paper said.

While China seeks closer ties with Iran, earlier this week it signaled its support for Yemen's government, which is fighting an Iran-allied militia, during Xi's visit to Saudi Arabia, Iran's rival for influence in the region.

Iran has called on China to join the fight against the Islamic State militant group and play a more active role in the region.

Tehran is widely credited with convincing Russia to start its military intervention in Syria and join the fight against Islamic State.

"Although China and Russia backed U.N. sanctions against Iran on its nuclear program, they were also heavily pushing for special waivers to continue trading with Iran," Geranmayeh said.

"Iran had a relationship both politically and economically with China and Russia for the last ten years in ways that it hasn't had with Europe. So it’s quite natural to see it opening up first to these countries."


(Reporting by Bozorgmehr Sharafedin, additional reporting by Megha Rajagopalan in Beijing; Editing by Janet Lawrence and Clelia Oziel)

 

[Housecarl]

Turkey alarmed by 'Russian build-up' on Syria border
Started by northern watchý, Yesterday 08:18 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...y-alarmed-by-Russian-build-up-on-Syria-border


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.eurasiareview.com/240120...crisis-a-deficit-of-strategic-depth-analysis/

The Russian-Turkish Crisis: A Deficit Of Strategic Depth – Analysis

By JTW January 24, 2016
By Andrei Kortunov*

It finally happened. November 24th, 2015 became a turning point for Russian-Turkish relations. The two sides will probably never agree on who is to blame for the SU-24 tragedy nor on whether this was an unfortunate accident or a deliberately planned action. However, at least one thing should be clear to everybody: a long optimistic chapter in this bilateral relationship is over, and we are now entering a new, still very unclear and potentially very dangerous period. From now on, there’ll be no business as usual between Moscow and Ankara.

But how can we define “business as usual” anyway? If Russian-Turkish cooperation was so great prior to November 24th, then why did one single accident – no matter how dramatic and emotionally sensitive it might have been – turn out to be sufficient enough to negatively change the entire fabric of Russian-Turkish partnership in various fields – from trade to joint energy projects through university partnerships to humanitarian contacts?

I would argue that the crisis between our two countries had been ripening for a long time, and the SU-24 grounding was simply the straw that broke the camel’s back.

For many years, Russians and Turks were trying to convince each other that they could “agree to disagree” on many controversial and potentially explosive political matters. The hope was that the impressive dynamics of bilateral trade, investments, tourism, cultural exchanges, binational marriages and so on would do the trick. Alas, they did not. Russian-Turkish relations demonstrated a spectacular lack of strategic depth – an evident deficit of the ability, courage and political will to look for and to find compromises and common denominators for the most fundamental problems that had been pushing the two states apart from one another.

Over the years, serious disagreements over the Caucasus, the Middle East, Iran, Ukraine, NATO, ballistic missile defense, gas pipelines and other matters were continually swept under the rug. But this mutual hypocrisy could not last forever. In a way, the ongoing crisis became possible only because the notion of a strategic partnership between Russia and Turkey had remained only on paper. Lacking the proper strategic depth, it failed to pass a reality check and collapsed like a house of cards.

Still, though the strategic partnership had been mostly imaginary, the losses appear to be more than real. Today Turkey arguably feels more pain than Russia. Grounding the Russian aircraft has not helped to protect the Syrian Turkmen population close to the Turkish border, on the contrary, Turkmen opposition groups are now more vulnerable than they ever were before. If Turkey aimed to instate a no-fly zone under its control over a part of Syrian territory, it worked the other way around: today such a zone exists, but under Russian tutelage backed by a newly installed S-400 air defense system. Russian air strikes on trucks crossing the Syrian-Turkish border in both directions – on the basis that this traffic supports the so-called Islamic State – do not make things any easier for Ankara either.

Nonetheless, if any exalted politicians or opinion makers in Moscow believe that Russia can “punish” Turkey without paying a high price itself, they are gravely mistaken. Ankara has many ways to make life harder for Moscow ranging from shifting its energy import preferences to the Gulf to utilizing its influence over the numerous communities of Crimean Tatar descendants in Turkey in ways that are detrimental to Russia’s interests. As for Russia’s economic sanctions against Turkey, in the end of the day they are going to hurt both countries and it would make little sense to argue that they are inflicting more pain on the Turks than the Russians.

Considering all of this, what could both sides do to start restoring the relationship? Yet before answering this question, we should also ask ourselves: what can we not afford in the near future? First, we should realize that mutual trust cannot be restored anytime soon – trust between the two national leaders and between the political elites in Moscow and Ankara is completely lost. Second, we cannot realistically discuss any strategic reconciliation between the two countries or a Russian-Turkish Grand Bargain – in the absence of mutual trust and with the deficit of strategic depth, the idea of both Putin and Erdogan confessing their sins and much less forgiving one another seems highly unlikely, if not outright ridiculous. Third, we should be fully aware of the fact that the downward spiral of hostility and mutual animosity is hastening, and both sides will have to spend a lot of energy and time to stop its negative momentum, not to mention reversing it.

Many proponents of better Russian-Turkish relations on both sides of the newly erected barricade argue that the only thing we can do now is to concentrate on non-state dimensions of the crippled relationship – trying to preserve and to expand human contacts, small business interaction, cultural links, joint NGO projects, education mobility, research partnerships and other ‘uncontroversial’ forms of bilateral engagement. In my view, this is an important goal to pursue, but we should not overestimate our ability to set a firewall between state and non-state dimensions of Russian-Turkish relations. In our two countries, the state traditionally exercises a great amount of influence over public opinion, civil society, the media, and cultural and educational institutions. The odds are that it will be increasingly difficult to maintain even the most ‘innocent’ forms of non-state cooperation if both states do not demonstrate at least a benign neglect towards these activities. In this sense, a Russian-Turkish rapprochement at the highest political level, no matter how limited or incomplete, appears to be indispensable.

It is often so that the solution should be searched for where the problem lies. The most critical bone of contention between Russia and Turkey today – all other disagreements and disputes notwithstanding – is the future of Syria. This is not so much related to the future of Bashar Assad, because it is clear that he will not run the country forever and that his days may be numbered, as it is to the future of Syrian statehood itself. Russia is committed to preserving the territorial integrity of Syria, while Turkey feels responsible for the future of the Syrian Turkmen and other Turkey oriented groups opposed to Damascus. This is supplemented by the fact that a number of external players including Iran and the Gulf states have their interests and their claims to protect particular factions of the Syrian population.

I do not like the term ‘soft partition’ because it emphasizes the noun ‘partition’ more than the adjective ‘soft’. But a potential solution to the Syrian riddle might well be connected to the concept of an ‘asymmetrical federation’ that will not question the principle of the county’s territorial integrity, but will guarantee sufficient autonomy for ethnic, religious, regional and political factions in Syria, including the preservation of their traditional links with neighboring countries. The concept of an ‘asymmetrical federation’ may become the platform for a compromise not only between Russia and Turkey, but between all the major players involved in the Syrian conflict. If we agree on the future of Syria, it would be much easier to move ahead on other burning issues.

As for the long term of bilateral relations between Russia and Turkey, a lot will depend on whether both sides can learn their lessons from the current crisis and whether the dialogue between Moscow and Ankara can gain true strategic depth. My modest suggestion would be to establish a high level second track channel of communication between the two countries through which they might compare the long term interests, priorities, threats and challenges that the two are likely to be focused on beyond the time frames of their current political cycles. If we demonstrate due imagination and foresight, we might be surprised to find out that our current disagreements and conflicts appear to be much less critical and irreconcilable if we look at them from a sufficient time distance.

The new strategic depth must embrace both the past and the future. The past should not be forgotten if we wish to maintain our core identities and to learn from our mistakes. But it is the future that has to inspire individuals and nations. The best days of the Russian-Turkish relations may well be ahead of us, not behind.

*Dr. Andrei Kortunov is the Director General at the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC)

**Turkish version of this article was first published at Analist monthly journal’s January 2016 issue.

JTW

JTW - the Journal of Turkish Weekly - is a respected Turkish news source in English language on international politics. Established in 2004, JTW is published by Ankara-based Turkish think tank International Strategic Research Organization (USAK).

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2016/01/china-has-reached-consensus-with-djibouti-on-military-base/

China Has 'Reached Consensus' With Djibouti on Military Base

In addition to moving forward on a new military facility, China seals a series of trade deals with Djibouti.

By Shannon Tiezzi
January 23, 2016

526 Shares
6 Comments

China and Djibouti have “reached consensus” on building logistical facilities in the African state for the use of China’s military, China’s Foreign Ministry said on Thursday. The news confirms reports that have been swirling since May 2015, when Djibouti’s President Ismail Omar Guelleh said his country was in discussions with the Chinese over a possible military base. China’s Foreign Ministry confirmed the negotiations for the first time in November of last year.

Now, it appears talks are close to an end. “China and Djibouti consulted with each other and reached consensus on building logistical facilities in Djibouti, which will enable the Chinese troops to better fulfill escort missions and make new contributions to regional peace and stability,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hong Lei said on Thursday. Hong’s comments referred to anti-piracy escort missions in the Gulf of Aden, which China participates in as part of a United Nations-sanctioned international effort.

Hong pointed out that, while on anti-piracy missions in the area, China has “encountered real difficulties in replenishing soldiers and resupplying fuel and food” – problems the new facility in Djibouti will solve. “The nature of relevant facilities is clear, which is to provide logistical support to Chinese fleets performing escort duties in the Gulf of Aden and the waters off the Somali coast,” he said.

Just before the Foreign Ministry noted a “consensus” on China’s new military facility in Djibouti, the two countries sealed a series of economic deals. Guelleh said in a statement that he had signed three agreements: one establishing a free trade zone in Djibouti; one increasing Djibouti’s role as a transshipment hub for trade between China and the rest of the world; and one regarding a legal framework that would allow Chinese banks to operate in Djibouti.

Hong noted that “friendly relations between China and Djibouti have been forging ahead over recent years,” a trend reaffirmed by the meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Guelleh on the sidelines of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) summit in South Africa last December. The recent agreements between China and Djibouti are part of “efforts to implement the consensus reached at the Johannesburg Summit, in a bid to drive development in Africa,” Hong said.

The trade agreements emphasize that Djibouti’s strategic location at the intersection of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden is attractive for China for more than military reasons. In fact, the country is an ideal spot for inclusion of China’s “21st Century Maritime Silk Road,” which will stretch from China to the Indian Ocean, the Gulf of Aden, and up the Red Sea through the Suez Canal to the Mediterranean. Egypt is already on board for the project; Djibouti is another natural hub for the “Belt and Road.” The newly agreed-upon free trade zone and the use of Djibouti as a transshipment center both point to such a role.

If the Maritime Silk Road unfolds as planned, increased trade through the Gulf of Aden and Red Sea will mean more need for anti-piracy missions – which makes it even more crucial for China to have resupply facilities nearby. While the Maritime Silk Road and its overland twin are not military initiatives, it’s easy to see how military strategy will follow economic investments. Djibouti, soon to be home to China’s first overseas military facility, is a prime example.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2016/01/taiwans-dilemmas-and-challenges-after-the-2016-election/

Taiwan's Dilemmas and Challenges After the 2016 Election

Tsai Ing-wen may have won the election, but she faces a range of important challenges ahead.

By Dingding Chen
January 23, 2016

28 Shares
29 Comments

As has been noted already at The Diplomat, last week’s presidential election in Taiwan saw the Democratic Progressive Party beat the Kuomintang with 56 percent of the popular vote, thus paving the way for Tsai Ing-wen to ascend to the presidency. While this is no doubt historic, but Tsai and the DPP will face tremendous challenges in the next four years.

For starters, Tsai and her team will face grave economic challenges in a global market facing turmoil. Despite being an Asian “tiger” economy, Taiwan has the worst performance among the four, lagging far behind South Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong. For almost the last two decades, Taiwan’s growth rate has been stagnating around 2 percent.

Many college graduates cannot find decent jobs, hence the so called “22k” dilemma. Even the best college graduates who managed to find employment receive low salaries that are a far cry from comparable positions in Beijing and Shanghai. Moreover, Taiwan’s education system is in a disarray, with many first rate professors leaving Taiwan for higher salaries. For instance, Taiwan’s professors only earn about one fifth of Hong Kong’s professors.

Exports are another challenge. Taiwan’s exports heavily rely on the mainland Chinese market, with over 40 percent of exports heading there. Taiwan is trying to join the TPP, hoping to benefit from access to U.S. markets. However, local pressures on issues like U.S. beef pose a threat to Taiwan’s TPP membership. Can Tsai and her team lead Taiwan out of this economic hole? The picture is not positive if we look at the DPP’s past economic performance between 2000 and 2008.

Another more serious challenge facing Tsai Ing-wen is the issue of “1992 consensus.” Tsai has never openly acknowledged the “1992 consensus,” thus raising suspicions over her true position on the relationship between the mainland and Taiwan. The biggest worry from the mainland’s perspective is that Tsai would oppose the consensus and gradually move toward formal independence. Although so far Tsai and the DPP have avoided provoking Beijing on the independence issue, sooner or later she will need to clarify her position on this issue. If her answer is not satisfactory to the mainland side, then some kind of punishment may follow, with serious diplomatic and economic consequences.

Among the pro-independence crowd in Taiwan, there is a false hope that the United States and Japan would come to Taiwan’s aid if a conflict were to break out between the mainland and Taiwan. This is a very dangerous misperception. Last year Rand Corporation produced a report looking at a potential conflict between China and the United States over the Taiwan issue and warned that the U.S. would face tremendous challenges from the Chinese military.

Over the next 10 to 15 years, China’s military will only get stronger and stronger, thereby decreasing the incentives for the United States to get drawn into a conflict in the Taiwan Strait. Moreover, U.S. public opinion does not view Taiwan’s survival as a top priority. A survey conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in 2014 showed that only 26 percent of Americans agree with the idea of sending troops to help Taiwan, compared to 47 percent who support South Korea. This result has been very consistent over time with other surveys since at least 1982.

Given these challenges, Tsai and the DPP will need to solve a lot of local economic and social problems first before they can even think about the bigger issue of cross-strait relations. Obviously the DPP cannot rule Taiwan alone; they must work together with the KMT and other smaller parties. Between now and May, both Taipei and Beijing can work together to reach some kind of consensus that will help maintain peace and stability in cross-strait relations. If that fails, we may enter a period of unforeseen instability in cross-strait relations that may affect U.S.-China ties as well.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/23/europe/france-port-calais-jungle-migrant-crisis/

35 arrested as migrants storm French port, disrupt ferry traffic

By Pierre Meilhan, CNN
Updated 9:44 PM ET, Sat January 23, 2016

(CNN)¡XSeveral hundred migrants, in the presence of supporting demonstrators, broke into the northern French port of Calais, tearing down barriers and allowing about 50 of them to board a ship, the mayor said Saturday.

Thirty-five people were arrested, the Pas-de-Calais prefecture said, according to CNN affiliate BFMTV.

The prefecture said that 24 of those arrested are migrants and 11 are members of the pro-migrant activist group No Borders, according to BFMTV. About 110 migrants were removed from the port zone.

The incident disrupted ferry traffic between Calais and Dover, England, for up to two hours, the British firm P&O Ferries said via Twitter.

The port was temporarily closed, according to a Twitter post by another British ferry company, DFDS Seaways.

"Once again, there is proof that demonstrations organized by pseudo-migrant defenders have essentially aimed to disrupt economic life," Mayor Natacha Bouchart said on Facebook.

Earlier in the day, an authorized demonstration organized by migrant supporters took place in downtown Calais and was marked by some incidents, Bouchart said.

Some 2,000 people took part in the demonstration, according to French media outlets.

An estimated 6,000 migrants and refugees have been living in one of Europe's most famous refugee camps, the so-called "Jungle," near Calais, trying to make their way illegally into the United Kingdom, with the hope of a better life.

The "Jungle" has become a massive sprawling campsite on waste ground, where migrants and refugees have been living in grim and unsanitary conditions.

Lately, French authorities have been trying to clear some areas within the "Jungle" and move some people into shelters made out of metal shipping containers equipped with heaters and electricity.

A French member of the European Parliament who took part in the demonstration called on the French government to fix the situation.

"We cannot let the situation here continue. These people are living in unacceptable conditions. I call on (French Prime Minister) Manuel Valls, on (Interior Minister Bernard) Cazeneuve to do whatever is necessary to fix the situation, and in the first place, that the people here have acceptable living conditions -- housing, proper food, but above all clothing, because these conditions are really inadmissible. It's like an open-air prison. It's a question of dignity, we can't allow this," Green Party politician and MEP Karima Delli told reporters.

CNN's Michael Martinez contributed to this report.


„Ý

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...4b0404eb8f1c1c9?ir=WorldPost&section=us_world

Why You Need To Be Worried About This Week¡¦s Terror Attack In Pakistan

In the country's long fight against armed extremism, people are beginning to run out of hope.

01/22/2016 07:08 pm ET
Akbar Shahid Ahmed
Foreign Affairs Reporter, The Huffington Post „Ú „å
Comments 44


KARACHI, Pakistan -- In the aftermath of a Wednesday terror attack at a university in the northwest, Pakistan is going through familiar motions: remembering the dead; celebrating heroes, like a professor who tried to fight back against armed intruders; debating what the government and military could have done better.

What¡¦s different, Pakistanis say, is that they didn¡¦t think they would be going through this ritual again so soon after the last major tragedy.

Just over a year ago, gunmen linked to the Pakistani Taliban killed 150 people, the vast majority of them children, at an army school in Peshawar, the capital of the northwestern Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province. The university attacked Wednesday is in Charsadda, less than an hour away.

In the weeks after the Peshawar attack, Pakistan¡¦s elites pledged to ramp up the fight against terror operatives.

The country is home to a range of loosely aligned militant Islamist organizations, including al Qaeda, two main branches of the Taliban that are respectively battling the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Pakistani groups that target India. Eager to use non-state actors to achieve its own regional goals, Pakistan¡¦s security establishment has fostered and protected many of these fighters. Many of the militants have established themselves in Pakistan¡¦s Federally Administered Tribal Areas, a region not far from the site of the school and university attacks. Many others have sanctuaries in the wealthy central province of Punjab and in the country¡¦s business hub, Karachi.

Civilian and military officials have been promising to rein in those militants for years. The army launched its latest operation against those based in FATA in 2014, after a dramatic Pakistani Taliban attack on Karachi¡¦s airport. It said it would redouble its efforts against armed extremists there and around the country following the Peshawar incident.

For a year, that narrative held strong. Pakistan¡¦s streets have become festooned with billboards praising the army chief, Gen. Raheel Sharif. Bumper stickers dedicated to Sharif and the army are on cars, walls and gates. And Washington embraced Sharif and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif (no relation), with the Obama administration suggesting Pakistan might now not just stabilize itself but also start helping to secure Afghanistan.

Wednesday¡¦s attack has the potential to change all that -- and therefore fuel even more instability in this nuclear-armed country of 200 million.

It¡¦s left Pakistanis even angrier with an establishment that has spoken one too many times of finally severing ties with violent fundamentalists.

¡§Our military/political leadership is either still looking for 'proof' [that certain actors are guilty], still dividing terrorists as good or bad, [and] refusing to admit that the real curse is the terrorist/extremist ideology that used religion and was cultivated by our own state,¡¨ wrote Taimur Bandey, a prominent educationist in Lahore, in a Facebook post Wednesday.

In the days that followed, news outlets refocused attention on two controversies about politicians and military officials¡¦ ties to extremists. One involved the government¡¦s reluctance to arrest a politically powerful cleric who justified 2014¡¦s school attack and supports the Islamic State group. The other concerns the army¡¦s relationship with the group held responsible for an attack on an Indian military base earlier this year.

The frustration isn¡¦t new. Here¡¦s what is: the growing sense that Pakistan might not be able to effectively resist the militants who have come to call it home.

The sense of futility is different than it's been in the past. The last 12 months have seen the military gain vast new powers, including its own system of military courts, and the government approving other ostensible anti-terror tactics, like the death penalty.

Now those already controversial moves look pointless. Outside analyses of them doesn¡¦t help. The re-imposition of the death penalty here has inspired international condemnation and claimed hundreds of lives, including that of a man sentenced as a 14-year-old after he confessed to kidnapping while in police custody. A January report by the International Commission of Jurists accused Pakistan's military court system of undermining citizens' rights, sentencing many to death on the basis of shadowy trials.

¡§Military trials in Pakistan are secret, opaque and make a mockery of Pakistan¡¦s domestic and international fair trial obligations,¡¨ Sam Zarifi, the group¡¦s Asia Director, said in a statement. ¡§Pakistan faces a genuine threat from militant group... but militarizing the judicial process will not lead to justice and it will not control terrorism. This is the lesson from around the world.¡¨

Many Pakistani press reports of Wednesday's terror attack included standard pro-military talking points -- for instance, talking about the army¡¦s ability to rapidly contain the situation once it had begun. At the same time, though, skepticism seems more public than it¡¦s been for months.

Bandey called the attack ¡§yet another lesson that by hanging terrorists, by bombing their training centers or by arresting them, the issue of terror or terrorism won't fade away.¡¨

¡§We sadly only know how to cut off the limb instead of tackling the disease or we simply don¡¦t even recognize/ diagnose the disease as a disease,¡¨ he wrote.

Wednesday was also worrying because it was a reminder that the Pakistani Taliban (a faction of which claimed responsibility for the attack), along with other extremists, are taking direct aim at one potential antidote to that "disease" of fundamentalism: secular politics.

The university attacked was named for Bacha Khan, an anti-colonial leader critical to the history of the Pashtun people of Pakistan's northwest. Decades before anti-Soviet mujahedeen recruiters or al Qaeda agents were signing up disaffected Pashtuns, Khan was speaking to them of a nonviolent resistance that drew on Islam and local customs, the noted Pakistani author Kamila Shamsie recalled Wednesday.

Khan's heirs today are to be found in the Awami National Party, a secular Pashtun-dominated organization. But ANP's clout is diminishing, due to its record of corruption and the deliberate targeting of party leaders by extremists. Like the Islamic State group trying to kill moderate Sunni leaders in Iraq to persuade all Sunnis to rally behind its black flag, armed Pakistani fundamentalists appear determined to convince Pashtuns and others here that siding with the militants is their best bet.

Bandey's remarks Wednesday suggest that he and others see little hope for improvement.

Pakistanis should not, he warned, be surprised by future attacks. Or even by their targets. An analysis by the widely read English-language DAWN newspaper found that educational institutions are being struck with growing frequency.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...a280b5e4b0d8cc1099fac5?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

What Everyday Iranians Have To Say About The Nuclear Deal Now That It’s A Reality

In August, these Iranians told us what they thought about the agreement. Now, they tell us what they think about its implementation.

01/22/2016 08:30 pm ET | Updated 1 day ago
Farah Mohamed
Managing Editor, The WorldPost


The WorldPost partnered with a D.C.-based nonprofit to ask locals in Iran what they think about the nuclear deal.



“The best resolution.” “A path to the progressive world.” “Nothing more than a piece of paper.”

These are just some of the ways Iranians inside Iran described the nuclear deal to the WorldPost in August, when we partnered with the Washington-based Iranian human rights organization Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation and used Facebook and the app Telegram to get -- and translate from Farsi -- reactions from inside the country.

Back then, the deal was simply an agreement announced by Iran and six world powers. There were supporters and there were detractors, all vocal about what such a “historic” moment meant for the global community. People brandished victory signs from car windows on the streets of Tehran, but others wondered if anything substantive would come from all those hours of carefully crafted diplomacy behind closed doors. The Iranians we communicated with then were divided, but many were cautiously optimistic. This was progress, some said, but it’s only the beginning of a much longer process.

This week, there was measurable headway: International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors ​verified Iran's compliance with the deal, ​the international community moved to lift sanctions​ and ​both sides released prisoners. These events and the ultimate implementation of the Iran nuclear deal prompted mixed reactions. Some politicians in both countries hailed it as a diplomatic victory, others slammed it for harming their domestic interests, and others said the advancement shouldn't overshadow the work still to be done. In light of these developments, The WorldPost reached out to the same Iranians for their reactions and to see how -- and if -- their views had changed. Here’s what they had to say.



Below is a selection of responses we received, organized by question.

How do you feel about the events that occurred over the weekend: the deal implementation, the prisoner swap, IAEA verifying Iran's compliance and the lifting of most sanctions? What was the reaction inside Iran?


My feelings about the deal have not changed. Really, I don’t feel anything new because the life that burned remains burned, whether there are sanctions or not. Of course, I am happy for the prisoners. People around me have not been following the issue much. Maybe they don’t believe it will affect their future. -- Javid, 30, Bandar Anzali, civil engineer


I feel very positive toward all that has happened. People are very happy in general, although some are pretty skeptical as always. -- Shirin, 22, Tehran, medical student


I personally think that there is a hopeful atmosphere toward material and spiritual progress in society, but the society did not react with joy as I had expected. It seems that as long as society does not see tangible signs such as lower inflation rate, increase in imports and communication with the world, it will view the negotiations as a purely political move. The exchange of prisoners was a source of hope and joy. -- Mahsa, 27, Esfahan, unemployed


The fact that pressure on Iran was lifted without insistence on the issue of continuous executions, amputations and human rights issues generally has led me to conclude that the interlocutors of the state are in no way interested in [the fate] of ordinary Iranians. I wasn’t happy about the released funds either because they would be spent for the regime’s goals rather than on the people. I was happy to see the prisoners released. At the same time I felt sad because four people were released and thousands are rotting in Iranian prisons. -- Sholeh, 52, Tehran, MA in theater


I don’t like to think of the release of prisoners in terms of 'exchange.' This would mean that human beings have been used as tools (or goods), a symbolic tool to show the reconciliation of the two countries; not a full reconciliation, but a relative peace based on an agreement! Human beings for human beings! … I think the world has a long way to go to get to real peace and reconciliation. Regardless, I am happy that they were released and I hope that relationship between the two countries continues to improve. --Amin, 23, Tehran, musician/student


To be honest, I personally took my distance from politics following the 2009 election, after which I lost interest in politics. I didn’t even vote in the last presidential election. But I don’t deny that the government has done well, in particular in foreign policy. The deal was a big step, and though initially I didn’t think it would ever reach the implementation phase, based on the events of the past few days, I am starting to believe that positive changes may become reality. I have a good feeling, in particular about the prisoner exchange, which improves Iran’s image in the world. At the time of the deal, people did show joy and satisfaction. Though, I have to say, we Iranians are easily influenced. -- Artemis, 31, Karaj, rehab center receptionist

How does your view of the deal now compare to your view in August? If it's changed, please explain why.


I was more optimistic when the agreement was signed, in particular when it came to my personal benefits. I thought the price of the dollar would drop and economic changes would follow quickly. … But with time, it became clear that the situation would not change quickly. With the drop in oil prices, we may even experience a worsening of the economic situation. As for the political situation, I don’t think there will be opening. -- Javid, 30, Bandar Anzali, civil engineer


Not really, I still think it takes a long time for our economy to improve, but it's going to happen eventually. -- Shirin, 22, Tehran, medical student


A few months ago, [I had more hope because] I wasn’t sure about whether Iran could actually satisfy the international community. But now it happened. So I have lost the little bit of hope I had that Western countries would help the Iranian people. -- Sholeh, 52, Tehran, MA in theater


Many people in Iran are happy, as I am, about the implementation of the deal. Many were congratulating each other. But there are many people who think that rejoicing makes no sense. The problems of our countries are too fundamental and deep to be solved by the implementation of the deal. They are sorrier for their lost time and are mourning for the hardship that Iran has had to endure during these years. -- Amin, 23, Tehran, musician/student


Yes, my views have changed. At the time of the signature of the deal, I didn’t have much hope in the fact that it would be implemented. I kept saying that this is all politics and meant to distract the people from the serious financial pressure that is burdening them. But I feel more positive now. -- Artemis, 31, Karaj, rehab center receptionist


No. The deal is a security net to help Iranian statesman stay [in power], not a means to improve people’s conditions. -- Shokufeh, 32, Tehran, animator


What are your hopes and fears? Have they changed?


To be honest, hope in Iran always loses its colors with time and becomes meaningless. If I think with optimism, I hope that at least the economic situation will improve with foreign investments. What I worry about is how the newly released Iranian funds will be spent … and will be dedicated to terrorism outside the country and persecutions inside. -- Javid, 30, Bandar Anzali, civil engineer


I still fear what the extremists both inside and outside of Iran are going to do next, but other than that I hope this settlement will help us to break this isolation from the rest of the world that my people have endured for so long. -- Shirin, 22, Tehran, medical student


My hopes and concerns have not changed since a few months ago. Implementing goals of such nature requires time and consistency in respecting principles and respecting commitments by both sides of the negotiations. Otherwise, the future will see the beliefs and society’s hope in positive changes destroyed. This is my real concern because Iranian citizens, in particular the youth, have little trust in politicians and what they do. It has been proven to them several times that political agreements have little impact on their daily life, employment and living conditions -- and even their efforts to gain freedom of thought and expression have been ignored. Therefore, the end of the negotiations must be the beginning of the negotiating parties’ commitments.-- Mahsa, 27, Esfahan, unemployed


My hope to see the people of Iran saved has weakened a lot. The support shown by Western countries to the Iranian regime has created fear among people, because if even the West has to accommodate an executioner regime, what can ordinary people do? -- Sholeh, 52, Tehran, MA in theater


I can say that I have more hopes than I had a few months ago, but I am not very hopeful. I think financial needs are Iranians' main concern right now. … Years of sanctions left us as much as 120 years behind. My next concern is to see the image of Iran change for the international community and change from a backward and violent country to represent what we really are. Let me reiterate that the deal is about nuclear energy and changes are economic. This deal will not turn us into an America. -- Artemis, 31, Karaj, rehab center receptionist


My concerns have increased because the economic situation is only worsening, the purchasing power is lower. My main concern as a young person is to leave Iran because even if things change, it will take years. My concern about the future relates to the savings that are never accumulated, entertainments that are either too expensive or for which we can’t find time and to the private space that is denied us in all aspects of our lives. -- Shokufeh, 32, Tehran, animator



What kind of impact has the deal had so far? What more do you think there is to do before a larger impact will be felt? How do you see the upcoming elections affecting this?


It's too soon to expect any major changes. The parliamentary elections have never been considered as important as presidential elections, so only the group of people that fully supported the system vote in them. I expect the same group of people to vote this year. Shirin, 22, Tehran, medical student


I think Iran’s presence within the community of nations as a country willing to have dialogue and negotiation in lieu of war can change the perception and the negative view of the international community vis-à-vis Iran. … Thanks to the deal, Iran can be seen in the world as a country that is civilized and favorable to peace. … The election of people who are close to reformists and not electing hardliners will have a positive impact on the implementation of the deal. -- Mahsa, 27, Esfahan, unemployed


Neither the nuclear deal nor the election will be a step toward freedom for the people. Neither will impact our interest. They will discreetly steal the nation’s wealth and, perhaps, there will be more embezzlement. The path that has been taken is fundamentally at odds with the people’s interests. -- Sholeh, 52, Tehran, MA in theater


The impact of the nuclear deal so far is that the world is faced with a new Iran, which differs from Iran 10 years ago. This new Iran is more into dialogue with other countries. … I think that each time the government takes measures that pleases people, the rate of participation in government-held elections increases. My guess is that with the latest developments, more reformers would be convinced to participate in elections compared to a few months ago. -- Amin, 23, Tehran, musician/student


So far the deal has had no impact, but with proper planning and in the long term, it could have an impact in different areas. The funds that have been released, for example, should be used in a right and fair way toward the economy and help the development and prosperity of the country. … With parliamentary elections we have had so far -- which have not been free or resulted in the election of deputies of a bunch of illiterate people who did not care about us -- there will be no change! But if we have a parliament that is on the side of the people, then, perhaps, it could make a difference. -- Artemis, 31, Karaj, rehab center receptionist


The deal so far has had no impact except creating false hope of seeing the situation improved for people. The Iranian people should think about change individually. There is no coordination among the people. When a problem arises, we only think of our personal interest. If we went on strike each time prices increased, our economic situation would not be what it is now. At the same time, we have a segment of the population, not an insignificant one, who always is ready for confrontation, to take over embassies and show hostility to the world -- and it is protected and it will be impossible to uproot it in our current circumstances. Perhaps some superficial changes are possible. In my opinion, Iran is like a family that is on the path of collapsing internally and which, to solve its problem and improve the situation, is reaching to the neighbors. This house is a ruin from its foundation. -- Shokufeh, 32, Tehran, animator



Roya Boroumand and Ramin Haghjoo contributed reporting.


Read more on the exchange here:

Iran Says U.S. Will Release These 7 Men In Exchange For 4 Americans

Here's Why We Held The Story On The U.S.-Iranian Prisoner Exchange

The U.S.-Iran Prisoner Swap Is Yet Another Victory for Diplomacy and Human Rights

Despite Iran Deal, U.S.-Iran Relations Still Very Much Up in the Air

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/nepal-constitution-minorities-reject-con-idUSKCN0V207Y

Sun Jan 24, 2016 2:59am EST

Nepal's crisis drags on as ethnic minorities reject charter amendment

KATHMANDU | By Gopal Sharma


Nepal's ethnic minorities have rejected a constitutional amendment, dashing hopes of an end to a political crisis that has also led to fuel shortages, and hampered deliveries of relief materials to survivors of last year's earthquakes.

More than 50 people have died since the ethnic Madhesis, backed by some other smaller ethnic groups, launched protests in the country's southern plains against the amendment to the constitution.

Protests at the border have prevented trucks from entering from neighbouring India since September, leading to fuel shortages and rationing in the landlocked country. Deliveries of relief supplies to communities hit by earthquakes in April and May last year have also been disrupted.

The people of the Himalayan nation had hoped that the charter, the country's first since the abolition of the monarchy in 2008, would bring bring peace and stability closer after years of conflict.

However, ethnic Madhesis, who have close familial, linguistic and cultural ties with Indians across the border, say it has failed to meet their aspirations for greater participation in government.

The 597-member parliament voted 461 in favour and seven against late on Saturday on a provision of "proportionate inclusion" of minority groups in all government institutions including the army and to carve out electoral constituencies on the basis of their population to increase their representation in parliament.

The rest of the lawmakers either did not vote or walked out.

“The government believes that the amendment will address the problems in the Tarai and hopes that the protests will end,” Law Minister Agni Prasad Kharel told the parliament before the vote referring to the lowlands bordering India in the south.

Madhesi lawmakers protested the plan and walked out of the parliament saying the changes had loopholes and were incomplete.

“It is a complete farce. It does not address our demands,” said Hridayesh Tripathi, a leader of Tarai Madhes Loktantrik Party, which is part of the Madhesi Front that is leading the protests.

The government says a political panel will be tasked to redraw internal boundaries of federal provinces within three months, another key demand of the Madhesis.

But the Madhesis are opposed to splitting their region into more than two provinces, as the government plan envisages, saying it will scupper their chances of controlling the provincial governments.

Many in Nepal blame India for quietly supporting the Madhesi protesters, a charge New Delhi denies.


(Reporting by Gopal Sharma; Editing by Sumeet Chatterjee and Simon Cameron-Moore)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20...ays-deal-china-north-korea-u-n-still-far-off/

Asia Pacific

U.S. says deal with China on North Korea at U.N. still far off

Jan 24, 2016
by Michelle Nichols
Reuters

ADDIS ABABA – The United States is not close to an agreement with China on new United Nations Security Council measures to impose on North Korea over its fourth nuclear test earlier this month, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power said.

North Korea said on Jan. 6 that it successfully tested a powerful nuclear bomb. Nuclear experts say North Korea likely gained data and practical know-how from the test. They reject North Korea’s assertion that it detonated a hydrogen bomb.

The 15-member U.N. Security Council said at the time it would begin working immediately on significant new measures in response to North Korea, a threat diplomats said could mean an expansion of sanctions.

Since then diplomats said Washington and Beijing have been primarily negotiating on a draft resolution in consultation with Britain, France, Japan, South Korea and Russia.

When asked on Saturday if the United States and China were nearing agreement, Power said: “No.” She did not elaborate.

Power was in Addis Ababa after a brief visit to Burundi with the U.N. Security Council.

North Korea has been under Security Council sanctions since it first tested an atomic device in 2006. After a nuclear test in 2013, the Security Council took about three weeks to agree a resolution that tightened financial restrictions and cracked down on Pyongyang’s attempts to ship and receive banned cargo.

Several U.N. diplomats said that veto-power Russia, not China, may prove to be a greater obstacle to expanding existing sanctions against North Korea. Moscow is itself under U.S. and European Union sanctions over its annexation of Crimea and support for pro-Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine.

A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said consultations continued with council members and interested parties “on a tough, comprehensive, and credible package of new sanctions on North Korea for this latest provocation.”

“We’re moving as quickly as possible,” the official said last week.

A senior U.N. diplomat said some council members wanted a resolution “that really does mark a shift in the way that we respond to what happened.” He said the aim was “to show that we have recognized that North Korea has upped the ante and that the council is intent on denuclearization in North Korea.”

The diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, described the work by the United States as “careful, thorough and deliberate way.”

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://news.yahoo.com/syria-army-seizes-key-rebel-held-town-latakia-085537098.html

Syria army seizes key rebel-held town in Latakia: state TV

AFP
17 minutes ago

Beirut (AFP) - Syrian regime forces on Sunday overran the last major rebel-held town in the coastal Latakia province, a stronghold of President Bashar al-Assad, state television reported.

Citing a military source, state television said Syria's "armed forces, in coordination with the popular defence (militia), seized control of the town of Rabia."

The town had been held by the opposition since 2012 and was controlled by a range of rebel groups including some made up of Syrian Turkmen, as well as Al-Qaeda affiliate Al-Nusra Front.

According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, Rabia fell on Sunday after a steady regime advance that left the town surrounded.

"In the past 48 hours, regime forces surrounded the town from three sides -- the south, west, and north -- by capturing 20 villages," Observatory head Rami Abdel Rahman told AFP.

Abdel Rahman said senior Russian military officials were overseeing the battle for Rabia, and that Russian air strikes "played an essential role" in the fight.

With the capture of Rabia, government troops are closing in on rebel supply routes through the Turkish border to the north, he added.

Rabia's fall comes after government troops seized the strategic town of Salma on January 12, following months of operations to capture it from rebels who had held it since 2012.

View Comments (0)


Related Stories

Syria army 'seizes' key rebel stronghold in Latakia AFP
With Russian help, Syrian army pushes into rebel bastion Associated Press
Syrian government thanks Russia for help capturing key town Associated Press
Evacuation talks under way for besieged Syria town AFP
Fierce clashes as regime battles IS in Aleppo: monitor AFP

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.economist.com/news/middl...hate-syria-and-sinaiand-possibly-home-islamic

Israel and Islamic State

The caliphate eyes the Holy Land

Israel faces the jihadists in Syria, in Sinai and perhaps even at home

Jan 23rd 2016 | GOLAN HEIGHTS | From the print edition
Comments 323

http://cdn.static-economist.com/sit...s/2016/01/articles/body/20160123_MAM923_0.png

FROM the military observation points overlooking the spot where Israel’s frontiers meet those of Syria and Jordan, Israelis can clearly see the positions of Liwa Shuhada al-Yarmouk—the Yarmouk Martyrs’ Brigade. It is only one of many dozens of Syrian rebel groups, yet Israeli officers half-jokingly describe the fighters, mainly Syrians from nearby villages, as “Daesh lite”. The brigade, which may have between 600 and 1,000 men, has sworn allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the “Caliph” of Islamic State (IS), also known by its Arabic acronym, Daesh. The black flag of IS forms part of its logo.

So far, at least, the group has concentrated on skirmishing with the Syrian army and with rival rebel groups, and on securing its strongholds on the slopes of the Golan. But the Israelis are worried that, as IS is pushed back in other parts of Syria and Iraq, its leaders may decide to take over the Yarmouk Martyrs’ Brigade and use its bases for attacks on Israel or Jordan.

IS has yet to attack Israel. Its main forces in southern Syria are about 80km (50 miles) from Israel’s borders. Last month, IS put out a recording, purporting to be the voice of Mr Baghdadi, saying that “with the help of Allah we are getting closer to you every day. The Israelis will soon see us in Palestine.” On January 18th Lieutenant-General Gadi Eizenkot, the chief of staff of Israel’s armed forces, warned that “the success against IS raises the probability we will see them turning their gun-barrels towards us and also the Jordanians”.

The most direct and likely avenue of attack is across Israel’s frontier with Syria. That is because the situation there is already chaotic; IS bases and civilian villages are close to Israel; and the terrain is mountainous. “A vacuum where no one is in control will always be the most dangerous location we should be looking at,” says a senior Israeli officer. Israel has toughened its border defences on the Golan, with new fences and sensors. It now stations regular forces there instead of reservists.

But IS may also choose other places from which to attack. Wilayat Sinai, which means the “Sinai province” of IS, has been operating on Israel’s western border for five years. It declared allegiance to IS in late 2014 and claimed responsibility for blowing up a Russian airliner last October, killing 224 people. But it is embroiled in a bloody insurgency against Egypt’s security forces. Israel, which is discreetly providing the Egyptians with intelligence and military help, says that IS shares routes for smuggling arms and other supplies with Hamas, the Islamist group that controls Gaza. These could be used for launching future attacks on Israel.

The Israelis are also worried that radical Palestinians who are citizens of Israel may be working for IS. So far they reckon that about 50 of them have gone to Syria to join IS. “There are more Swedes than Israelis fighting with Daesh,” says an Israeli intelligence man. Others say they are confident that Israel’s security service is better than its European counterparts at monitoring IS activity in its own territory. Even so, they fret that IS could become popular among young Palestinians in Israel, and in the West Bank and Gaza, where many are disillusioned both with the Palestinian Authority and with Hamas, its rival.

“IS is here and it’s no secret,” says Reuven Rivlin, Israel’s president. “I’m not talking about the borders of Israel, but about IS within. Research, arrests, witnesses, open and classified analysis all indicate clearly that IS’s popularity is growing and that even Israeli Arabs are actually joining up with it.” Vigilance along Israel’s borders may not be enough.

From the print edition: Middle East and Africa




..

 

[Housecarl]

Get Ready, America: Are China and Japan Destined for War?
Started by China Connectioný, Today 04:26 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...-America-Are-China-and-Japan-Destined-for-War


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.maritimeprofessional.com/news/japan-warns-against-chinas-maritime-283853

Japan Warns against China's Maritime Activities

By Aiswarya Lakshmi
January 23, 2016

Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida warned against China's increasing maritime activities, such as artificial land construction in the South China Sea, reports Nikkei.

Referring to tensions over China's growing assertiveness in the South China Sea, Fumio said that Japan will step up efforts to ensure the rule of law for "open and stable seas." He pledged to work for a further improvement of ties with Beijing.

"A number of countries have expressed grave concerns about unilateral actions that change the status quo and escalate tensions," Kishida said in a foreign policy address.

"Any unilateral attempts, such as land reclamation, to create an accomplished fact cannot be accepted," Kishida said.

Japan will resolutely and calmly respond to China's unilateral resource development in the East China Sea and territorial intrusions near Senkaku Islands in Okinawa Prefecture, southern Japan, Kishida said. China claims the Japanese-administered islands, which it calls Diaoyu.

The relationship between Japan and China faces serious and new difficulties. In particular, the recent unilateral attempts by China to change the status quo in the South China Sea and the East China Sea have become an issue of concern for the region and the international community.

While it is natural to protect sovereignty and territorial integrity, the respect for and maintenance of international order based on the universally recognized principles, such as open seas and the rule of law, is a basic principle of diplomacy for Japan as a trade-oriented nation.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://freebeacon.com/national-secu...ving-rapidly-to-deploy-new-hypersonic-glider/

Stratcom: China Moving Rapidly to Deploy New Hypersonic Glider

Beijing also tested anti-satellite missile in October

BY: Bill Gertz
January 22, 2016 6:05 pm


China conducted six successful tests of a new high-speed hypersonic glide vehicle, the most recent in November, and also recently tested an anti-satellite missile, the commander of the U.S. Strategic Command said Friday.

Adm. Cecil D. Haney, the commander in charge of nuclear forces, said the tests are part of a worrying military buildup by China, which also includes China’s aggressive activities in the South China Sea.

“China continues to make significant military investments in their nuclear and conventional capabilities, with their stated goal being that of defending Chinese sovereignty,” Haney said during a speech to the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“It recently conducted its sixth successful test of a hypersonic glide vehicle, and as we saw in September last year, is parading missiles clearly displaying their modernization and capability advancements,” he added.

The six tests of the hypersonic glide vehicle, regarded by U.S. intelligence agencies as a nuclear delivery system designed to defeat missile defenses, were first reported by the Washington Free Beacon.

Defense officials said the hypersonic glide vehicle tested on Nov. 23, known as DF-ZF, was launched atop a ballistic missile fired from China’s Wuzhai missile test center in central China.

The glider separated from the booster and flew at extremely high speed—between Mach 5 and Mach 10—along the edge of space.

Haney confirmed all six tests were successful, indicating the weapon program is proceeding.

Prior to the November test, the DF-ZF was flight tested Aug. 19.

The earlier tests were carried out on June 7, and on Jan. 9, 2014; Aug. 7, 2014; and Dec. 2, 2014.

Haney described the hypersonic threat as a challenge to U.S. strategic deterrence.

The congressional U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission stated in its latest annual report that the hypersonic glide vehicle program is “progressing rapidly” and the weapon could be deployed by 2020.

China also is building a powered version of the high-speed vehicle that could be fielded by 2025.

“The very high speeds of these weapons, combined with their maneuverability and ability to travel at lower, radar-evading altitudes, would make them far less vulnerable than existing missiles to current missile defenses,” the commission stated.

In a second speech to another think tank on Friday, Haney also confirmed that China recently conducted a test of an anti-satellite missile.

Defense officials said the Dong Neng-3 exoatmospheric strike vehicle was flight-tested Oct. 30 from China’s Korla Missile Test Complex in western China. The test was also first reported by the Free Beacon, and officials said the missile threatens U.S. satellites.

Chinese Internet posts of pictures from the area showed what appeared to be contrails from the missile test.

A Chinese military official later confirmed the anti-satellite test in a state-run press report.

Zhou Derong, a professor at the People’s Liberation Army Logistics Academy, described the development of anti-satellite weapons as part of China’s national defense.

“It is perfectly legitimate for China to carry out normal missile launch tests,” Zhou was quoted as saying. “Besides, even if China were developing anti-satellite weapons, these would be no more than self-defense measures taken to protect its own space resources.”

The official criticized the United States for what he said were efforts to oppose and exaggerate anti-satellite tests.

The DN-3 is the third known anti-satellite missile operational or under development by China. Earlier tests involved anti-satellite missiles known as the DN-1 and DN-2. The DN-1 has also been labeled the SC-19.

Rick Fisher, a China military analyst at the International Assessment and Strategy Center, said Adm. Haney has advanced details of China’s nuclear and strategic developments.

“Adm. Haney is the first U.S. official to call attention to China’s pursuit of prompt global strike capabilities, or non nuclear missile strike systems,” Fisher said. “The United States has been talking about Prompt Global Strike for nearly 20 years but has not built any such system.”

Also, China’s lack of transparency on nuclear forces is undermining Beijing’s often-stated policy of not being the first to use nuclear arms in a conflict.

“China’s development of two and possibly up to two more MIRV-equipped intercontinental missiles could indicate China seeks a nuclear first strike capability,” he said.

China also appears to be seeking to “sprint to parity” with the United States in warhead numbers along with growing space warfare capabilities poses “a much greater danger to U.S. strategic forces,” Fisher said, and should prompt a build up of U.S. nuclear forces.

Haney said another concern of Strategic Command is China’s re-engineering of its long-range missile to carry multiple nuclear warheads.

U.S. intelligence agencies detected the test of a new DF-41 intercontinental ballistic missile on Dec. 4 with two independently targetable reentry vehicles, or MIRVs.

By contrast, the United States has removed all multiple warheads from its land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles

Haney, in the CSIS speech, said the current strategic environment is “more complex, dynamic, and volatile, perhaps more so than any time in our history.”

“The dangers posed by this unpredictable security environment are compounded by the continuing propagation of asymmetric capabilities and methods, the unprecedented proliferation of advanced capacities and technologies, and the increasingly provocative and destabilizing behavior on the part of both current and potential adversaries,” he said.

The threats include terrorists in the Middle East, and activities by nation states including Russia, China, and North Korea.

Russia is continuing to modernize both its conventional and strategic forces and is stressing new strategic approaches and destabilizing activities in Syria and Ukraine, while developing space weapons and conducting cyber attacks, Haney said.

North Korea continues to threaten the Korean Peninsula and the Northeast Asia region with strategic advancements, including claims of “miniaturized” nuclear warheads and recent claims of a successful hydrogen bomb test, the four-star admiral said.

Pyongyang also is developing road-mobile and submarine-launched ballistic missile technologies, he added.

To meet the challenges, Haney said U.S. nuclear forces need to be modernized with new missiles, submarines, and bombers.

“Without timely investment, we risk degrading the deterring and the stabilizing effect of a strong and credible nuclear deterrent force,” he said.

Haney also warned about the growing threat of space warfare capabilities.

“We need to get our heads around the fact that a future conflict may bleed into space,” Haney said.

“Simply put, the threats are real and are evolving faster than we probably ever imagined. Irresponsible acts in space can have damaging consequences for all space-faring and space-dependent nations.”

Space attacks pose “a multifaceted space challenge, and potentially threatens national sovereignty and survival,” Haney said.

To counter space threats, the Pentagon is working to counter space attacks on satellites with new capabilities, more secure satellites, and smaller, more easily replaceable satellites.

Both Russia and China are working on space weapons, including lasers and other directed energy weapons that can blind satellites.

The debris resulting from China’s destruction of a weather satellite with a missile in 2007 is still posing problems for satellites and manned spacecraft.

North Korea also appears to be building satellites for space weapons.

“We must be able to maintain situational awareness of it all, act where necessary, and as stated in the 2010 Space Policy, preserve the space environment,” Haney said.

The Pentagon is spending more than $5.5 billion to prepare space systems for a future conflict, Haney said.

“We must have assured access to space such that we can function through a multi-layered approach, through all phases of conflict,” he said.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ale-nuclear-progress-as-hollande-visits-india

France Signals Rafale, Nuclear Progress as Hollande Visits India

by Helene Fouquet
t HeleneFouquet
January 24, 2016 — 4:28 AM PST

France signaled a state-to-state accord with India could be signed on Monday over a deal for 36 Dassault Aviation SA Rafale fighter jets, and that a six-year-old plan to build nuclear reactors in the South Asian nation would see some progress.

President Francois Hollande said he was "rather optimistic" an agreement over the warplanes would be signed tomorrow as he began a three-day visit to India on Sunday in Chandigarh, a northern city designed by French architect Le Corbusier.

“We aim for an accord between our governments,” Hollande told reporters. “We’re at a new step here, and it goes in the right direction."

Modi asked for 36 Rafale planes during a trip to France last April, scaling down an original order for 126 jets that had been in the works for years. Hollande said the two sides are still discussing key issues such as the price for the warplanes. French Energy Minister Segolene Royal, accompanying Hollande, said an accord signed by Arevain 2009 to build six 1,650-megawatt reactors would make a small move ahead.

More Warplanes

France and India have agreed on an option for the latter to buy an additional 18 warplanes at a future date, a senior Indian defense official said last week, asking not to be identified because the information wasn’t public yet. The nations have also resolved what equipment, systems and weapons would go into the jet, the official had said.

The reactors are planned for Jaitapur, a coastal town in India’s western province of Maharashtra. Areva was seeking further clarity from India on its nuclear liability law before moving ahead with what would be India’s biggest nuclear plant.

The agreement India and the U.S signed recently over insurance-related issues for nuclear plants will help in overcoming certain hurdles, Royal said.

India last year pledged to create a 15 billion rupee ($222 million) insurance pool to shield nuclear plant operators, as well as equipment suppliers, against damages during an accident. Some have argued the pool may not be sufficient.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/01/22/what-can-200-u-s-commandos-actually-accomplish-in-iraq/

Report

What Can 200 U.S. Commandos Actually Accomplish in Iraq?

Much less than the White House wants.

By Paul McLeary, Dan De Luce
January 22, 2016
paul.mcleary@paulmcleary
Comments 3

A deadly U.S. special operations raid on a top Islamic State commander last May that swept up a trove of intelligence has become the gold standard for how the Obama administration envisions the secretive war against the militants. But the White House may be overburdening the limited number of American commandos on the ground with unrealistic expectations of turning the tide in Iraq and Syria.

Fewer than 200 U.S. special operations forces make up the Pentagon’s much-touted “expeditionary targeting force” that recently arrived in Iraq to take the fight to the militants, but only a few dozen will take part in raids, according to U.S. officials. An even smaller team — about 50 special operators — has deployed to Syria.

The Pentagon rarely discusses the secretive missions of U.S. commandos that the Obama administration calls a crucial part of its bid to “intensify” the war against the Islamic State. Yet in announcing their deployment to Congress, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said the elite American troops will “conduct raids, free hostages, gather intelligence, and capture” Islamic State leaders in both Iraq and Syria.

Their deployment “puts everyone on notice in Syria: You don’t know at night who’s going to be coming in through the window,” Carter said Dec. 1.

The plan

During the night-shrouded raid in eastern Syria last May, U.S. Delta Force troops killed Islamic State financial guru Abu Sayyaf and as many as 11 of his henchmen after a short firefight. They also captured his wife, Umm Sayyaf, and loaded computer hard drives and stacks of financial documents from his compound into their Black Hawk helicopters before flying back across the border to Iraq.

Over the following days, the records revealed critical details of the Islamic State’s oil infrastructure in Syria. But the real prize was Umm Sayyaf, who could provide much-needed context to the files and a living, breathing source on how the terrorist group funds its operations. Within months, acting on that information, airstrikes began targeting Islamic State oil operations across eastern Syria, depriving the militants of millions of dollars worth of revenue.

But the aftermath of the raid that nabbed Umm Sayyaf also pointed to one potential Achilles heel in Washington’s plan: the need for detention facilities. The U.S. military shuttered all of its American-run prisons in Iraq before it left at the end of 2011, and without a place to continue holding Umm Sayyaf, U.S. officials were forced to turn her over to Kurdish authorities last August.

There are no plans for American forces to reopen detention centers in Iraq, a U.S. defense official told Foreign Policy. “Interrogation details are still being worked out, but generally we’ll only observe and the Iraqis will share” information, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

That means the new U.S. counterterrorism mission in Iraq will likely miss out on collecting critical pieces of information from detainees who might be more willing to talk after weeks or months behind bars.

“If you capture high-level people, what do you do with them, and all of the information that comes from them?” said Aki Peritz, a former CIA counterterrorism analyst and co-author of Find, Fix, Finish: Inside the Counterterrorism Campaigns That Killed Bin Laden and Devastated Al-Qaeda.

“If we can create an intelligence-driven mission, that’s great,” Peritz said. “But we can’t detain anybody, and that’s the No. 1 source of information.”

Reliable information has become harder to come by with fewer U.S. forces on the ground. In Afghanistan, where the Obama administration is also leaning heavily on a small number of special forces, a tragic Oct. 3 operation in Kunduz underlined the risks of operating with incomplete intelligence.

That night, a team of U.S. Green Berets, who had spent long days fighting alongside Afghan special forces, called in an airstrike on a nearby building where Taliban extremists were believed to be hiding. But a lack of constant information sent to the AC-130 gunship overhead resulted in the air crew identifying the wrong building.

The blistering hourlong attack instead targeted a charity hospital, killing 42 medical staff and patients, and leading to accusations of war crimes. U.S. military officials are currently weighing punishments for several of the soldiers involved.

The relatively small military footprint in Iraq and Syria, down from a high of nearly 170,000 U.S. troops in Iraq during the height of the surge in 2007, has put firepower at a premium. But experts said equally as important — if not more so — are surveillance drones and intelligence gathered on the ground.

“You turn that on, and it makes a huge difference,” said retired Col. Stu Bradin, a former U.S. Army Special Forces officer who helped establish the NATO Special Operations Forces Coordination Center in Afghanistan and served as director of a fusion cell there.

He said round-the-clock surveillance from the air and ground intelligence help military planners seamlessly juggle raids and other operations, while building a picture of the network of insurgents like what senior U.S. commanders painstakingly created in Iraq and Afghanistan at the height of those wars.

“Just the size of the intelligence side of the house alone is massive,” Bradin said. “You can only do some of it from a distance — you really have to have intelligence staff co-located with the operators [on the ground].”

He said it took at least three or four intelligence analysts and support staff to run a special forces operation for every one soldier on the ground.

McChrystal’s way

As head of the Joint Special Operations Command, now-retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal transformed the way American commandos wage war. McChrystal oversaw the missions that tracked down al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and, most famously, Saddam Hussein.

During the height of the U.S. war in Iraq, McChrystal and Gen. David Petraeus created so-called fusion centers where intelligence analysts and special operations forces together pored over information to help plot the next mission.

The analysts were “critical to fusing the various pieces of intelligence as the operators picked them off the battlefield,” said Linda Robinson, an analyst at the Rand Corp., who has written several books about special forces. “They would go out and do the raid, and they would — this is very important — capture versus kill the individuals on the target and then be able to gain human intelligence from them.”

McChrystal’s collaborative approach remains a model for the ongoing missions in Iraq and Syria, several U.S. officials told FP. But now, officials noted, the effort is dramatically smaller, with dozens of commandos instead of thousands in the battle zone. And this time, U.S. commandos will be operating jointly in partnership with Kurdish and Iraqi counterparts.

President Barack Obama, who when elected pledged to end wars not start them, had long resisted sending special operations forces to Iraq or Syria. And until recently, the Obama administration relied on air power and the training of local troops for full-fledged combat against the Islamic State.

But as the U.S. military campaign came under mounting criticism, Obama reversed course — opting for a tactic honed during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. At the Pentagon last month, Obama lauded the role of special forces in warning that Islamic State leaders “cannot hide.”

“Our next message to them is simple: You are next,” Obama said.

This month, Carter suggested more commandos may soon be headed for Iraq and Pentagon officials are pushing European allies to deploy their own commandos. “The more we use it, the more we’ll learn about additional uses for it,” Carter said of the new contingent of special operations troops. “The more we do, the more we learn what more we can do.”

But with only a handful of U.S. ground troops, and lacking consistent, reliable local partners, it’s unclear whether American special operations forces can seriously damage the Islamic State.

It will fall to Kurdish and Iraqi fighters to act on intelligence gathered by the United States. Yet U.S. officials are only cautiously optimistic about the Kurds’ ability and privately admit the Iraqi Army remains plagued by leadership and morale problems.

It’s also uncertain whether local troops will be capable of coming to the aid of American special forces who may find themselves pinned down in a fight. That was less of a concern in the past, when commanders could rely on nearby rescue units to justify taking more risks, analysts said.

Just how many operations American commandos have conducted in recent months, or exactly what they’re doing across Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria, is unknown. Only four missions over the past year have received any public scrutiny: the Abu Sayyaf raid, Kunduz, and two more that resulted in the deaths of Americans.

Last October, Delta Force Master Sgt. Joshua Wheeler was killed in a raid on an Islamic State prison near Hawijah, Iraq. And earlier this month, on Jan. 5, a firefight in Afghanistan’s Helmand province killed Staff Sgt. Matthew McClintock, wounded two other Green Berets, and disabled an American helicopter. Early attempts to bolster U.S. troops in the Helmand firefight failed after one helicopter broke a rotor blade on landing, and another was chased away by Taliban fire. It wasn’t until hours later, after dark, that a rescue mission finally made it to the team.

That operation highlighted the dangers and difficulties special operations forces now face as they stage raids with an imperfect intelligence picture, limited air power, and a small military footprint.

Recent reports say a small contingent of American special operators has set up operations at the Rmeilan Air Base in the Syrian Kurdish region near the country’s borders with Iraq and Turkey, but U.S. officials have declined to comment. “Because of the special nature of these forces, it’s very important that we not discuss specifically where they’re located,” Col. Steve Warren, the U.S. military’s spokesman in Baghdad, told reporters. “It puts those forces at increased risk.”

Five or 10 years ago, with tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Afghanistan or Iraq, commando units were operating at full throttle.

An estimated 12 special operations raids happened across Afghanistan on the same night SEAL Team 6 killed Osama bin Laden in May 2011. And the successful manhunt that took out Zarqawi in June 2006 came only after the United States “went after dozens of guys first to get to him,” said Peritz.

And even in an unrelenting war of that magnitude, during which a steady march of militant leaders were killed or captured, the United States still fell short of fully defeating al Qaeda in Iraq, which has since morphed into the Islamic State.

“A purely counterterrorism operation is not effective — unless you have the intel piece to back it up,” Peritz said.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.military.com/daily-news/...f-engagement-against-isis-in-afghanistan.html

Pentagon Loosens Rules of Engagement Against ISIS in Afghanistan

64 comments
Fox News | Jan 22, 2016 | by Lucas Tomlinson


The Obama administration has loosened the rules of engagement for U.S. forces striking the Islamic State and affiliated groups in Afghanistan, allowing them to target militants just for being associated with the terror network, a senior defense official confirmed to Fox News.

The new authorization now puts ISIS in the same category as al-Qaida in Afghanistan.

Previously, the militants could be targeted only if they showed what's known as hostile intent.

"Now," a U.S. official told Fox News, "we can kill ISIS in Afghanistan just for wearing the T-shirt or waving their flag."

The Wall Street Journal first reported the change.

The development comes after the State Department designated the affiliate "ISIL-K," or Khorasan, as a foreign terrorist organization earlier this month.

Despite the new authorization allowing the military to more easily target ISIS supporters, the U.S. has been going after the militants in Afghanistan for months.

The U.S. military has conducted dozens of drone operations against ISIS affiliates in eastern Afghanistan beginning this summer in order to protect Afghan, U.S. and foreign forces.

-- Lucas Tomlinson is the Pentagon and State Department producer for Fox News Channel.

Related Video:

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ryan-rappa/saudi-arabia-facing-unpre_b_9064982.html?

Saudi Arabia: Facing Unprecedented Choices for Survival

01/24/2016 07:22 pm ET | Updated 1 hour ago
Ryan Rappa
Data Specialist, NYU Center on International Cooperation

Oil prices are plummeting -- and Saudi Arabia could devolve into chaos as a result. Since summer 2014, crude oil has fallen from over $100 a barrel to under $30, with global supply continuing to outstrip demand. The consequences for oil producers are of unprecedented significance.

While cheap oil is not a bad thing per se, it can trigger substantial economic disruptions. The United States is suffering job losses in the oil sector that ultimately outweigh the benefits of cheap energy, and a few oil exporters like Venezuela are visibly melting down.

Less visible, but more concerning, is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. There's a lot to suggest that oil will stay close to $30 a barrel for a long time (more on this below), and Saudi Arabia simply cannot weather this storm -- at least not without making major social and economic changes.

Cracks in the Armor

Saudi Arabia betrayed its fragility earlier this month when Deputy Crown Prince Mohammad publicly endorsed selling shares in Saudi Aramco (the Saudi national oil company), which controls over 15 percent of the world's proven oil reserves. The idea is still under review, but even considering it out loud is a first for the Saudi royal family and a clear red flag. Selling equity in Aramco is a stopgap arrangement that only makes sense in anticipation of a prolonged oil slump and fiscal shortfall -- a band-aid on a hemorrhage that really requires a tourniquet.

To put this news in context, the Saudi government is in the habit of spending about $260 billion per year providing the social benefits that keep its society stable. This requires oil selling at upwards of $96 a barrel. With oil tumbling, 2015 revenues came in almost $100 billion short at $162 billion. The gap is likely to be just as wide in 2016.

Put another way, an estimated 1.5 million Saudis work in the private sector. As for the other 19.2 million Saudi citizens, they depend on one form or another of government largesse. Moreover, most are under 30 years old, and youth unemployment (ages 16 to 29) stands at 29 percent. This kind of unemployment was a catalyst of the political upheavals of the Arab Spring, and similar forces could easily be unleashed in Saudi Arabia by disaffected youth if government can no longer afford sweeping support programs.

Adding to these vulnerabilities is the historically antagonized and marginalized Shia minority that makes up 15 percent of the population -- with most living where the oil wells are. Given their proximity, any Shia unrest could quickly destabilize the entire country. It's like the money tree is surrounded by dynamite, and Saudi leadership is playing with fire near the fuse.

Oil Prices

One salve could be for oil prices to rise dramatically. But this is highly unlikely, as the House of Saud is well aware.

Consider the supply and demand dynamics: On the supply side, there is no significant shortage in sight. The major shale oil producers in the United States will keep pumping at $55 a barrel and falling -- they're now profitable at these levels due to much improved exploration and extraction technology. In the short term, supply will fall somewhat as $30 oil slows down some producers and shutters others. Longer term, if oil hits the $55 range, the spigots will open and oil will likely stabilize around that price level. With sanctions lifted, Iran's oil will also add to global supply as it rejoins the world economy.

On the demand side, oil is in secular decline. The world is gradually turning toward sustainable, cleaner sources of energy. This is admittedly a long-term proposition, but the interim isn't promising either. The economies that drive demand for oil - the US, Europe, and particularly China - are palpably slowing down. And any farsighted or coordinated economic policy aimed at bolstering demand remains unlikely.

Can Saudi Arabia Save Itself?

So far, Saudi Arabia is making ends meet by cutting fuel subsidies, introducing sales taxes, issuing sovereign debt, and dipping into its cash reserves. It may also begin selling down its vast holdings of US Treasurys, which would have negative implications for the US and global economy. In 2015, Saudi cash fell from $732 to $623 billion, on top of which it issued $26.5 billion in debt. This week it's planning to borrow another $5.3 billion in its first bond issuance of 2016.

This trajectory is simply unsustainable. Spending cuts and tax increases can only go so far before Saudi Arabia begins to destabilize. The current pace of borrowing and spending is only viable over the short term. The Saudi government could decide to devalue its currency, but that would be another temporary fix, fraught with serious downside.

What Saudi Arabia needs to do, in earnest, is take steps to diversify away from oil dependence. There are ample opportunities here -- in tourism, alternative energy, education, the arts, entertainment, entrepreneurship... And there's no better time than now, with $600 billion in cash still on hand to invest in other sectors.

Al-Mansour's "Wadjda"

One of the principal challenges is liberalizing the status of women, less than 15 percent of whom are employed. It's essential that they become more involved in the economic and political life of the country. The UAE and Qatar have done this, much to their benefit, and could serve as models.

Thinking of the substantial gains Saudi Arabia stands to achieve from greater inclusiveness, the film Wadjda comes to mind. It tells the story of an 11-year old girl from Riyadh, and her mother, who find outlets for self-expression despite several social impediments. I was fortunate to see this masterpiece -- written and directed by Haifaa al-Mansour, the first female Saudi filmmaker -- at the 2013 Abu Dhabi Film Festival. Saudi Arabia must recognize the value of creativity and enterprise like this, and move the society toward cultivating the full potential of every citizen.

In some significant respects, Saudi Arabia is already evolving in this direction. Progress so far is unsteady, and there are reasons to be skeptical about the Kingdom's agility or capacity for change. But faced with an existential crisis, transformations may well take place with surprising alacrity.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2016/01/the-north-korean-hydrogen-bomb-test-and-the-us-japan-alliance/

The North Korean Nuclear Test and the US-Japan Alliance

Time to reassess whether American extended deterrence in East Asia is still strong.

By Admiral Dennis Blair and General Masayuki Hironaka
January 24, 2016

25 Shares
4 Comments

Just what kind of a weapon detonated in North Korea on January 6? Scientists and intelligence specialists are working hard to find the answer. It will be important to understand in detail the ability of North Korean scientists to build a two-stage thermonuclear bomb, but we do not have to wait to work out some of the policy implications of the event for the U.S.-Japan alliance, the U.S.-South Korea alliance, and the trilateral relationship.

Immediate commentary predictably chewed over the old argument of whether the United States could have prevented North Korean nuclear weapons development, by its own actions or by persuading China to do so. While it is possible to recommend alternative diplomatic strategies or stronger military postures, no experienced observer has put forward a comprehensive approach that stands any better chance of success in slowing the program than those that have been attempted in the past.

The development of an effective thermonuclear bomb will not change the fundamental military and geopolitical balance on the Korean Peninsula. It would be suicidal for the Kim regime to initiate either a major conventional attack across the DMZ or to use any kind of weapon of mass destruction against the Republic of Korea, Japan or the United States. It is important for the United States to make an authoritative statement that emphasizes the military realities: 1) a major conventional attack would be defeated by combined forces of the Republic of Korea and the United States and 2) a WMD attack would be met with a devastating retaliatory nuclear strike by the United States. Both alternatives would result in the end of the Kim regime.

Regardless, North Korea’s growing nuclear capability does impact the region. Imagine the political-military effect during the final stage of a major conventional war on the Peninsula. With its conventional forces shattered, and the combined forces of the Republic of Korea and the United States and other units of the UN command converging on Pyongyang, Kim Jong-un would have little to lose by threatening and then detonating a nuclear weapon. Those around the leader would have a great deal to lose and would attempt to restrain, depose or betray him. North Korea’s nuclear weapons make ending a war on the Korean Peninsula more dangerous and difficult.

A second effect of North Korea’s nuclear arsenal is pressure on American extended deterrence on behalf of the Republic of Korea and Japan. With large U.S. forces based in East Asia, as well as tens of thousands of U.S. citizens there, any nuclear attack on the Republic of Korea and Japan would kill Americans, invoking immediate American retaliation. The United States, Japan and Korea must reassess whether American extended deterrence in East Asia is still strong, or whether additional measures are needed. Consider our position in Europe, where the nuclear threat from the Soviet Union was much greater, and the nuclear doctrine in Russia was more threatening, this reassurance structure was judged not to be enough. In Europe, NATO maintains both American nuclear warheads and alliance tactical nuclear forces for reassurance while the United States has withdrawn all its nuclear weapons from Korea. The United States, Japan and Korea must reassess whether American extended deterrence in East Asia is still strong, or whether additional measures are needed.

Economic sanctions have been cited in both official pronouncements and press commentaries. However, without key regional partners cooperating in a new sanctions regime, the result would be a damp squib. China continues to believe that increasing economic pressure on North Korea will be neither effective or in its own interest. However, it is in line with China’s policy and its interests to crack down on exports of military technology from North Korea, and on future imports of military or dual-use technology. The United States and Japan expect China, as a “responsible stakeholder” in the region, to work towards regional stability, not thwart it. North Korea’s actions provide an opportunity for strong international cooperation on this issue. In addition, unilateral American actions against North Korean financial transactions have been effective in the past, and trilateral – U.S., Japanese and Korean – financial sanctions would be even more damaging. Both these measures – tighter enforcement of existing sanctions and additional financial sanctions – hurt the Kim clan without affecting ordinary Koreans.

While participating in a series of policies for dealing with North Korea, Japan also must try to recover its citizens who have been abducted by the Kim regime. This humanitarian issue should be handled separately from sanctions and other international forms of pressure on the nuclear issue.

The United States, Korea and Japan should take coordinated action that includes increasing financial sanctions on North Korea and reassessing the extended deterrence strategy to address its latest provocative action. Even if the North Korean nuclear program is not reversed, the penalties for pursuing it must be increased.

Admiral Dennis Blair is Chairman and CEO of Sasakawa USA, former Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Command, and a former U.S. Director of National Intelligence. Lt. Gen. Masayuki Hironaka (Ret.) is a Fellow for the Security and Foreign Affairs Program at Sasakawa USA and a former Commander of the Air Training Command of the Japan Air Self-Defense Force.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.eurasiareview.com/25012016-the-north-korean-nuclear-test-quest-for-deterrence-analysis/

The North Korean Nuclear Test: Quest For Deterrence – Analysis

By IDSA January 25, 2016
By Skand Tayal*

The January 6, 2016 ‘thermonuclear’ test by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) is the fourth in the series of nuclear tests beginning in 2006 in that reclusive country’s consistent quest to attain credible deterrence against the United States of America.

In his long New Year message, the young supreme leader Kim Jong Un (KJU) had warned that “if aggressors dare to provoke us, even to a slight degree, we will never tolerate it, and respond resolutely with a merciless sacred war of justice, a great war for national reunification.” Keeping the world in no doubt about the identity of his country’s perceived enemy, KJU declared: “The United States has persisted in ignoring our just demand for replacing the Armistice Agreement with a separate pact to remove the danger of war, ease tension and create a powerful environment in the Korean peninsula. Instead, it has clung to its anachronistic policy hostile towards the DPRK, escalating the tension and egging its vassal forces on to stage a ‘human rights’ racket against the country.”

Three days after the test, a commentary published in the official North Korean news agency, KCNA, noted that, “History proves that powerful nuclear deterrence serves as the strongest treasured sword for frustrating outsiders’ aggression.” The commentary concluded that both Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi had made the mistake of yielding to Western pressure led by the United States which were bent on regime change. It also forcefully restated DPRK’s oft-repeated position that asking North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons was as pointless as “wishing to see the sky fall”.

Simultaneously, in pursuit of its goal to have a full range of delivery systems, on January 9, 2016, North Korea claimed to have successfully tested a submarine-launched missile. In May 2015 also Pyongyang had announced that it had successfully tested a Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM). However, South Korean experts had treated this claim with considerable scepticism.

Whether the most recent North Korean test was that of a Hydrogen Bomb will be known after a while, but the objective was miniaturisation of the system so that the nuclear weapon can be mounted on a missile. North Korea has made it known that it wants recognition by the world community as a nuclear weapon power and no amount of external pressure would force it to pause in that quest.

Global Reaction

The UN Security Council condemned the nuclear test, declared that it is a ‘clear violation’ of its previous resolutions, and pledged to pursue new sanctions against North Korea. USA, South Korea and Japan have “agreed to work together to forge a united and strong international response to North Korea’s reckless behaviour.”

Cheong Wa Dae, the South Korean President’s ‘Blue House’, exhorted the international community that it “must make sure that North Korea pays the corresponding price” for the nuclear test. South Korea has also limited entry to the Kaesong Industrial Region in North Korea, which houses 123 South Korean Companies employing approximately 53,000 North Korean workers and about 800 South Koreans.

In an angry reaction, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said that the test was “a serious threat to (Japan’s) security and absolutely cannot be tolerated.” He assured the Diet that Japan would deal with the situation firmly in co-operation with the UN Security Council. Abe hinted at some unilateral measures “unique to our nation.” These measures could include strengthening of the anti-missile defence systems protecting Japan from a North Korean attack.

In line with statements issued after the previous tests, India’s official spokesman said on the day of the test that “(it is) a matter of deep concern that DPRK has again acted in violation of its international commitments…. Our concern about proliferation links between North East Asia and our neighbourhood are well known.”

Addressing the proliferation related concerns, a DPRK official statement on 15 January assured that North Korea will not provide anyone with its nuclear weapons, transfer related technology or use its bombs ‘recklessly’. The statement added that the country will arm itself with the ability to attack and retaliate with nuclear bombs and the US should “get used to North Korea as a nuclear armed state.”

China’s Reaction

Reacting to the nuclear test, Secretary of State John Kerry had urged China to end its “business as usual” approach towards North Korea. But China washed its hands off the problem, with its spokesperson Hua Chunying observing that “China is not the cause and crux of the Korean nuclear issue, nor is it the key to resolving the problem.” Nevertheless, the fact remains that only China is in a position to apply some credible pressure on North Korea since 88 per cent of North Korea’s foreign trade is with China. According to the South Koreans, China has been applying the existing UN sanctions against North Korea faithfully and the export of about 900 dual-use items has been prohibited to that country.

In the midst of heightened rhetoric, on January 11, 2016, China called for “all relevant parties” to exercise restraint, referring to the flight of a nuclear capable US B-52 Bomber over South Korea and South Korea’s resumption of anti-Pyongyang loudspeaker broadcasts.

China is comfortable with strategic ambiguity about the nuclear status of North Korea. But the insistence of an open declaration by the North of its Nuclear Weapon Power status would disrupt its strategic calculations in the region as the response from Japan could upset the regional power equation.

On January 13, in her New Year address to the nation, South Korean President Park Geun Hye sought to pressure China to join the efforts for UN Security Council action imposing harsher sanctions against North Korea. She said, “Unless its strong will is translated into actual necessary steps, we can not prevent (North Korea’s) fifth and sixth nuclear tests, and can not secure genuine peace and stability on the peninsula. I am sure China is well aware of this.” Seoul expects China to do more to denuclearise North Korea particularly in view of the rapidly warming ROK-China relations.

North Korea’s Approach towards South Korea

In the midst of heightened tensions, there are signs that North Korea is working with the aim of driving a wedge between the United States and South Korea, for which it is pursuing two independent policies – one of nuclearisation and acceptance as a nuclear weapons power, and the second of not upsetting the apple cart with South Korea and continue with the current policy of no peace – no war.

In his New Year address before the latest test, KJU referred to the inter-Korean high level emergency contact in August 2015 and said, “In the future, too, we will make strenuous efforts to develop inter-Korean talks and improve bilateral relations.” He advised “….if (South Korea) is sincere about improving inter-Korean relations and reunifying the country peacefully, the South Korean authorities must not seek pointless confrontation of systems…..”

It may be recalled that in early August 2015 there was a landmine explosion on the Southern side of the demilitarized zone (DMZ) which injured a ROK soldier. South Korea accused the North of planting fresh landmines in violation of the 1953 Armistice and, in retaliation, resumed anti-North cross-border propaganda through high volume loudspeakers. These loudspeaker broadcasts had been under suspension for the previous eleven years. North Korea reacted strongly giving the South a 48 hour ultimatum to stop the propaganda. But before the deadline came on 22 August, the North proposed a high level emergency meeting at Panmunjom in the DMZ. After marathon talks spread over three days, a six-point joint communiqué was issued which inter-alia included:
1.North Korea’s ‘regret’ over the injuries to a South Korean soldier from the landmine.
2.The North lifted its ‘quasi-state’ of war.
3.Agreement on reunion of families on the occasion of ‘Chuseok’ – harvest festival – on 27 September. And,
4.Suspension of South Korean loudspeaker broadcasts.

A significant outcome of this dialogue was that about 250 aged South Koreans travelled to the North for a 3-day family reunion at Mount Kumgang resort in the North. This emotional get together happened after a gap of five years. Since the agreement about family reunions reached at the first-ever Summit between the leaders of the two countries in 2000, about 19,000 Koreans have met their family members separated during the 1950-53 Korean War.

South Korea had also stopped its loudspeaker broadcasts against the North, which were being belted out from 11 locations along the DMZ. The high decibel broadcasts include K-Pop, News and criticism of the North and can be heard up to more than 10 kilometres inside North Korea. After the January 6 nuclear test, the South Koreans have resumed these broadcasts, which would infuriate the North.

Conclusion

Analysing the events of the past one year, it would be fair to conclude that Kim Jong Un has firm control over all the levers of power in North Korea, including the military. The reclusive country would continue on the course set by Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il, pursuing a policy of ‘Military First’, the ‘Juche’ concept of self-reliance and seeking effective nuclear strike capability against the United States. The peninsula would continue to be divided as neither side is keen on unification despite their public protestations in favour of reuniting the long-divided country. The paramount objective of the DPRK leadership continues to be the survival of the regime and its politico-economic system, and it is unlikely to allow tensions with South Korea or the United States to come to a point that would lead to hostilities. However, a vicious war of words would go on! The world, at large, is also likely to gradually get reconciled to a de facto nuclear DPRK.

*Skand Tayal is a former Ambassador of India to the Republic of South Korea.

Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India. Originally published by Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (www.idsa.in) at http://idsa.in/idsacomments/north-korean-nuclear-test_stayal_220116

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/20...ational/tabloids-go-nuclear-norths-bomb-test/

National / Media | BIG IN JAPAN

Tabloids go nuclear on North’s bomb test

by Mark Schreiber
Special To The Japan Times
Jan 23, 2016
Article history

On Jan. 6, North Korea once again stunned the world with a test of what it claimed was a hydrogen bomb, ratcheting up tensions in northeast Asia.

Japan might not have a viable military deterrent, but this has not prevented its weekly magazines from firing salvos of non-nuclear brickbats.

The main question on everyone’s mind of course is, “What’s the possibility that Japan will be targeted by a North Korean nuclear missile?”

“North Korea has said, ‘We will not resort to use of nuclear weapons unless there’s a threat to our autonomy by a strategic hostile force.’ And in its most recent announcement Japan was not mentioned at all,” remarked Atsumori Ueda, a former analyst at the Defense Ministry, in an interview in Weekly Playboy (Feb. 1). He added, however, “It’s meaningless to take their statements at face value. The U.S. is an ally of Japan, and the presence of its armed forces in Japan might be viewed as ‘a strategic hostile force.’ So Japan’s being targeted can’t be ruled out.”

North Korea may not be the only source of concern, as Shukan Post (Jan 29) reports South Korea may also harbor ambitions to become a member of the nuclear club.

According to Yoshiaki Yano, a visiting instructor at Takushoku University, Park Chung-hee, father of the current president, had ordered secret nuclear weapons development for a period of some 10 years beginning from around 1970. South Korea finally halted its development under pressure from the United States.

“By 1982, it is believed to have developed plutonium extraction technology,” Yano says. “But following Park’s assassination (in 1979), South Korea became a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.”

“There’s no connection between happenings in the North and South Koreans who have been clamoring for nuclear weapons of their own,” observed Korea-watching journalist Katsumi Murotani. “South Korea began considering development of nuclear weapons long before there were any indications that the North was planning the same.”

This ambition, Murotani opines, stems from the mentality that in order to be regarded by others as a first-class nation, some South Koreans believe it’s necessary for their country to join the “nuclear club.”

Shukan Post cites an opinion survey conducted by a South Korean think tank in 2014 in which 69 percent of the participants replied that they would support the acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Naturally the notion that possession of nuclear weapons will earn the South the world’s respect is no more than “delusionary thinking” — of which North Korea is a prime example.

“South Korea didn’t receive intelligence from the U.S. of the impending nuclear test,” Murotani adds. “Nor was there a teleconference arranged between China’s Xi Jinping and South Korean President Park Geun-hye. So the South is smarting from being snubbed by the superpowers.”

“South Korea’s development of nuclear weapons would bring it closer to war with the North,” commented military affairs journalist Osamu Eya. “Up to now, North Korea’s nuclear threat has served as a deterrent, and mainly to reduce its military gap with the South, so while dangerous, at least a balance is maintained.

“But if both sides were to possess nuclear armaments, the North would lose whatever advantage it had and the military balance between the two sides would crumble. The loss of the North’s nuclear deterrent would raise the chances of a spontaneous blowup.”

During Park’s visit to the United States in September 2014, accompanying top officials in her government met with their U.S. counterparts and raised the point that if North Korea’s nuclear capability were to grow, neighboring countries might be inclined to develop their own stable of nuclear weapons.

“Japan possesses large quantities of plutonium, and is seen as being able to have nuclear weapons at any time,” an unnamed journalist in South Korea is quoted as saying. “After the latest North Korean test, the Sina media portal in China remarked, ‘Japan has long had the ambition and the capability to develop nuclear weapons. What it has lacked is only a pretext for doing so. North Korea’s recent test offers Japan a great opportunity.’

“Here in South Korea, the notion has been growing that the ‘nuclear dominos’ in Northeast Asia may soon begin toppling, Japan included,” he continued. “That accounts for the view by South Koreans who favor our country’s acquiring nuclear armaments as quickly as possible.”

The unkindest cuts of all were issued by Shukan Gendai (Jan. 30), whose headline predicts, “Kim Jong Un will be killed at any moment.” Followed by the warning that, “If North Korea collapses, Japan won’t get off lightly.”

Just how young Kim will meet his demise was lacking in specifics. The article did point out, however, that Kim is said to be held in such contempt by the leadership of Pyongyang’s erstwhile ally, China, that high-ranking government cadres there have unceremoniously dubbed him with the pejorative San-pang, literally three-fat — or more colloquially, “Chubby the Third.”

“Should Kim Jong Un’s rule collapse, two things can be certain,” a source in the Chinese government is quoted as saying. “One is that even if the Kim family requests asylum in China, they’ll only be allowed to stay there for a short time, perhaps one month. The other is that North Korea’s new government, under a framework worked out by six countries, will be spearheaded by China.

“As long as China’s national interests are not threatened, we could care less if, today or tomorrow, ‘San-pang’ were to disappear for good.”

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/dipl...se-president-xi-jinping-tipped-attend-nuclear

Chinese President Xi Jinping tipped to attend nuclear summit in US

Despite disagreement on North Korea, Beijing and Washington ‘have much common ground’

PUBLISHED : Sunday, 24 January, 2016, 11:42pm
UPDATED : Sunday, 24 January, 2016, 11:42pm
Sidney Leng
sidney.leng@scmp.com

President Xi Jinping is expected to make his second visit to the United States in less than a year to attend the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington in March, according to national defence and military experts from both countries.

During Xi’s state visit to the US in September, the two countries agreed to deepen cooperation on nuclear security. Beijing has not confirmed Xi’s attendance, but several Chinese academics and analysts at a China Energy Fund Committee conference in Hong Kong yesterday said he would probably go.

A White House fact sheet dated September also said the two countries might hold a meeting before the summit to discuss nuclear security.

“The two countries share common interests in intercepting nuclear terrorism, so I think there is plenty of room for cooperation on it, among other issues,” said Zhang Tuosheng, from the China Foundation For International and Strategic Studies.

READ MORE: China will work with US to implement Iran nuclear deal, Xi tells Obama

But China and the US, both permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, often disagree on their roles in safeguarding nuclear security, particularly in relation to North Korea.

Some US observers have criticised China for failing to stop North Korea from conducting nuclear tests, with Pyongyang reportedly holding its fourth in early January. “Why China seems to be more interested in denying cooperation with the US on North Korea issues rather than exerting itself in this area is a mystery to me,” former US under secretary for defence Douglas Feith said.

But Chinese foreign policy strategists say China has already put enough pressure on North Korea, made denuclearisation a priority in the region and insisted on addressing the issue through dialogue.

“If the six-party talks [involving the two Koreas, Japan, China, Russia and the US] don’t work, then I propose trilateral dialogues, such as ones between China, the US and South Korea. The most important thing is managing a crisis,” Zhang said.

READ MORE: ‘Nuclear blackmail’: North Korea’s bomb test raises threat for China

Meanwhile, Feith, along with other former US cabinet members attending the conference, disagreed with US President Barack Obama’s decision to lift the sanctions on Iran, calling it an “unfortunate deal” that was most likely to result in Iran gaining nuclear weapons and mislead other Middle East countries into believing that the era of great powers controlling nuclear weapons was over.

“I’m opposed to the deal because Iran is a central bank of terrorism. Iran has refused to accept the existence of US ally Israel. When we lift the sanctions on Iran, there will be a huge flow of about US$100 billion to Iran. Iran is really at the epicentre of unrest Mideast,” former US secretary for homeland security Tom Ridge said.

“Instability is not good for the world generally, and part of that instability is Iranian influence.”


Related articles

Q&A: President Xi Jinping’s US state visit was ‘enormous success – or as we’d say, a home run’
18 Oct 2015 - 4:05am

How bad is the tension between the world's two largest economies, really?
13 Oct 2015 - 12:52am

Keeping the enemy closer: US still wary of China's strengthening military despite greater cooperation
4 Oct 2015 - 3:27am

How America's China watchers misread China
3 Oct 2015 - 9:30am

China's US$1.1b peacekeeping play for global prestige
30 Sep 2015 - 12:17am

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion...as-allies-persistently-pathetic/#.VqWOeqTMvIV

Commentary / World

Why are America’s allies so persistently pathetic?

by Doug Bandow
Jan 24, 2016
Article history

WASHINGTON – The U.S. is allied with every major industrialized power on the planet. America’s friends in Asia and Europe generally are prosperous and populous. Yet decades after the conflicts that led to Washington’s security guarantees for them, the allied gaggle remains a bunch of “losers,” to paraphrase Donald Trump.

North Korea recently staged its fourth nuclear test. Naturally, South Korea and Japan reacted in horror. But it was America which acted.

The U.S. sent a Guam-based B-52 wandering across South Korean skies. “This was a demonstration of the ironclad U.S. commitment to our allies in South Korea, in Japan, and to the defense of the American homeland,” opined Adm. Harry B. Harris, Jr., head of Pacific Command.

Unfortunately, the message might not work as intended. CNN’s Will Ripley reported from Pyongyang that “A lot of North Korean military commanders find U.S. bombers especially threatening, given the destruction here in Pyongyang during the Korean War, when much of the city was flattened.” Which sounds like giving the North another justification for building nuclear weapons.

Worse, though, reported Reuters: “The United States and its ally South Korea are in talks toward sending further strategic U.S. assets to the Korean Peninsula.” Weapons being considered include an aircraft carrier, B-2 bombers, F-22 stealth fighters and submarines.

A better response would be for Seoul to announce a major military buildup. South Korea should boost its military outlays — which accounted for a paltry 2.4 percent of GDP in 2014, about one-tenth the estimated burden borne by the North. The South also should expand its armed forces, from about 655,000 personnel today to a number much closer to the North’s 1.2 million.

Doing so obviously would be a burden. But how much do South Koreans believe their nation to be worth? If the economic wreck to its north can create such a threatening military, why cannot Seoul, which enjoys a roughly 40-1 economic and 2-1 population advantage, meet the challenge?

South Korea is not alone. Japan has been another long-term defense welfare client of the U.S. During the Cold War, Tokyo capped its military outlays at about 1 percent of GDP, even when Washington was spending four or five times as much in order to defend Japan, among others. Only under Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has Japan begun to do more, mostly because his government is no longer convinced that the U.S. will forever subsidize Japan’s defense.

Alas, the Europeans have not yet come to that conclusion. NATO sets a 2 percent of GDP standard for military outlays, yet the 2015 European member average was just 1.5 percent.

Only four European states hit 2 percent. Among the laggards: Latvia and Lithuania (complaining loudly about the “Russian threat”) and Turkey (creating its own “Russian threat” by shooting down a Russian plane in Syria).

Moscow’s aggressive behavior against Georgia and especially Ukraine set off all sorts of angst throughout Western and horror throughout Eastern Europe. Yet the standard presumption is that America should do more. U.S. officials and NATO leaders made their usual calls for members to hike military outlays, but most European states did what they usually do, continued to cut spending.

Under normal circumstances European behavior would be mystifying. The European Union demonstrates the continent’s ability to overcome historic national divisions and collaborate for a common purpose.

Collectively the Europeans enjoy around an 8-1 economic and 3-1 population advantage over Moscow. Even after its recent revival, Russia’s military today is a poor replica of that during the Soviet era.

Yet when Moscow acts against non-NATO members, Europe’s eyes turn to Washington for military relief. So, too, when the British and French wanted to wage a war to overthrow Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi. Instead of acting in their presumed interests, they pushed for U.S. involvement.

Washington’s allies generally are a dependent lot. Benefiting from sizable and capable populations and enjoying large and advanced economies, they nevertheless can’t be bothered to invest heavily in their own defense.

When troubles arise U.S. friends expect the American cavalry, in the form of a B-52 in Korea this time, to arrive. As a result, the U.S. is expected to defend much of the globe. And the bulk of Washington’s over-sized military outlays are to project power for the benefit of its ne’er-do-well allies.

In the years ahead Washington should take a page from the Trump play-book and choose as allies a few “winners,” nations whose friendship actually makes America more secure. The U.S. should stop treating national security as a form of welfare for other states.

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/donaldk...tests-if-china-fails-to-act-too/#720ab00c45e1

Jan 22, 2016 @ 10:23 AM 1,591 views

South Korea Warns: North Korea Poised For 'Fifth Or Sixth' Nuclear Tests

Donald Kirk, Contributor
Asia news from Korea's nuclear crisis to Indian foreign policy.

North Korea will go on and on testing nuclear weapons if China doesn’t join in decisive action to “punish” the North for its fourth nuclear test earlier this month. That’s the fear that South Korea is spreading amid signs the drive to make North Korea pay a high price for testing what the North still claims was a hydrogen bomb is in danger of collapsing.

“We have to deliver a very clear message,” South Korea’s foreign minister, Yun Byung-Se, warned. “If we fail, we cannot exclude the possibility that North Korea will conduct a fifth or sixth test.”

Yun expressed carefully worded concern to China that stressed the talking going on between South Korea and Chinese officials even as China has showed notable lack of enthusiasm for strengthening sanctions against the North. His words revealed worries in Seoul that North Korea will not suffer much despite all the indignation fostered by its latest nuclear test.

“The timeliness is very very important,” Yun told the media after meeting South Korea’s President Park Geun-Hye. “Urgency is something to remember.”

Yun alternated between expressing the closeness of ties between China and South Korea and the need for the Chinese to join in prompt and decisive action. “We hope they will recognize the grave security relation,” he said. “The North Korean test is a threat to China as well.”

South Korea is holding up the example of the nuclear deal reached in Iran as a precedent for the type of negotiations that might persuade North Korea finally to give up its nuclear program. Just as “six plus one” – that is, U.S., China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany plus the European Union – finally hammered out the agreement for Iran not to build nuclear warheads, how about the five arrayed against North Korea in the old six-party talks as a format for bringing the North to terms?

The Iran example dominates the outlook of South Korean officials even though North Korea has repeatedly cited other examples of countries giving up their nuclear warheads and then collapsing as one reason to stick to its program. The most obvious example is that of Libya, whose leader, Muammar Gaddafi, was driven from power and then killed after having done away with his nukes.

Yet another reason why the Iran deal may not set a precedent for North Korea is that Iran and the North are believed still to be working closely on missiles and possibly nuclear research. North Korea over the years has exported short-range Scud and mid-range Rodong missiles to Iran while coordinating with Iran on nuclear technology.

Teams of Iranian engineers and technicians have been present at the launch of North Korean missiles and are believed to remain in the North in anticipation of another test of a long-range missile capable of reaching Hawaii, Alaska and the U.S. west coast. Iranians have been advising North Korea on highly enriched uranium to be used in nuclear warheads rather than the plutonium used in previous tests.

Nonetheless, Foreign Minister Yun seemed to believe that lifting sanctions against Iran under terms of its nuclear agreement might be persuasive in talks with North Korea. “Likewise,” he said, “if the five parties” – the U.S., China, Russia, Japan and South Korea – “work together, they will deliver a strong message to North Korea.”

He left unmentioned, of course, that Iran and North are de facto allies – acknowledged as such in the state-of-the-union address by George W. Bush in 2002 that described North Korea and Iran as bound in an “axis of evil.” (Iraq, as ruled by Saddam Hussein, deposed in 2003, was also cited in the “axis.”)

While action against North Korea in the wake of the nuclear test is losing momentum, Yun portrayed the possibility of a wide range of measures.

“There have been many movements in the global community by many countries putting pressure on North Korea,” he said. “In the global context, not only the UN Security Council resolutions but also other forms will be imposed on North Korea.”

He strained to show just what a menace a nuclear-armed North Korea poses. “The repercussions of North Korean’s fourth nuclear test are quite large,” he said. In order “to give a lesson that can really sting North Korea, we are looking for measures that will make that happen. We will have to consider repercussions that can have an impact on North Korea.”

But what about China, North Korea’s savior in the Korean War and the source of virtually all its oil and half its food? Yun said China and South Korea “are working closely” while recognizing “from the Chinese perspective, they need to consider relations with North Korea as well.” Is South Korea complaining to China about China’s go-slow approach on reining in the North? His government “has shared with the Chinese counterpart what is our position,” was Yun’s diplomatically phrased response.

Yun betrayed the sense that the UN Security Council might not act as strongly as desired while China and Russia both held out against really tough additional sanctions. “Some bilateral sanctions are stronger than UN Security Council resolutions,” he said. “We would also consider bilateral sanctions. It depends on different circumstances facing different countries.’

In other words, South Korea is prepared to act alone on tough measures against the North even if China isn’t going to help.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0124-mcmanus-iran-symbolism-20160124-column.html

Opinion / Op-Ed /Column

Iran's dilemma: a country or a cause

By Doyle McManus•Contact Reporter
January 24, 2016, 5:00 AM

To Americans, Iran's actions over the last two weeks may have seemed not merely surprising, but also contradictory.

Iran rushed to meet its obligations under last year's landmark nuclear agreement, dismantling the machinery it could have used to make atomic bombs. At the same time, officials insisted that they would continue to test ballistic missiles in apparent violation of another United Nations resolution.

Iran quickly released 10 American sailors whose boats had drifted into Iranian waters and said they had been treated with “Islamic hospitality.” Then the Revolutionary Guard released a video showing the sailors on their knees, and a general boasted: “The Americans humbly admitted our might and power.”

Iran's intelligence agencies quietly negotiated a deal to swap five American prisoners for seven Iranians — then haggled over allowing the wife and mother of one of the Americans to leave the country. And a hardline official claimed that Washington's $1.7-billion settlement of an Iranian legal claim was actually paid as ransom for the prisoners. (Not so, the White House said.)

The message from Iran-watchers is: Get used to it.

“Iran is a complicated country,” Abbas Milani of Stanford's Hoover Institution told me last week. “On one level, they are simply using an old-fashioned good cop-bad cop strategy. On a deeper level, there's a struggle under way over the future of the country, and we don't know how that's going to turn out.”

The underlying problem is that Iran still hasn't made the choice Henry Kissinger described several years ago: whether it is a country or a cause — a normal state, or a revolutionary one.

In practical diplomacy, Iran has been behaving more like a normal state: complying with agreements, releasing sailors, resolving old disputes. But — strangely to us, perhaps — the Iranians find symbolic steps more difficult.

The hardline Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, grudgingly approved deals with the United States as the price of freeing the country from economic sanctions. (U.S. officials say Khamenei personally approved the release of the sailors and the prisoners as well as the nuclear deal.)

And Iran's opening to the West has expanded well beyond the nuclear deal. U.S. officials say Tehran is supporting international efforts to arrange ceasefire talks in Yemen's civil war (where Iran is backing Shia Muslim rebels against a government supported by its rival, Saudi Arabia). Iran has also endorsed a U.S.-led drive for peace talks in Syria's civil war.

“There already has been a broad turn in Iranian foreign policy, at least in terms of dealing with the United States,” noted John Limbert, a former U.S. diplomat (and former hostage) in Iran. “Three years ago,” he added, “it was inconceivable that Iran and the United States would be talking directly with each other so often, and about so many issues.”

On the other hand, the Iranians have repeatedly rejected proposals for normal diplomatic relations with the U.S. (an offer floated by George W. Bush before Barack Obama). They even rejected a U.S. proposal for a hotline between the two countries' armed forces, even though that could avert unnecessary clashes.

This resistance to formal normalization is partly about preserving Iran's revolutionary self-image.

“Khamenei's whole political platform has been based on anti-Americanism. He can't admit that his basic idea has collapsed,” Milani said.

So even as he has authorized a de facto rapprochement with the United States, Khamenei has released an uninterrupted flow of statements denouncing the Great Satan and warning against Western subversion.

The resulting policy, said Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, could best be described as “contained antagonism.”

The two-sided nature of Iranian foreign policy also reflects the political struggle between the hardliners and reformist president Hassan Rouhani, with Khamenei usually (but not always) backing the hardliners.

The nuclear deal, a victory for Rouhani, has sharpened that rivalry. Rouhani hoped the deal would give his reformist coalition a boost heading into parliamentary elections scheduled for Feb. 26. But last week, the country's Guardian Council disqualified thousands of reformists from running — prompting an unusually sharp and public debate between Rouhani (who protested the order) and Khamenei.

Note to Americans: A lot of this isn't about us. It's about them. Just as in any other country — even ours — foreign policy is often a continuation of politics by other means.

Indeed, U.S. officials and Iran-watchers warn almost unanimously that they expect new U.S.-Iranian conflicts ahead — not only because the two countries still disagree on many issues, but also because Tehran's hardliners want to reassert their influence.

It would be nice if Iran's mullahs stopped leading chants of “Death to America.” But that's not going to happen for a long time, and that's OK.

There's a historical precedent in U.S. foreign policy for how to deal peacefully with a hostile or threatening power.

American presidents managed their way through a half-century of global rivalry with the Soviet Union and almost a half-century of disagreements with China without going to war. We can manage conflict with Iran too.

doyle.mcmanus@latimes.com

Twitter: @doylemcmanus

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/pay-attention-north-korea-between-nuke-tests-too-15001

Pay Attention to North Korea Between Nuke Tests Too

A policy toward Pyongyang must deal with more than the provocations.

Daniel R. DePetris
January 25, 2016

Remember North Korea, that horrible, tyrannical, family-owned dictatorship that enslaves its citizens, devotes a considerable amount of its national capital towards improving its weapons of mass destruction programs and uses its nuclear capability to extort economic and political benefits from the international community? Of course you do. Ever since Kim Jong-un went ahead on January 6 with Pyongyang’s fourth nuclear test in nine years, North Korea has once again catapulted to the top of America’s national security conversation.

It usually takes a horrific report from United Nations human rights monitors or an underground nuclear explosion for most Americans to even think about the reclusive, isolated country on the Korean Peninsula that is run by a cult-like family enterprise. In between the well-documented studies describing in intricate detail the “unspeakable atrocities” that have been perpetrated by the Kim regime and the late-night “breaking news” headlines on CNN about yet another unusual seismic event near Punggye-ri, North Korea barely registers as a concern among U.S. policymakers, at least when compared to other line-items on the agenda. Indeed, the Obama administration has treated the North Korean problem as if it doesn’t really exist; the White House calls its policy “strategic patience,” but in layman’s terms this approach amounts to ignoring Pyongyang’s behavior until it does something so ghastly that it requires a tough U.S. response.

In the end, nothing really changes on North Korea. Across Republican and Democratic administrations, the North Korea issue has trotted well-worn ground: the Kim’s lash out, the U.N. Security Council unanimously passes a statement or a resolution condemning its “provocative” behavior, the Security Council passes new economic sanctions, the United States issues new executive orders targeting North Koreans involved in WMD activities and the U.S. military flies a couple of B-52 bombers over South Korea to send a message of deterrence to the North. The result of this cycle is the same: more North Korean weapons tests, more sanctions from the United States, more ambivalence from China and more curious offers from Kim to negotiate his capabilities away for a formal peace treaty.

Despite what the Republicans running for president may say during national debates or at their campaign rallies, President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are not directly responsible for North Korea’s nuclear tests—just as President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice were not directly responsible for the DPRK’s first nuclear explosion in the fall of 2006. Marco Rubio’s assertion that the explosion that occurred on January 6 is “just the latest example of the failed Obama-Clinton foreign policy” is the typical, empty-headed campaign rhetoric that Americans have gotten used to during an election year. But more importantly, Rubio’s statement (and those of the rest of the GOP field) misses the broader point: North Korea has been an insolvable problem for presidents of both political parties. If Rubio finds a magical route to the Oval Office this coming November, he too will experience first hand how difficult it will be to deal with North Korea, let alone make good on the longstanding U.S. policy of denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula.

The United States is just now getting around to contemplating its response to Pyongyang’s latest nuclear weapons test. Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken has been traveling around Asia and meeting with his South Korean, Japanese, and Chinese counterparts in the hope that some kind of regional unity can be forged and that Beijing will find the gumption to finally crack down on commercial trade and banking transactions with the North. The U.S. Congress, with what seems like administration support, is now in the process of passing a bipartisan sanctions bill that would expand U.S. sanctions to third-party financial institutions that engage in significant dealings with the Kim regime. And the Security Council is getting ready for yet another resolution.

Yet the big questions remain. Will any of these economic penalties hit North Korea’s pocketbook hard enough that its leadership comes around to seriously reevaluating whether their nuclear activity should be frozen? Is Washington willing to put in place Iran-style sanctions that would target persons and entities in third countries that transact with North Korea? How would China react to such secondary sanctions? Will Beijing slowly embrace the realization that an erratic and nuclear North Korea is worse for its own interests than the possibility of a Kim regime collapse? If not, are we past the point where a nuclear free Korean Peninsula is even possible? Is the international community now stuck with North Korea as a nuclear power, whether we like it or not?

The next President will need to answer all of these questions, hopefully before Kim Jong-un decides to authorize another test.

Daniel R. DePetris is an analyst at Wikistrat, Inc., a geostrategic consulting firm and a freelance researcher. He has also written for CNN.com, Small Wars Journal and the Diplomat.

Image: Flickr/Tormod Sandtorv.

Tags
North KoreaNuclear testPyongyang.
Topics
SecurityDiplomacy
Regions
Asia

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realcleardefense.com/art...tic_powerhouse_in_the_middle_east_108944.html

January 25, 2016

China's Media: Xi a Diplomatic Powerhouse in the Middle East

By Jackson Kwok

China's state-owned news outlets used President Xi Jinping's first tour of the Middle East, which kicked off in Saudi Arabia last week and also included visits to Egypt and Iran, as an opportunity to espouse the merits of ‘Xi-style diplomacy’. While the reality may be that China will remain primarily an economic partner in the region, as opposed to a diplomatic mediator, at home China's growing influence in the region was enthusiastically feted. One editorial praised Beijing’s balanced approach, claiming that ‘China is perhaps the only great power that can still receive a red carpet welcome in both Saudi Arabia and Iran.’

State-owned news outlets sought to highlight the positive role China is playing in the region. A commentary published in People’s Daily on Tuesday, the day China's leader arrived in Saudi Arabia, praised Xi’s tour for ‘injecting positive energy into the peaceful development of the Middle East.’

China’s position as both a member of the UN Security Council and as a responsible great power was cited to explain its increasing influence. An opinion piece by the former Chinese ambassador to Iran argued that Beijing’s deepening engagement with the Middle East was ‘commensurate with China’s expanding role in international platforms, where Beijing will and should assume more responsibilities.’

Foreign concerns about potential Chinese expansion were given short shrift. An editorial in the state-aligned Global Times stated that China did not aim to either convert its growing influence into a geopolitical hedge against the US, or compete for regional hegemony with other great powers. Instead, ‘China aims only to construct harmony, resolve differences, and build peace and stability.’ A few days later, another report claimed concerns about China replacing the US in the region were overstated.

Nevertheless, state media has sought to portray Beijing as an attractive alternative to Washington for future economic cooperation and strategic partnership. China’s policy of ‘involvement, not interference’ was juxtaposed against the ‘selfish interests’ of the US and the West. An article published in Xinhua claimed that ‘Western countries have exported arms and unrest to the Middle East in order to seize its oil; only China has brought the economic development initiatives that we all desire.’

China’s first ‘Arab Policy Paper’ released earlier this month asserted that China respects the right of Arab countries to ‘develop along lines according to their own national circumstances.’ In contrast to the West, perceived to have tried and failed to impose liberal democracy in the region, the paper stated: ‘China does not seek to impose its own values on the Middle East.’ Instead, China’s role as a responsible great power is primarily presented through economic and energy cooperation. In April last year, China overtook the US as the world’s biggest importer of crude oil. Saudi Arabia is Beijing’s largest provider of oil imports, and Iran’s location at the crossroads of the ‘One Belt One Road’ initiative is critical to China’s economic ambitions.

According to Beijing’s narrative, the peace and stability desired in the Middle East will be established through economic development. As vice foreign minister Zhang Ming said earlier this week at a press conference, economic development remains the ‘ultimate way out’ of conflict in the region.

State media reports have hinted at increased diplomatic involvement in conflict resolution but details remain vague. A spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said on Wednesday that China is looking to ‘promote peace talks in Yemen.’ China’s constructive role during the Iran nuclear negotiations have also been lauded. But the underlying message is that China should avoid falling into the trap of regional turmoil and conflict.

As a result, the issues of counter-terrorism and security have also been largely overlooked. An opinion piece published in Global Times late last week argued that Iranian cooperation is vital to containing the spread of religious extremism into the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. This was a a rare foray into the subject of security cooperation.

State-owned news outlets used Xi’s tour to send a strong message to domestic audiences: China’s diplomatic influence is increasing and this is welcomed by the international community. According to state media, China’s principle of mutually beneficial cooperation is transforming the international system. A commentary piece in People’s Daily argued that ‘today, China’s diplomacy has a global perspective, an enterprising consciousness, and a pioneering spirit. It has injected positive energy into the system of international relations.’

Such claims aim to reassure audiences that China’s process of national rejuvenation is progressing steadily. Allusions to the historical Silk Road are ubiquitous in state media reports. The Silk Road serves not only as a metaphor for friendly exchange between China and the Arab world, but also as a symbol of China’s past glory and prosperity. The Chinese public has been reminded that Xi and the CCP leadership are gradually steering the nation back to its rightful place on the world stage as a strong and respected global power.


This article originally apperead at the Lowy Institute Interpreter.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.military.com/daily-news/...s-us-plans-to-deploy-more-troops-to-iraq.html

Carter Signals US Plans to Deploy More Troops to Iraq

Jan 25, 2016 | by Richard Sisk

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter has again addressed the controversial issue of U.S. "boots on the ground" in Iraq and Syria, saying that more American troops would be deployed in an "enabling" role.

"Boots on the ground? We have 3,500 boots on the ground" in Iraq and "we're looking for opportunities to do more," Carter told CNN's Fareed Zakaria in an interview last week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

Carter acknowledged there are about 50 U.S. Special Forces troops serving as advisers in Syria to local forces opposed to the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, in addition to the 3,500-3,600 American troops serving as trainers and advisors to the Iraqi Security Forces.

"We're not looking to substitute for local forces in terms of governing the place and policing the place," Carter said. "That's why we put Special Forces in Syria. They're tremendous force multipliers. They're the ones who connect them to the great might of our military. The strategic concept is not to substitute but to enable" local forces, he said.

Carter also referred to the 1,300 soldiers from the 2nd Brigade Combat Team of the 101st Airborne Division out of Fort Campbell, Kentucky, who will deploy to Iraq this spring to replace a similar number of troops from the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 10th Mountain Division in the training role. The 1st BCT will return to Fort Drum, New York.

In his meetings last week in Switzerland and in Paris with allied defense officials, Carter said that the number of U.S. and coalition troops in Iraq would "increase greatly as the momentum of the effort increases."

Carter said the main focus would be on routing militants affiliated with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, from Mosul, the main stronghold of the insurgents in Iraq, and from Raqqa, the self-proclaimed ISIS capital in Syria.

"We need to destroy them in those two places, and I'd like to get on with that as soon as possible," he said.

However, in a briefing from Baghdad to the Pentagon last week, Army Col. Steve Warren, chief spokesman for Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve, said "We don't have a solid number yet" on how many additional troops will be deployed as trainers to join the estimated 3,550 U.S. troops now on the ground in Iraq.

"It's certainly hundreds that will probably be at the top end -- not thousands, hundreds," but additional U.S. support troops may also be needed for the Mosul build-up, he said.

In an editorial for Politico last week, Carter said, "We are gathering momentum on a number of fronts and are determined to put ISIL on an irreversible path to lasting defeat. Now is the time to do even more. As we accelerate our campaign, so must every one of our coalition partners."

President Barack Obama has ruled out ground combat for U.S. forces and also to date barred American forward air controller from the frontlines to guide airstrikes, but the debate has continued in Congress over the definition of "boots on the ground" and whether military personnel have been engaged in "combat."

Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James frequently refers to the "boots in the air" of U.S. pilots flying missions in Iraq and Syria.

At a Pentagon news conference last October, Carter attempted to explain how a U.S. soldier could die heroically in a combat raid while the nation was still not involved in "boots on the ground" combat.

Carter hailed 39-year-old Delta Force Master Sgt. Joshua Wheeler as an exemplary hero who "ran to the sound of the guns" in a helicopter assault with Kurdish Peshmerga fighters that freed 70 ISIS hostages. He was the first U.S. combat fatality of the campaign against ISIS.

"This is combat," Carter said of the raid on an ISIS prison compound east of the town of Hawija in northern Iraq, and "we expect do to do more of this kind of thing."

However, he added "things are complicated" when asked if the policy against U.S. troops engaging in direct combat was still in effect.

"Americans are flying combat missions, thousands of combat missions, over Syria and Iraqi territory," Carter said in rejecting accusations of "mission creep."

"There are Americans involved in training and advising Iraqi security forces around the country," he said, but "we do not have combat formations there the way we had once upon a time in Iraq, or the way we have had in years past in Afghanistan."

-- Richard Sisk can be reached at Richard.Sisk@Military.com.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/2...ing-us-forces-closer-to-battlefield-for-mosul

US forces could get closer to battlefield for Mosul offensive

By Kristina Wong - 01/25/16 12:43 PM EST
Comments 2

The nation's top military officer says it's possible U.S. troops may edge closer to the battlefield with Iraqi forces as they prepare to retake Mosul from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford Jr. told reporters Sunday that he would make recommendations to President Obama after discussions with top U.S. commanders in Iraq and Iraqi officials.

"I'm prepared to recommend a level of accompaniment that will allow us to be successful," said Dunford, according to DoD News. "But I want to wait for the Iraqis to tell us...what they believe is right for them."
While U.S. special operations forces have partnered with Iraqi forces on combat missions, the conventional U.S. train-and-advise mission is taking place at the division level — meaning that U.S. forces are advising at a high level away from the battlefield.

U.S. troops are also advising the Kurdish peshmerga at a brigade level, which is lower down and closer to the battlefield.

Dunford said discussions with Iraqi officials will determine whether U.S. forces could also advise the Iraqi army at the brigade level.

A typical Army brigade consists of about 3,000 to 5,000 troops.

Last week, Army Col. Steve Warren, spokesman for the campaign against ISIS, said retaking Mosul could require eight brigades.

The U.S. had offered Iraqi forces close air support and on-the-ground advisers for the offensive in Ramadi, but the Iraqi government declined.

Dunford said the Iraqis will identify what U.S. capabilities and how many U.S. troops they may need to retake Mosul.

ISIS seized Mosul, Iraq's second largest city, in June 2014.

Then-Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey later testified that U.S. forces may have to accompany Iraqi forces for complex operations, such as retaking Mosul.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/.../f-16-crash-taiwan-gamblers-program/79303730/

F-16 Crash in US Part of Taiwan’s Secretive 'Gamblers' Program

By Wendell Minnick, Defense News
1:22 p.m. EST January 25, 2016

TAIPEI — The Jan. 21 crash of an F-16 fighter aircraft stationed at Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, was one of the few times the US government had acknowledged the existence of a Taiwan fighter trainer program within the continental United States.

According to a statement released by the Taiwan Air Force, Maj. Kao Ting-cheng died during air-to-air combat training when his fighter crashed in Yavapai County, north of Phoenix. He was a member of Taiwan’s 455th (4th) Tactical Fighter Wing (TFW), 22nd Fighter Group (FG), at Chiayi Air Force Base in west-central Taiwan.The American Institute in Taiwan (the de facto US Embassy) in Taipei acknowledged the crash and the death of the pilot in a news release issued by its director, Kin Moy, on the same day.

On Tuesday, Defense News will be given access to Chiayi AFB for a live exercise of the Air Force’s preparedness during the upcoming Chinese New Year, scheduled for Feb. 7 to 13. The 455th will demonstrate the F-16's capability in the event of a surprise attack by China.

Since Washington switched relations from Taipei to Beijing in 1979, China has pressured the United States to end all military activities and arms sales with Taiwan. Despite China’s best lobbying efforts, arms sales, including training, have continued to shore up the fledgling democracy.

Taiwan's 21st Tactical Fighter Squadron, "The Gamblers," has been training at Luke since 1997. Made up of 14 Block 20 F-16A/B fighter aircraft, the program is part of the Foreign Military Sales program under the Pentagon’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

Taiwan procured 150 F-16s in the early 1990s under the Peace Phoenix program. The F-16s make up two TFWs, the 455 and 401 (Hualien AFB), comprising six FGs (21, 22, 23, and 17, 26, 27, respectively).

Taiwan’s F-16s are currently undergoing a midlife upgrade. In October 2012, Lockheed Martin was awarded a $1.85 billion contract by the US government for a major upgrade of Taiwan’s remaining 144 F-16 fighter aircraft. Then in December 2014, the US awarded a $308 million contract to Lockheed Martin to supply the active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar for the upgrade. The AESA radar is the Northrop Grumman APG-83 Scalable Agile Beam Radar.

Though Taiwan wants to procure F-35s as replacements for its aging fighter fleet of Mirage-2000s, F-5s, and Indigenous Defense Fighters, the US appears reluctant to release the advanced stealth fighter. Over the past 10 years, the US followed a policy of not enraging China by not releasing the F-16C/D Block 50/52 fighter and instead insisted that Taiwan’s Air Force upgrade its current fleet of F-16s.

Taiwan has a requirement for vertical and/or short take-off and landing (V/STOL) aircraft, which the F-35B would fulfill, but new fighters for Taiwan would once again cross China’s red line spelled out when Taiwan attempted to procure new F-16C/Ds.

US government sources in Washington now suggest that the V/STOL requirement could be fulfilled via either a hot transfer of the US Marine Corps subsonic AV-8 Harrier or refurbishing the older aircraft with new engines and avionics. Though China is expected to complain about such a sale, the procurement does not violate an alleged promise by the White House not to sell new fighter aircraft to Taiwan.

The AV-8 is considered an air-to-ground support aircraft, though it can carry air-to-air missiles. China’s 1,400 short-range ballistic missiles are expected to pulverize Taiwan’s air bases within the first hours of any potential war, making landing and takeoff of conventional fighters, like the F-16s and Mirages, impossible. The AV-8 would allow the Taiwan Air Force to hide aircraft within its rugged mountainous interior. The Harrier would also be perfect for attacking amphibious ships transporting China’s invasion force across the Taiwan Strait.

Email: wminnick@defensenews.com

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...egy-to-cause-death-and-destruction-in-europe/

The Islamic State’s strategy to cause death and destruction in Europe

By Rick Noack January 25 at 1:03 PM
Comments 3

LONDON — Hopes for a year less defined by international terrorism threats were dashed Monday by the European law enforcement agency, which warned that there was "every reason" to expect future attacks in Europe.

Rob Wainwright, head of the European Police Office (Europol), said at a meeting of interior ministers that the Islamic State had “developed a new combat-style capability to carry out a campaign of large-scale terrorist attacks on a global stage, with a particular focus in Europe.” Apart from "lone wolf" attacks, Europe increasingly faces the prospect of large-scale, organized, mass terror attacks, according to the agency.

The meeting in Amsterdam was held amid heightened fears of terror attacks on European capitals similar to the ones in November in Paris. On Sunday, the Islamic State released a video that featured the Paris attackers and included footage showing some of them executing hostages.

"Expect a mujahid to show up to kill you," the alleged ringleader of the Nov. 13 Paris attacks, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, said in the video. Abaaoud was killed during a shootout with police in a Parisian suburb days after the attacks.

The video included general threats against Europe but also showed several landmarks in London, including the Tower Bridge -- raising concerns about possible plans by the Islamic State to strike in Britain.

Abaaoud reportedly had visited Britain early last year. Despite having returned from Syria, he entered the country on a ferry without being detected by police. Abaaoud also took photos of British landmarks. British authorities estimate that about 800 British extremists have so far gone to Syria and Iraq. Nearly 400 are believed to have returned, according to the BBC.

British intelligence services, like authorities in other European nations, have interviewed returnees to decide who should be monitored more closely. But the London bombings in 2005 showed that it is often hard to correctly analyze who could become a threat to national security. Dozens of officers are needed to observe a suspect around the clock, which makes it necessary for intelligence services to constantly reassess their targets.

The beginning of Sunday's propaganda video showed encryption software allegedly used by the terrorists to hide from authorities. Although it has since been pointed out that the encrypted messages shown in the video are likely fakes and technically flawed, the Islamic State's focus on such tools was probably intended to raise even more alarm about the group's technical capabilities. Such fears were reflected in the Europol expert review Monday, which concluded that "the availability of secure and inherently encrypted appliances" as well as "coded language" could indeed "prevent conventional observation by security authorities."

The expert review by Europol singled out France as a main target of future attack plans. "There is every reason to expect that IS, IS inspired terrorists or another religiously inspired terrorist group will undertake a terrorist attack somewhere in Europe again," the agency wrote, using an acronym for the Islamic State.

Bernard Cazeneuve, France's interior minister, was quoted Monday as saying that the nation's intelligence services had prevented more than 10 attacks within the past year. France recently extended its state of emergency, which was imposed after the Nov. 13 attacks.

According to Europol, the Islamic State has built a command center that oversees and plans attacks outside its core territory in Iraq and Syria with the declared purpose of conducting international terror attacks. In Europe, most of the Islamic State's terrorist cells are organized locally. Europol said that those cells could be recruiting new members in refugee camps, but the agency did not find any evidence "that terrorist travelers systematically use the flow of refugees to enter Europe unnoticed."

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-a...iles/2015/12/2300_1millionrefugee1.jpg&w=1484

The Islamic State is trying to show that it is now capable of conducting a series of deadly attacks all over the world -- particularly in Europe, the report concludes.

Europol also said that the Islamic State's rise can partially be explained through its recruitment drive in Europe. Rather than using religion as the prime driver of recruitment, social pressure among peer groups could explain the rapid increase in European recruits. Often, European Islamic State members are former criminals or have had mental problems -- features that make the recruitment process distinct from many other Islamist terror groups.

The European Police Office also warned that the Islamic State's rival terror group, al-Qaeda, remains a threat.

Also read:

In Islamic State video, Paris attackers vowed to strike West

Rick Noack writes about foreign affairs and is based in Europe.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-security-politics-idUSKCN0V31Q0

World | Mon Jan 25, 2016 5:26pm EST
Related: World, United Nations, Libya

Libya's recognized parliament rejects U.N.-backed unity government

BENGHAZI, Libya | By Ayman al-Warfalli

Libya's internationally recognized parliament voted on Monday to reject a unity government proposed under a United Nations-backed plan to resolve the country's political crisis and armed conflict.

Though not a surprise, the rejection was a setback in efforts to heal Libya's deep divides. Of 104 members who attended the session in the eastern city of Tobruk, 89 voted against an administration nominated last week, demanding a new proposal within 10 days.

Since 2014, Libya has had two competing parliaments and governments, one based in Tripoli and the other in the east. Both are backed by loose alliances of armed groups and former rebels who helped topple Muammar Gaddafi in 2011.

Western powers hope a unity government will deliver stability and be able to tackle a growing threat from Islamic State militants.

One member of the Tobruk parliament, Mohamed al-Abani, said the proposed administration did not represent the interests of the Libyan people but had been formed "according to the demands of militia leaders".

Lawmakers from the parliament, known as the House of Representatives, also said the proposed 32-member government was rejected because it included too many posts. They called on the Tunis-based Presidential Council to put forward a shorter list of ministers.

One of those to vote against the unity government, Omar Tantoush, said he did so because it did not "respond to current challenges".

"They did not use the correct criteria in choosing ministers and the size of the government, especially now that the economy is collapsing in Libya," he said.

In a separate vote, 97 members of the Tobruk parliament backed the U.N.-mediated agreement that sets out a political transition for Libya and under which the Presidential Council operates. They rejected a clause, however, that transfers power over military appointments to the new government.

U.N. Libya envoy Martin Kobler welcomed the "endorsement in principle" of the political agreement, while taking note of the objection to the article covering senior military and security posts.

"We will continue consultations with all parties to find consensual solution to all outstanding issues," he said in a statement.

The armed forces allied to the eastern government are led by Gen. Khalifa Haftar, a former Gaddafi ally. He has also fought Islamist militants in the eastern city of Benghazi and has become one of Libya's most divisive figures, enjoying strong support in the east but despised by forces allied to the government in Tripoli.

Representatives from both sides of Libya's political divide signed the U.N.-backed plan in Morocco in December, but the agreement has faced stiff opposition from many members of the two parliaments and from factions on the ground.

Two of the Presidential Council's nine members also refused to put their names to the proposed government when it was announced after a 48-hour delay last week.


(Writing by Aidan Lewis; Editing by Dominic Evans and Grant McCool)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2016/01/198_196304.html

Posted : 2016-01-25 16:03
Updated : 2016-01-25 16:03

A new North Korea?

By Deauwand Myers

The recent nuclear test by North Korea left all of the DPRK's neighbors uneasy. Unlike in the past, North Korean officials did not notify China of its planned test, which angered the Chinese government. As per usual, South Korea, Japan, and the United States lodged condemnations against the North's surprise test.

Further, as a show of force and solidarity, an American B-52 Stratofortress bomber, a powerful, long-range plane with the ability to drop conventional and nuclear weapons, flew over the demilitarized zone (DMZ), escorted by two South Korean fighter jets. This particular response was unique in its unveiled warning to the North and the brevity by which it was deployed.

Some experts have speculated that the nascent, bloody reign of Kim Jong-un, the young, corpulent and untested dictator of North Korea and son of the late Kim Jong-il, marks a new era of heightened instability on the Korean Peninsula, one accented with unpredictability and possible miscalculations in the parry and thrust of diplomatic intrigue and geopolitical maneuvers between the North and everyone else.

Maybe. Yet, Kim Jong-il proved to be violent and unpredictable in his dealings with the world, particularly with South Korea. The bombing of Korean Air Flight 858 (November 1987) resulted in the death of 115 people; the sinking of the ROKS Cheonan (March 2010) killed all 46 sailors on board; and the bombing of South Korea's Yeonpyeong Island by the North (November 2010) that killed two soldiers and two civilians. Kim Jong-il ordered all of these.

Nothing nearly as violent has taken place under Kim Jong-un, at least not yet. Experts then point to the constant proscriptions and purges of Kim, wherein vast swaths of senior and powerful North Korean officials have been assassinated, sometimes for the slightest offenses, as an ominous sign of a paranoid leader: amoral, cruel, passionate and, worst of all, unsophisticated in wielding power.

Really? Kim Jong-il, like his father before him, practiced purges, albeit less vigorously than his son. We cannot be sure of this because, as with much that happens in North Korea, intelligence about the isolated state is hard to come by and often impossible to verify.

Further, to be a dictator, particularly in North Korea, is to be amoral, cruel and full of malice. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Other authoritarian regimes: China, Cuba, Vietnam, Russia, Cambodia, Saudi Arabia and Iran, for example, do actually care about the well-being of their citizens, insofar as keeping a plurality of their people at an acceptable standard of living ensures the legitimacy and survival of their governments.

North Korea suffers from no such affliction. Bone-crushing sanctions over generations have left much of North Korea in various states of abject poverty and starvation, wherein even soldiers desert their posts from sheer hunger. Unless one is part of the elite within Kim's inner circle, or the surrounding oligarchy (and have not been purged), being a North Korean citizen is to be relegated to misery, malnutrition and premature death.

In short, Kim Jung-un has benefited from his father and grandfather's reign. The population has lived in poverty and decrepitude for so long, their condition has become normalized. Subsistence living has weakened the North Korean citizenry to the point that rebellion is unlikely, certainly from the masses.

Kim and company do not care so much about their people's well-being as they do about their obedience. A well-oiled machine inculcating the masses on the omnipotence of the state and the cult of personality surrounding the Kims as godlike and noble shores up the legitimacy of Kim, et al, since the government has miserably failed at economic growth for many decades.

So is this a "new" North Korea? Not so much. The DPRK is a nasty government whose grip on power is facilitated by casual brutality, mass imprisonment, summary executions and any horror one can imagine in between.

What has changed is South Korea's and the United States' response to North Korea. For years, North Korea behaved badly, came to the denuclearization bargaining table, got aid and international concessions, reneged on its obligations and restarted its nuclear proliferation once talks failed, repeating the cycle off and on. Thankfully, this cycle has been broken.

President Park Geun-hye's steely resolve to engage China and forcefully deal with North Korea, never conceding aid or answering bluster and bad behavior with calls for talks, coupled with President Barack Obama's policy of non-engagement while the North proliferates, are smart strategies.

Unfortunately, as I have stated before, North Korea will never give up its rudimentary nuclear arsenal. It has said as much. The DPRK sees this as its only insurance policy for survival. North Korea will either collapse from within, or be defeated in a short, bloody war. But let us not be confused. The shenanigans of Kim Jong-un are more of the same.

Deauwand Myers holds a master's degree in English literature and literary theory, and is an English professor outside Seoul. He can be reached at deauwand@hotmail.com.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://qz.com/602804/war-with-china...hing-for-independence-a-chinese-general-says/

WITH US OR AGAINST US

War with China is inevitable if Taiwan keeps pushing for independence, a Chinese general says

Written by Zheping Huang
Obsession, China's Transition
January 26, 2016

China is not happy about Taiwan’s recent election results. With new president Tsai Ing-Wen winning by a landslide and her Democratic Progressive Party in control of the legislature, Beijing now faces a ruling party with a more pro-independence stance although it has long viewed the self-ruled island as part of Chinese territory.

One day after the election, Beijing stressed its opposition to “any form of secessionist activities seeking ‘Taiwan independence.’” Last week, an army of Chinese internet users jumped their country’s Great Firewall to flood Tsai’s Facebook page with anti-independence messages. But the toughest statement yet came from a retired Chinese major general, who warns a war between China and Taiwan is inevitable if Taiwan continues to seek independence.

“We have promised that ‘Chinese people will never fight Chinese people,’ but if ‘Taiwan’s separatist’ forces continue to press us into a corner, we will be left with no choice but to seek ‘reunification by force,'” wrote Luo Yuan, a retired People’s Liberation Army general in a commentary (link in Chinese) published Monday (Jan. 25) in the nationalistic state tabloid Global Times. The high-ranking ex-general’s prominent essay in a state newspaper is an apparent warning signal to Tsai.

Luo, 66, now serves as the vice head of China Strategic Culture Promotion Association, a self-proclaimed “civil research group” on international and Taiwan affairs that is government-funded. A rear admiral in China’s navy, he is best known for his harsh stance on China’s territorial disputes with its neighbors.

“We will respect public opinions, but there are majority and minority public opinions,” Luo says. “Taiwan’s option for unification or independence can only be decided by the 1.3 billion Chinese people, including Taiwanese people.”

Luo warned Taiwan’s economy will be hurt by independence, citing its trade and tourism flows from China. Taiwan would have no chance of winning in a war against China, he said, comparing the military personnel and weapons of the two sides.

“Unification means peace and independence means war,” Luo says. This week, Taiwan held military drills on an island it controls just off the Chinese coast.

Back in 1992, China’s Communist Party signed an agreement with Taiwan’s Nationalist (Kuomintang) Party which states that both Taiwan and mainland China acknowledge there is only “One China,” but neither side recognizes the others’ legitimacy. Tsai Ing-Wen said she “understands and respects” the agreement after winning the election.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...ntary-new-russian-security-strategy/79294976/

Commentary: New Russian Security Strategy

By Khatuna Mshvidobadze
9:07 a.m. EST January 26, 2016

On New Year’s Eve, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed The National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation, replacing a 2009 version. The 2015 document is a bit shriller, particularly with anti-American and anti-NATO rhetoric, but it contains only a few new wrinkles. Mostly, it rehashes that unique combination of self-justification, bellicosity and insecurity that characterize Putin’s Russia.

The document puts the world on notice that Russia is a great power that will challenge what it perceives to be American “dominance in world affairs” that opposes “the conduct of the Russian Federation’s independent foreign and domestic policies.”

The headline in Russia’s new strategy is another warning to the West that Russia cannot abide NATO activity anywhere close to its borders and, moreover, that it resents the alliance’s growing global role.

“Expanding the force potential of NATO and endowing it with global functions that are implemented in violation of international legal norms, the bloc’s heightened military activity, its continued expansion and the approach of its military infrastructure to Russian borders, all create a threat to national security,” the document reads.

These passages reflect Moscow’s malaise with NATO’s forward defense and send Brussels a message intended to dampen any enthusiasm for Georgia or Ukraine in the alliance. Of course, there is no mention of the Russian aggression that sparks Georgian and Ukrainian interest in joining NATO. Nor does the document say that NATO’s temporary deployments closer to Russia’s borders reflect the fear of invasion among frontline alliance member. Rather, the Russian strategy document offers a shining example of the Kremlin’s Uncle Sam syndrome — everything is America’s fault!

“US and EU support for the anti-constitutional coup d’état in Ukraine,” the paper says, “led to a deep schism in Ukrainian society and to armed conflict. Stoking far-right nationalistic ideology, deliberate portrayal of Russia as an enemy of the Ukrainian people, a blatant bid for a military solution to intrastate conflict and a deep social and economic crisis turned Ukraine into a hearth of long-lasting instability in Europe, just at the Russian border.”

A new wrinkle to the 2015 document fits with this theme — Russia has discovered “US military biological laboratories” along its border. This apparently refers to laboratories refurbished in Georgia, Kazakhstan and Ukraine under the Cooperative Biological Engagement Program, a project authorized in accordance with the Nunn-Lugar Act. The program’s objective was exactly the opposite of Moscow’s assertion: It was to demilitarize old Soviet biological weapons facilities, sanitize them and render them for legitimate civilian purposes.

And Russia perceives threats on its periphery beyond southeastern Europe. Also in the “Eurasian and Asia-Pacific regions,” the document proceeds, “the principles of equal and indivisible security are not respected. Militarization and arms races characterize the regions that neighbor Russia.” The Americans and Europeans do not confine “the practice of overthrowing legitimate political authorities and provoking internal instability and conflict” to Eastern Europe. Rather, the practice “is becoming more widespread. In addition to the still-existing areas of instability in the Middle and Far East, in Africa, South Asia and the Korean Peninsula, new ‘hot spots’ have appeared, and the territory not controlled by any government authority has expanded.”

The 2015 document also forcefully reiterates Russia’s perennial warning about any kind of American or NATO missile defense systems. Such deployment, the document asserts, will “significantly decrease the possibility of maintaining global and regional stability.” This is intended to erode support for any NATO missile defense and to warn the next American president not to revisit US President Barack Obama’s decision to scuttle land-based systems in the Czech Republic and Poland in favor of a “reset” in US-Russian relations.

The only ray of light to emanate from the 2015 strategy is cast upon the Arctic. Russia remains committed to the objectives articulated in 2009: “economic development, basic transport, energy, information, military infrastructures, especially in the Arctic, Eastern Siberia and the Far East, and the development of the Northern Sea Route.”

However, the old document was somewhat belligerent, emphasizing the possibility of military confrontation “due to competition for resources.” This followed an August 2007 submarine expedition to plant a Russian flag in international waters, 4,000 meters below the North Pole, throwing down the gauntlet to Copenhagen, Oslo, Ottawa and Washington. Likely reflecting the Kremlin’s belated realization that it lacks the technology and capital to go it alone in the Arctic, the 2015 strategy notes that, “Of particular importance is the development of equal and mutually beneficial international cooperation in the Arctic.”

In sum, with the exception of a possible change of tone on the Arctic and a shriller pitch overall, the 2015 Russian national security strategy is not much different from the previous one. Yet again, it reflects the Kremlin’s Uncle Sam syndrome, insecurity and sense of grievance, all wrapped in a package of bellicose self-justification.

Khatuna Mshvidobadze is principal at Cyberlight Global Associates, McLean, Virginia, and an adjunct professor, Utica College, Utica, New York

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...poland-ukraine-launch-joint-brigade/79318062/

Lithuania, Poland, Ukraine To Launch Joint Brigade In 2017

Agence France-Presse
5:38 p.m. EST January 25, 2016

WARSAW — Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine on Monday said a joint brigade of 4,000 troops would be operational next year, as the region maintains a wary eye on Russia and its role in the Ukraine conflict.

“The multinational brigade is a sign, symbol and very clear signal to anyone who would want to undermine peace in Europe,” Polish Defence Minister Antoni Macierewicz said in a ministry statement.

While Lithuania and Poland are NATO and EU members, Ukraine is not but has been a part of the defense alliance’s Partnership for Peace eastern outreach program since 1994.

Macierewicz spoke after meeting with his counterparts from Lithuania and Ukraine, Juozas Olekas and Stepan Poltorak respectively, in the eastern Polish city of Lublin.

“We see this brigade as a driving force that will improve our army,” Poltorak said, quoted by the Polish news agency PAP.

He added that “the brigade will be fully operational in 2017”, while the Polish ministry statement said the military unit would “reach its full combat capability in January 2017.”

The three countries signed an agreement in September 2014 to form the so-called Litpolukrbrig brigade, which will mainly take part in peacekeeping operations.

The brigade has been in the works since 2007, but it is being put into action at a time of anxiety among Eastern European states once controlled by Moscow.

Poland and the three Baltic states, which include Lithuania, have been on edge since Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine in March 2014.

The Baltic trio and Poland, which will host a NATO summit in July, have called on the Western defense alliance to reinforce its presence in the region because of their concern over Russia.

The brigade troops will be deployed in their own countries and will join forces during exercises and joint operations. The headquarters will be in Lublin.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/opinion/opening-a-new-front-against-isis-in-libya.html?_r=0

The Opinion Pages | Editorial

Opening a New Front Against ISIS in Libya

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
JAN. 26, 2016
Comments 109

The Pentagon is ramping up intelligence-gathering in Libya as the Obama administration draws up plans to open a third front in the war against the Islamic State. This significant escalation is being planned without a meaningful debate in Congress about the merits and risks of a military campaign that is expected to include airstrikes and raids by elite American troops.

That is deeply troubling. A new military intervention in Libya would represent a significant progression of a war that could easily spread to other countries on the continent. It is being planned as the American military burrows more deeply into battlegrounds in Syria and Iraq, where American ground troops are being asked to play an increasingly hands-on role in the fight.

Gen. Joseph Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters on Friday that military officials were “looking to take decisive military action” against the Islamic State, or ISIS, in Libya, where Western officials estimate the terrorist group has roughly 3,000 fighters.

Administration officials say the campaign in Libya could begin in a matter of weeks. They anticipate it would be conducted with the help of a handful of European allies, including Britain, France and Italy. The planning is unfolding amid political chaos in Libya, which continues to reel from the aftermath of the 2011 civil war that ended with the killing of the country’s longtime dictator, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. In recent months the United Nations has struggled to persuade two groups of Libyan officials who claim to be the country’s rightful leaders to band together. On Monday, the parliament that is recognized by the international community rejected a unity government proposal brokered by the United Nations.

The political strife and infighting among rival militias created an opening for the Islamic State in Libya in 2014. The extremist group now controls the coastal city of Surt, which lies between the country’s two largest cities, Tripoli and Benghazi. General Dunford told reporters that striking the cells of Islamic State fighters in Libya would “put a firewall” between that front and sympathizers of the group elsewhere in North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa.

That is a reasonable goal. But military officials have yet to make a persuasive case that it is achievable. Even if the Pentagon and its allies were to manage to strike Islamic State targets successfully, it remains uncertain that they would have a reliable ground force to hold the terrain. There’s good reason to believe that airstrikes would create the temptation to deploy ground troops to gather intelligence and provide technical support to rebel forces as they have in Iraq and Syria.

On the same day General Dunford discussed the plans for Libya, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter said the Pentagon was redoubling efforts to assist local forces in Iraq and Syria. “We’re looking for opportunities to do more, and there will be boots on the ground — I want to be clear about that — but it’s a strategic question, whether you are enabling local forces to take and hold, rather than trying to substitute for them,” he told CNBC in an interview.

There seems to be little interest in Congress to authorize the campaign against the Islamic State, which is predicated, preposterously, on the 2001 law passed to take action against the culprits of the Sept. 11 attacks. The prospect of a new front in the war should spur lawmakers to revisit the issue.

The White House has said it would be nice, but not necessary, for Congress to pass a new authorization for the use of military force. That stance has allowed Congress — which has primary responsibility under the Constitution to declare war — to sidestep an important war vote.