WAR 07-09-2016-to-07-15-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

[Housecarl]

(223) 06-18-2016-to-06-24-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...24-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(224) 06-25-2016-to-07-01-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...01-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(225) 07-02-2016-to-07-08-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...08-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

------

North Korea Successfully Tests Road Mobile Musudan IRBM (22 June 2016)
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...Road-Mobile-Musudan-IRBM-(22-June-2016)/page2

North Korea 'fires submarine-launched ballistic missile' - 23 April 2016
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...aunched-ballistic-missile-23-April-2016/page4

-------

Everyone is assuming that the intent of the test was the missile and not the underwater launch system and procedure from the submarine.....If we see the sub again on satellite imagery and it isn't torn up then the test should be looking at as a success on that end which is just as important as the missile working beyond leaving the submarine and breaking surface....HC

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-missile-idUSKCN0ZP02U

Business | Sat Jul 9, 2016 2:09am EDT
Related: World, South Korea, North Korea, Aerospace & Defense

North Korea fires missile from submarine but it appears to have failed: South Korea

SEOUL | By Ju-min Park

North Korea fired a ballistic missile from a submarine on Saturday but it appears to have failed soon after launch, South Korea's military said.

The launch comes at the end of a week of sharply rising tensions on the peninsula. It is only a day after the U.S. and South Korea pledged to deploy an advanced anti-missile system to counter threats from Pyongyang, and two days after North Korea warned it was planning its toughest response to what it deemed a "declaration of war" by the United States.

That followed Washington's blacklisting of the isolated state's leader Kim Jong Un for alleged human rights abuses.

The South's Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said in a statement that the missile was launched at about 11:30 a.m. Seoul time (0230 GMT) in waters east of the Korean peninsula.

The missile was likely fired from a submarine as planned but appears to have failed in the early stage of flight, the Joint Chiefs said.

South Korea's Yonhap news agency said the missile's engine successfully ignited but the projectile soon exploded in mid-air at a height of about 10 km (6 miles), and covered not more than a few kilometers across the water.

The South's military declined to confirm those details.

The missile was detected in the sea southeast of the North Korean city of Sinpo, South Korea's military said. Satellite images indicate Pyongyang is actively trying to develop its submarine-launched ballistic missile program in this area, according to experts.


Related Coverage
› North Korea missile fell into sea, no threat to North America: U.S. Strategic Command


ABE CONDEMNS

Neighboring Japan, the United States, and South Korea's military condemned the missile launch as a flagrant violation of U.N. sanctions.

The missile launch is a "clear challenge to U.N. Security Council resolutions," Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said on Saturday, according to Kyodo news agency.

"We should strongly condemn the launch by working with the international community," Abe told reporters.

Abe said the launch did not gravely affect Japan's national security.

The U.S. said it was monitoring and assessing the situation in close coordination with its regional allies and partners.

"We strongly condemn North Korea's missile test in violation of UN Security Council Resolutions, which explicitly prohibit North Korea's use of ballistic missile technology," said Gabrielle Price, spokeswoman for the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs at the U.S. Department of State.

"These actions, and North Korea's continued pursuit of ballistic missile and nuclear weapons capabilities, pose a significant threat to the United States, our allies, and to the stability of the greater Asia-Pacific," she added.


Related Coverage
› U.S. State Dept. condemns North Korea missile test
› Japan PM Abe says North Korea missile launch should be strongly condemned: Kyodo

The North has conducted a string of military tests that began in January with its fourth nuclear test and included the launch of a long-range rocket the following month.

The U.N. Security Council imposed harsh new sanctions on the country in March for its nuclear test and rocket launch.

North Korea rejects the sanctions as infringement of its sovereignty and its right to space exploration.

South Korea and the United States said on Friday they would deploy the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-missile system with the U.S. military in South Korea to counter the threat from nuclear-armed North Korea, drawing a sharp and swift protest from neighboring China, Pyongyang's sole major ally.

Pyongyang also conducted a test of a submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) in April, calling it a "great success" that provided "one more means for powerful nuclear attack".

A report on 38 North, a website run by the U.S.-Korea Institute at Johns Hopkins University in the U.S., said in May that North Korea’s submarine-launched ballistic missile program is making progress, but it appeared that the first ballistic missile submarine and operational missiles are unlikely to become operational before 2020.


(Additional reporting by Jack Kim in SEOUL and Taiga Uranaka in TOKYO; Editing by Ed Davies and Martin Howell)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-summit-idUSKCN0ZN2NL

World | Fri Jul 8, 2016 7:09pm EDT
Related: World, Mali

NATO agrees to reinforce eastern Poland, Baltic states against Russia

WARSAW | By Robin Emmott and Sabine Siebold


Reuters
NATO agrees to reinforce Poland, Baltic states against Russia (01:12)


NATO leaders agreed on Friday to deploy military forces to the Baltic states and eastern Poland for the first time and increase air and sea patrols to reassure allies who were once part of the Soviet bloc following Russia's seizure of Crimea from Ukraine.

The 28-nation Western defense alliance decided to move four battalions totaling 3,000 to 4,000 troops into northeastern Europe on a rotating basis to display its readiness to defend eastern members against any Russian aggression.

However, they also underlined their willingness to pursue a dialogue with Moscow and revive confidence-building measures that Russia has spurned since its 2014 annexation of Crimea and support for Russian-speaking rebels in eastern Ukraine.

"These battalions will be robust and they will be multinational. They make clear that an attack on one ally will be considered an attack on the whole alliance," NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told a news conference after the summit's first working session in Warsaw, the Polish capital.

President Barack Obama said the United States would deploy about 1,000 soldiers in Poland under the plan "to enhance our forward presence in central and eastern Europe". Germany will lead the battalion in Lithuania, Britain in Estonia and Canada in Latvia. Other nations such as France will supply troops.

White House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes told reporters that what he called continued aggression by Russia would provoke a response by NATO and a greater alliance presence in Eastern Europe.

Obama said earlier that Britain's referendum vote to leave the European Union, an outcome he sought to avoid, should not weaken the Western alliance but raised "significant questions" about the future of European integration. America's "special relationship" with the UK would survive, the president said.

Obama discussed the procedure for Britain's withdrawal with the heads of the main EU institutions, Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker, and was assured there would be an orderly transition to as close an economic relationship as possible and no punishment of Britain, Rhodes told reporters.

Host nation Poland set a tone of mistrust of Russian intentions. Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski told a pre-summit forum: "We have to reject any type of wishful thinking with regard to pragmatic cooperation with Russia as long as it keeps on invading its neighbors."

Obama was more diplomatic, calling for dialogue with Russia, but he too urged allies to keep sanctions on Moscow in place until it fully complies with a ceasefire agreement in Ukraine.

Ukraine is not a member of NATO but President Petro Poroshenko will meet allied leaders on Saturday, where he may face pressure to fulfill Kiev's part of the agreement by accepting more decentralization and local elections in the rebel-held eastern Donbass region.


Related Coverage
› U.S. says continued Russian aggression will provoke NATO response
› NATO agrees new eastern troop deterrent, to talk to Russia

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that while NATO was increasing its defense capabilities, it was always keen for dialogue with Moscow. A planned meeting of the long frozen NATO-Russia Council next week would address ways to avoid dangerous situations in Baltic air space, she said.

Russian warplanes have been buzzing Western civilian and military aircraft and switching off their identification signals as part of an apparent campaign of intimidation in response to Western economic sanctions over its action in Ukraine.

"Just as there are understandings between the United States and Russia in Syria, it's in both sides' interests that NATO and Russia also coordinate their activities," Merkel said.


ADVERSARY AND PARTNER

Coinciding with the NATO summit, the U.S. State Department announced it had expelled two Russian diplomats on June 17 in response to an attack by a Russian policeman on a U.S. diplomat in Moscow earlier last month. It was not clear why the United States waited until Friday to disclose the news.

Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland had requested a permanent NATO presence, fearing Moscow will seek to destabilize their pro-Western governments through cyber attacks, stirring up Russian speakers, hostile broadcasts or territorial incursions.

The three Baltic states, as well as Ukraine, are former Soviet republics that gained independence when the Soviet Union broke up in 1991.

The head of NATO's military committee, Czech General Petr Pavel, said Russia was attempting to restore its status as a world power, an effort that included using its military. "We must accept that Russia can be a competitor, adversary, peer or partner and probably all four at the same time," he said.

The Kremlin said it was absurd for NATO to talk of any threat from Russia and it hoped "common sense" would prevail at the Warsaw summit. Moscow remains open to dialogue with NATO and is ready to cooperate with it, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in a conference call with journalists.

Russia often depicts NATO as an aggressor whose members are moving troops and military hardware further into former Soviet territory, which it regards as its sphere of influence.


Related Coverage
› Poland should do more to address constitutional court concerns-Obama
› NATO's new deterrent still incomplete: top NATO general
› NATO takes over U.S.-built missile shield, amid Russian suspicion


Russia President Vladimir Putin discussed diplomatic efforts for a settlement in Ukraine in a phone call with Merkel and French President Francois Hollande just before the summit began. The Kremlin said he asked them to "influence more actively the Ukrainian side" to grant wider autonomy to eastern Ukraine.

Moscow has declared its intention to deploy nuclear-capable missiles in Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave between Poland and Lithuania, in response to NATO's activation of a U.S.-built missile shield on Polish soil.


BREXIT

Outgoing British Prime Minister David Cameron vowed Britain would not turn its back on European security once it leaves the EU following the Brexit vote. Britain is Europe's biggest military spender, followed by France.

Hollande, who has sent French forces on missions against Islamist militants in Mali, the Central African Republic, Iraq and Syria, urged other European allies to increase their defense budgets - veiled criticism of Germany, which spends just over 1 percent of GDP on the military, or half the NATO objective.

NATO and the EU signed an agreement on deeper military and security cooperation. The U.S.-led alliance is set to announce on Saturday its support for the EU's Mediterranean interdiction operation. NATO is already backing EU efforts to stem a refugee influx from Turkey into Greece, in conjunction with an EU-Turkey deal to curb migration in return for benefits for Ankara.

Stoltenberg also said NATO defense ministers would consider calls from Romania and Bulgaria for a stronger allied air and sea presence in the Black Sea, where Russia has a fleet based in Crimea and is building up its interdiction capacity.


(Additional reporting by Ayesha Rascoe, Yeganeh Torbati, Wiktor Szary, Justyna Pawlak and Gabriela Baczynska in Warsaw; Writing by Paul Taylor; Editing by Mark Heinrich)

More from Reuters

•U.S. Air Force eyes decision on F-35 combat readiness soon |7 Jul

•Footage shows U.S. diplomat, Russian guard grappling on embassy steps |7 Jul

•Wary of Russia, Sweden and Finland sit at NATO top table |7 Jul

•Use of Dallas 'bomb robot' to kill revives police militarization issue |8 Jul

•Commentary: Drones, fighter jets and the future U.S. Air Force |5 Jul

 

[Housecarl]

"Trip-wire" and "speed bump" come to mind in describing this sort of "gesture".....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.post-gazette.com/news/wo...Poland-to-counter-Russia/stories/201607090097

U.S. deploying Army battalion to Poland to counter Russia
July 9, 2016 12:41 AM

By Dan Lamothe / The Washington Post


WARSAW — President Barack Obama announced Friday that he will send a battalion of about 1,000 Army soldiers to Poland as part of a new NATO mission, an effort to deter any aggression by Moscow at Russia’s borders with Poland and the Baltic countries.

Mr. Obama, speaking alongside Polish President Andrzej Duda at a biannual NATO summit, said that the United States and Poland have a duty to defend each other as members of NATO. The battalion will be deployed in addition to the headquarters of an Army armored brigade, bolstering security on the alliance’s eastern flank as Russia carries out a series of military exercises just over its border.

“Poland is going to be seeing an increase in NATO and American personnel and the most modern, capable military equipment,” Mr. Obama said. “With the new commitments that I am announcing today, the people of Poland and our allies across the region can remain confident that NATO will stand with you, shoulder-to-shoulder, today and always.”

Mr. Obama also said Poland must do more to sustain the democratic values that helped transform the former communist country into a NATO and European Union member.

The deployment announcement was expected, and comes as the United Kingdom, Germany and Canada prepare to establish multinational battalions of a similar size in Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, respectively. Mr. Obama’s appearance came as leaders from NATO countries assembled here to grapple with issues ranging from the migrant crisis spawned by the conflicts in Libya, Syria and Iraq to combating the Islamic State group.

Senior U.S. defense officials, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss ongoing planning, said after the president’s announcement that specifics of the coming deployment are still being developed. What’s clear, however, is that the battalion will be mechanized, with armored vehicles and possibly tanks.

Discussions about the four battalions deploying were made public earlier this year. But the U.S. did not confirm it was sending its unit in the program to Poland until Friday. One senior defense official said the Pentagon is open to altering how it deploys the battalion after the initial assignment this year.

“Things will change,” one senior defense official predicted. “It’s just the nature of military things as you make decisions and you deploy. If you want to do it a different way because it’s more efficient militarily or more cost-effective, you want to make changes and shape things. You’ll see things shifting, probably.”

The official said the U.S. ended up with the Poland assignment in part because it already had committed to putting the headquarters of the armored combat brigade team here and Poland has the necessary infrastructure.

“You’ve got to have facilities there that can handle a group as big as an armored brigade combat team,” citing tanks and artillery cannons as equipment that could be deployed. “You also want them in a place where they can get around to other places should the situation call for it.”

While U.S. officials said the new battalion in Poland will be composed entirely of American soldiers, the battalions in the three Baltic countries will be multinational. In Lithuania, for example, the German-led battalion will also include troops from the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Norway, Lithuanian Foreign Minister Linas Linkevicius said Friday.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that the deployments are the “biggest reinforcement to our collective defense in a generation.” It’s an important step, he added, but part of a bigger effort.

Russian leaders have mounted an angry response to NATO’s plans, saying they will bolster their troop deployments along Russia’s western border with NATO and step up military exercises in response. But Mr. Stoltenberg took pains Friday to say that NATO did not seek a fight with the Kremlin.

“We do not want a new Cold War,” Mr. Stoltenberg said. ‘We do not want a new arms race and we do not seek confrontation.”

But NATO’s unity is showing some cracks. Germany, France and Italy are showing signs of wavering from the hard-line stance they adopted after President Vladimir Putin of Russia annexed Crimea two years ago.

The summit comes two weeks after British voters took a shock decision to break with the European Union, a landmark move that puts Western institutions under unprecedented pressure. It was the first meeting for Mr. Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron since the referendum.

The decision will not directly affect Britain’s commitment to NATO, but it has unnerved the most vulnerable allied nations as a warning sign that voters may not be as committed to international alliances as their leaders.

“People do not know what the elite is doing, or if they do know, they are not listening sometimes,” said Mr. Linkevicius.

U.S. officials have downplayed the affect of Brexit on NATO and national security issues. Mr. Obama said Friday that while the vote has “led some some to suggest that the entire edifice of European security and prosperity is crumbling,” such talk is “hyperbole.”

“European countries are and will remain among our closest allies and friends, and Europe is an indispensable partner around the globe,” Mr. Obama said. “Indeed, even as we manage the implications of Brexit, our work today shows that we’re going to continue to be focused on pressing global challenges.”

The New York Times and Bloomberg News contributed.
Barack Obama - Andrzej Duda - Jens Stoltenberg - David Cameron - Poland - Lithuania - United Kingdom - United States - Russia - Europe - Eastern Europe - Western Europe - North America - Russian armed forces - U.S. Department of Defense - United States military - North Atlantic Treaty Organization - Russia government - United States government

First Published July 9, 2016 12:31 AM

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.eurasiareview.com/09072016-nato-to-send-multinational-battalions-eastward/

NATO To Send Multinational Battalions Eastward

By DoD News
July 9, 2016
By Jim Garamone

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said the North Atlantic Council has approved forward presence along the alliance’s border with Russia.

The secretary general briefed the press following the first day of North Atlantic Council deliberations at the July 8-9 Warsaw Summit. President Barack Obama leads the U.S. delegation.

NATO heads of state agreed to send reinforced, multinational battalions to the eastern part of the alliance. “These battalions will be robust and multinational,” Stoltenberg said. “They demonstrate the strength of the transatlantic bond, and they make clear that an attack on one ally would be considered an attack on the whole alliance.”

Multinational Battalions

Canada will be the framework nation for the battalion in Latvia, Stoltenberg said. Germany, he said, will lead in Lithuania, the United Kingdom will be in Estonia and the United States will take the lead in Poland.

“I also welcome that many other allies announced during our meeting that they will contribute in different ways,” Stoltenberg said.

The battalions will be in place next year, the secretary general said.

NATO leaders also agreed to declare initial operational capability of the NATO Ballistic Missile Defense system. “This means the U.S. ships based in Spain, the radar in Turkey and the interceptor site in Romania are now able to work together under NATO command and control,” Stoltenberg said.

He emphasized the system is entirely defensive in nature and is not aimed at Russia and its strategic nuclear defense.

“Today, we also recognized cyberspace as a new operational domain — joining land, air and sea,” Stoltenberg said. “This means better protection of our networks and missions and operations with more focus on cyber training and cyber planning.” He said the decision is a clear sign to all that the alliance is strengthening its defense in all areas.

NATO’s security depends on all nations being prepared, he said. Nations agreed to boost resilience and improve civil preparedness. They also agreed to invest in new capabilities needed to meet new threats, including hybrid warfare.

“Modern challenges require a modern alliance and they require the right resources,” Stoltenberg said.

Defense Investment Pledge

The leaders reviewed and reconfirmed the defense investment pledge made at the last NATO Summit in Wales. Last year was the first year in many with a small increase in defense spending across NATO, Stoltenberg said. Estimates for 2016, he said, show a further increase across the European allies and Canada.

“This amounts to $8 billion,” he said, noting, many allies are increasing their readiness and the ability to deploy their forces.

“We still have a long way to go, but I believe we have turned a corner,” he added,

Stoltenberg stressed that NATO is a defensive alliance. None of the 29 nations in the group — now including Montenegro, which formally joined today — want confrontation, he said.

“As we continue to strengthen our deterrence and defense, we continue to seek a dialogue with Russia,” he said. “Russia cannot and should not be isolated. Furthermore, with increased military activity in and around Europe we have an interest in agreeing about the rules of the road with Russia. We need to avoid miscalculation and accidents.”

Stoltenberg said he will convene a meeting of the NATO-Russia Council next week to brief Russia on the decisions from the Warsaw Summit.

“NATO’s greatest responsibility remains the protection of our almost 1 billion citizens,” he said. “This fundamental fact informs everything we do. The decisions we have taken today will help keep our nations safe in the more dangerous world.”

-

DoD News

DoD News publishes news from the US Defense Department.

 

[Housecarl]

Added this older article for perspective regarding German's role and goals for the future of both NATO and the EU and its "EU Army".....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.businessinsider.com/r-merkel-offers-hand-to-russia-ahead-of-nato-summit-2016-7

Merkel offers hand to Russia ahead of NATO summit

Reuters
Jul. 7, 2016, 5:49 AM

BERLIN (Reuters) - German Chancellor Angela Merkel offered Moscow her "outstretched hand for dialogue" on Thursday, a day before NATO leaders meet in Warsaw to cement a new deterrent against what they see as an emboldened Russia.

Germany, which helped ease the Cold War with its 'Ostpolitik', or rapprochement with Communist states in eastern Europe, wants a constructive relationship between Russia and NATO, Merkel said.

"This means deterrence and dialogue, the clear commitment to solidarity with our partners in the alliance .. and an outstretched hand for dialogue," she told parliament.

The two-day NATO summit in Warsaw will be dominated by the alliance's response to Russia and a conflict in eastern Ukraine that the West accuses Moscow of fomenting at a cost of more than 9,000 lives. The conflict has led to Western imposition of economic sanctions on Russia and countermeasures by Moscow.

Russia says it is the alliance, not Moscow, that is increasing the risks of a broader conflict in Europe, citing NATO's biggest modernization since the Cold War and a U.S. missile defense shield as reasons to be worried.

The United States wants to hand over command and control of the missile shield to NATO at Warsaw. Merkel said the system, which is part of the U.S. response to protect against Iranian missiles, was positioned purely defensively.

"It is not directed against Russia," she said to some heckling from opposition lawmakers. "It does not influence the strategic balance between NATO and Russia."

(Reporting by Paul Carrel; editing by Ralph Boulton)

------

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.politico.eu/article/nato...man-foreign-minister-frank-walter-steinmeier/

NATO’s Germany problem

Military alliance wants a harder line on Moscow, but Berlin keeps sending mixed messages.

By Matthew Karnitschnig | 7/8/16, 5:30 AM CET

BERLIN — When NATO’s faithful gather to discuss the Alliance’s latest challenge, a flurry of adjectives fills the air — mercurial, unpredictable, self-righteous.

The object of the frustration isn’t the bloc’s longtime nemesis to the east, however. It’s Germany.

As many Alliance members become increasingly nervous over Russia’s incursions into neighboring territories and demand a harsher tone with Moscow, powerful voices in Berlin have pushed in the opposite direction.

“What we shouldn’t do now is inflame the situation further with loud saber-rattling and warmongering,” German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told Germany’s Bild last month. “Anyone who believes that a symbolic tank parade on the Alliance’s Eastern frontier will create security is mistaken.”

As NATO leaders convene in Warsaw this weekend for a summit to debate the Alliance’s stance on Russia, Germany’s increasingly dovish position is frustrating efforts to present a united front.

While Western sanctions and efforts to bolster NATO’s presence in the Baltics and Poland enjoy support across most of Europe, in Germany the measures are subject of constant criticism at the highest levels of government. Given Germany’s political clout in Europe and status as a pillar of NATO, its internal squabbling on Russia has unnerved many of the countries that are counting on its help.

“They’re not a reliable ally,” said John Kornblum, a former U.S. undersecretary of state for Europe and ambassador to Germany. “You can’t really count on them.”

‘Can’t count on Washington’

Steinmeier’s comments came at the conclusion of a 10-day NATO military exercise in Poland, the largest such maneuver ever staged by the Alliance. Though Steinmeier didn’t specifically criticize the exercise, his comments were widely interpreted as a broadside against it — an impression his ministry did little to counter.

“Such developments lead to uncontrollable situations, all the way up to war,” Gernot Erler, a Steinmeier deputy and the government’s point man on Russia, warned a few days later.

So far, Chancellor Angela Merkel, whose center-right alliance governs in coalition with Steinmeier’s Social Democrats, has shied away from the debate, leaving it to party colleagues to express annoyance at the “irritations” the foreign minister’s remarks have created with allies. Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble accused Steinmeier this week of trying to score political points at NATO’s expense, saying his cabinet colleague’s remarks “were not just a rhetorical mistake.”

Therein lies the problem for proponents of a tougher line on Russia. Though the Social Democrats are plumbing historic depths in the polls, Steinmeier is far and away Germany’s most popular politician with an approval rating of about 75 percent. A clear majority of Germans, roughly two-thirds, supports his stance on Russia, according to a recent YouGov poll. Only 9 percent of those polled approved of Berlin’s decision to reinforce NATO forces in the Baltics.

Resistance in Central Europe to taking in refugees, and the increasingly belligerent rhetoric of Poland’s nationalist government toward Germany, has done little to win over Berlin. Merkel also likely has an eye on German elections next year and doesn’t want to spend the political capital necessary to argue for a more robust response.

Washington also bears some responsibility for the situation for not engaging more on European security and leaving the Germans to their own devices.
“The U.S. has also dropped the ball,” Kornblum said.

That’s particularly worrying to Moscow’s former satellites. “They’re saying ‘we can’t count on either Washington or Berlin’ and that’s making them doubly nervous,” said Gustav Gressel, a fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations in Berlin.

While Steinmeier’s Social Democrats are the strongest proponents of a soft-shoe approach to Russia, many in Merkel’s conservative alliance, in particular the leaders of Bavaria’s Christian Social Union, also endorse his position.

“The CSU supports phasing out the sanctions against Russia,” CSU party leader Horst Seehofer said last week. “Sanctions shouldn’t be permanent. A bloc mentality is not suited for these times.”

History lessons

What lies behind the German appeasement reflex is a potent combination of cultural affinity, history and business interests.

Though the former East Germany was under Moscow’s control for decades during the Cold War, it was never subjugated in the same way Poland and other satellites were and most Germans don’t harbor a visceral dislike of Russia. Indeed, many who grew up in the GDR maintain a deep affection for Russian culture. Some, including Merkel, speak fluent Russian. Some 81 percent of Germans favor closer ties with Russia, second only to France, according to an April poll by the Körber Foundation.

Germans see Russia, in contrast to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, as an equal, a great power with a rich culture and history. A common refrain in any discussion about Russia in Berlin these days is that the West needs “to respect” its eastern neighbor.


Also On Politico

Russia factor at NATO summit

Fabrice Pothier


For most German elites both East and West, it was not the American-led arms race that was decisive in winning the Cold War, but Willy Brandt’s Ostpolitik, the policy of rapprochement that Bonn began pursuing in the late 1960s.

Steinmeier’s remarks “reflect what have been core Social Democratic principles for decades,” Thomas Oppermann, the head of the party’s parliamentary group, said in defense of the minister.

While that is true, a key factor in understanding Germany’s deep connection with Russia is the war. As is the case with both France and Poland, Germany’s relationship with Russia is defined by guilt over the slaughter of World War II.

At a recent symposium on Germany-Russia relations in Berlin, Andreas Peschke, a senior German diplomat, began his presentation with a homily about the Nazis’ “assault on the Soviet Union” 75 years ago. While he stressed the necessity for “easing the tensions and dialogue,” he made no demands on Russia to reassure its neighbors. Russia’s role in the downing of a Malaysian airliner, killing 298, was left unmentioned.

The tenor of the invitation-only event, hosted by Deutsche Bank Chief Executive Jürgen Fitschen in the bank’s Berlin office, was that the West needs to do more to repair relations with Moscow.

“We need to have the courage to pursue new paths,” August Henning, the former head of Germany’s foreign intelligence service, told the assembly.
Such voices are often derided in Berlin as Putinversteher, literally “Putin understanders.”

Former chancellor Gerhard Schröder, a close friend of the Russian leader and senior executive at an affiliate of state-owned Gazprom, has been at the forefront of this group for years. Once a minority, the Putinvertehers’ ranks have swelled the longer the West’s standoff with Russia has gone on.

The push is partly driven by the business community. Though Russia ranks only 16th among Germany’s export markets, a number of influential companies, from Siemens to Volkswagen, invested heavily in the country and are feeling the pinch of sanctions. A lobby for German businesses in Russia, known the Ost-Auschuss, has been tireless in urging an end to the sanctions.

“It’s clear that the Putinversteher see the NATO summit and the policy of reassurance toward Poland and the Baltics as bad for business,” Gressel said.

Pressure from those interests was behind Merkel’s reluctance to impose economic sanctions on Russia to begin with. It was only after the Malaysian airliner was downed that she finally relented.

Merkel under pressure

While the chancellor has toed the Western line by insisting Moscow must comply with the Minsk peace accords before sanctions can be lifted, she faces constant pressure from within her grand coalition to change course.

Both Steinmeier and SPD chief Sigmar Gabriel, who is also economy minister, have pushed for a gradual relaxation of sanctions. Even with the sanctions in place, Germany has continued to pursue important business projects with Russia.

For example, Berlin is pushing ahead with plans to build a second gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea linking Russia and Germany, despite opposition from several European allies. The pipeline would rob Central European countries of billions in transit fees they now receive for transporting gas and concentrate about 80 percent of Russian supplies to Europe along one route.

The political rationale behind such moves is that increased interdependence between Russia and Germany will help lessen the threat Moscow poses.

That strategy is underpinned by perpetual calls from leading German politicians and foreign policy experts to continue discussions with Russia.

“Russia is not particularly interested in dialogue at the moment but we should shower it with offers,” Wolfgang Ischinger, head of the Munich Security Conference and former German ambassador to Washington, wrote in an op-ed for Spiegel Online this week.

The Russian leadership presented Germans with a new forum to engage in such discussions last week in Berlin. Putin confidante Vladimir Jakunin opened a new think tank called “Dialogue of Civilizations” in the German capital on Friday.

Former SPD chief Matthias Platzeck was among the 120 guests at the opening ceremony.

“Sometimes I have the impression that the mere mention of President Putin’s name prompts a lowering of the blinds. We should stop that because it impedes progress,” he told Russia’s RT television.

------

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...blems-than-brexit-as-german-ambivalence-rears

NATO Has Bigger Problems Than Brexit as German Ambivalence Rears

by Marc Champion
July 8, 2016 — 9:37 AM PDT

Video

-Delegates to Warsaw summit cite ‘Saber-Rattling’ comment
-U.K.’s surprise vote to quit EU shows unexpected can happen

At the last North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit in Wales two years ago, the villain of the piece was clear: Russian President Vladimir Putin, who just months earlier had annexed part of Ukraine.

This time Putin is having to share the stage with one of the alliance’s own, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.

Leaders, military officials, security experts and others attending the alliance’s two-day summit in Warsaw expressed deep concern, either directly or by implication, over Steinmeier’s recent attack on NATO military exercises in Poland and the Baltic States as “saber-rattling and war cries.”


Steinmeier’s comments were quickly overridden by German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Nevertheless, they have crystallized fears about the wider lesson of the U.K.’s recent surprise vote to leave the European Union: namely, that popular support for the Western alliance and values that NATO protects may be evaporating, opening the way for electoral upsets and fundamental policy shifts that until recently seemed inconceivable.

With elections coming up in the U.S., France and then Germany over the next year, much of the discussion at a parallel summit forum by think tanks to discuss NATO’s future was about the need for the alliance to explain all over again what it was for. Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican candidate for President in November elections, has backed Brexit and questioned the continued value of NATO to the U.S.

“The German people have been told that NATO is saber-rattling,” said former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, as she attacked “myopic voices” on both sides of the Atlantic. “As the U.K. referendum reminds us, it is not enough to sit back and assume that people will understand the logic of international engagement.”

British Muscle

At a summit characterized by anxieties over the alliance’s continued unity, few seemed concerned about the post-Brexit contribution to NATO from the U.K., which has one of the alliance’s most capable militaries. Indeed, most expected Britain to become more committed to the alliance as it loses influence on the continent by leaving the EU.


That provided only limited comfort, however,as officials committed to NATO worried aloud about its ability to hang together. “At this point of time we cannot afford to disagree on defense concerns,” said Swedish Defense Minister Peter Hultqvis. Sweden is not a NATO member, but has been strengthening ties due to concerns over Russian behavior. The summit was characterized by repeated commitments to unity by the alliance’s 28 members, soon to be 29, once membership of the former Yugoslav republic, Montenegro is ratified.

“The most serious threat to NATO unity is also its best hope, Germany,” Jonathan Eyal, associate director of the U.K.’s Royal United Services Institute, said at the NATO forum. Merkel has taken a leading role in crafting the Western response to Russia. Steinmeier’s comments, however, show that his Social Democratic Party is preparing to make opposition to NATO policy a campaign issue in next year’s election, according to Eyal. The SPD look highly unlikely to win that race, but no vote can now be taken for granted after Brexit, he said.

Steinmeieresque view

“We need Germany to understand” the importance of committing to the defense of NATO’s eastern members, said Poland’s Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski, in a speech that expressed Polish concerns.

In France, candidates are vying for support ahead of presidential elections next year, with the nationalist, anti-EU National Front’s Marine Le Pen calling for France to leave NATO.

Even if, as expected, Le Pen does not defeat what she calls France’s “globalist” parties to win the presidency, there is cause for concern. France already takes a more Steinmeieresque view of Russia. On Friday, after holding a call with Vladimir Putin, President Francois Hollande insisted that Russia was “not a threat,” but rather “a partner that can at times, it’s true as we saw it in Ukraine, use force.”

French officials also indicated after the Brexit vote that they may revive a bid to create an EU version of NATO’s command headquarters, a move the U.K. has long blocked and which NATO officials fear would sap commitment to the alliance.

Europe’s Hardliners

Seen from Moscow, NATO’s travails and the growing nationalism and populism that feed them only seem to validate Putin’s view of a world that’s returning to competition between nation states, rather than NATO’s democracy-promoting internationalism, said Andrei Kortunov, director general of the Russian International Affairs Council.

“If one of Europe’s hardline nationalists were here,” said Kortunov of the NATO forum, “they would say that all these people don’t know what they’re talking about.”

 

[Housecarl]

Hummmm......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/13...-Nato-to-do-more-on-fighting-militant-attacks

Erdogan calls on Nato to do more on fighting militant attacks

July 09, 2016

ISTANBUL: Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan called on Nato to do more to fight the threat of global terrorism, saying the 28-nation alliance needed to “update” itself to better adapt to new security threats.

Nato leaders are meeting at a summit in Warsaw on Friday where they are expected to display their resolve towards a resurgent Russia - despite what some see as a weakening of the West due to Britain´s vote to leave the European Union.

Speaking to reporters before his departure to Warsaw late on Thursday, Erdogan said he would press the leaders of fellow Nato countries to do more to fight militant attacks like the triple suicide bombing last week that killed 45 people at Istanbul´s main airport.

“As we have seen from the terrorist attacks first in Istanbul and then in Iraq and Saudi Arabia, international security is becoming more fragile," he said.

“The concept of a security threat is undergoing a serious change. In this process, Nato needs to be more active and has to update itself against the new security threats," he said.

The Istanbul bombing, the deadliest in a string of similar attacks in Turkey this year, is believed to be the work of Islamic State militants from the former Soviet Union, Erdogan has said.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realcleardefense.com/art...issile_threats_cannot_be_ignored__109537.html

July 8, 2016

Growing Ballistic Missile Threats Cannot Be Ignored

By Steven P. Bucci

China, Russia, Iran, North Korea—all are U.S. adversaries, and all are making remarkable and continual advances in long-range ballistic missile capabilities. Maintaining and modernizing our upper-tier missile defense system has never been more vital in order for the U.S. to be able to win on the future war landscape.

Repeated cuts to the U.S. ballistic missile defense (BMD) budget over the last eight years have already put us behind where we should be. Moreover, the entire BMD enterprise has been retarded by leaders who reject a modern view of how technology should be developed and deployed.

Clearly BMD technology is not yet perfect. The “old school” method, embraced by the Obama Administration, is to test a new technology in “the lab” until it performs perfectly; only then do you deploy it. The modern view is that, since we need protection now, we should deploy BMD now to gain the protection it can provide (which, while not perfect, it is pretty darned good); then, use those real world deployments to fuel the technological improvements.

Further slowing progress is the long-running debate between arms control advocates who don’t want to “rock the boat” with our adversaries, and those who say our first responsibility is to protect America’s interests, even if that bothers the likes of Putin and the Ayatollahs in Tehran.

To improve our upper-tier BMD capabilities commensurate with the threats we face, the U.S. must fund the program adequately, embrace the modern view on tech and put the protection of U.S. interests first.

The Growing Threat

According to the Army’s Space Missile Defense Command, 22 countries now have ballistic missile capabilities, and nine of them are like to already have nuclear capabilities.

North Korea possesses short- and medium-range ballistic missiles and is developing intermediate-range ballistic missiles that could further threaten our assets in the Pacific region. This April, North Korea reportedly tested a submarine-launched ballistic missile. It is now thought to be readying a test-launch of an intermediate-range ballistic. Admiral William E. Gortney, Commander of US Northern Command, recently warned Congress that North Korea’s missile developments could have profound implications to the US homeland.

Iran continues making strides toward obtaining ballistic missile capabilities. In April, Vice Admiral J.D. Syring, director of the Missile Defense Agency, testified before the House Armed Services Committee: “Iran has successfully orbited satellites and announced plans to orbit a larger satellite using a space launch vehicle (the Simorgh) that could be capable of intercontinental ballistic missile ranges if configured as such.” Last month, Tehran successfully test-fired a medium-range ballistic missile capable of reaching Israel and American military forces.

China’s threat to the continental United States continues to grow. It is re-engineering its long range ballistic missiles to carry multiple nuclear warheads. The latest test of Beijing’s newest, longest-range missile, the DF 41, came in April. It was a success, and deployment is expected soon.

Russia remains a provoking force that, according to Admiral Syring, “could imperil our nation’s existence.” Russia continues to make next-generation advancements, most recently deploying new generations of ballistic missile submarines to its Northern and Pacific fleets.

The Lagging American Response

BMD technology is getting better with every test and with every day of use in the real world. But improvements are needed. To protect the homeland and our allies, we must upgrade the Redesigned Kill Vehicle (and eventually the Multi-Object Kill Vehicle), expand both land- and sea-based BMD capabilities, establish an East Coast BMD facility, and continue upgrading and expanding European BMD sites. At the same time, we must accelerate the development of new kill vehicles and develop more diverse launch and radar sites.

The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has invested significant resources in developing the most successful kill vehicles to date. The Standard Missile (SM) family (SM-3 IB, SM-3 IIA, and SM-6) and the Ground Based Interceptors in Alaska and California have pulled off more than three dozen actual intercepts and taught us critical engineering lessons along the way. In today’s austere budget environment it’s vital that we use these hard-won lessons to improve our defenses.

While the Fiscal Year 2017 MDA budget request addresses some of the warfighter’s upper-tier missile defense needs, it also seriously misses the mark. An example of the former is the $274 million request to continue development of the Redesigned Kill Vehicle (RKV). That investment is essential, as it will improve the system’s accuracy and reliability.

But the Administration’s budget proposal cuts SM-3 IB by $159 million, slashing inventory procurement totals from 52 to only 35. The administration also proposes a $30 million cut to SM-3 IIA that would reduce inventory procurement and effectively shut down the missile’s production line.

What Must Be Done

To counter the growing ballistic missile threat, we need a larger arsenal of reliable missile interceptors, not a smaller one. The Standard Missile family provides that reliable, successful and currently deployed arsenal. Again the Fiscal Year 2017 MDA budget request shows us that reducing procurement of these interceptors only puts our homeland at risk. And the requested cuts don’t even provide statistically significant savings. The Administration’s budget proposal cuts SM-3 IB by $159 million, bringing inventory procurement totals from 52 to only 35. The administration also proposes a $30 million cut to SM-3 IIA that would reduce inventory procurement and effectively shut down the missile’s production line. These cuts in critical missile defense production could prove extremely harmful to real U.S. capabilities.

Given the growing spectrum if ICBM threats, the administration, the Pentagon and Congress should make improving our upper tier missile defense capabilities a key policy and funding priority. On the policy front, Washington should do two things in planning for future missile threats:

1. Patiently explain to Vladimir Putin again (as we’ve done since the early 2000s) that the BMD program aims to protect America and Europe from the likes of Iran and North Korea; it is not aimed at Russia. Then, look him in the eye and say that if he really wants to be our enemy, we can use it to stop his programs, but we’d rather cooperate with Russia. The call is his.

2. Put Iran on notice that, since it has not stopped ballistic missile testing (it has accelerated since the U.S. Iran nuclear deal was signed last July), the U.S. and her allies have no choice but to heighten their defenses against its growing capabilities.

The ballistic missile threat cannot be wished away. If it could, it would be diminishing, not increasing. Our adversaries have not been shy about investing in next-generation ballistic missile capabilities. If we continue underfunding BMD development and downsizing our arsenal of upper tier missile defense systems, we will inevitably leave our homeland and allies more vulnerable to attack—and face consequences more costly than federal budgeters can imagine.


A former Army Special Forces officer and top Pentagon official, Dr. Steven P. Bucci is a visiting fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realcleardefense.com/art...inas_new_governing_party_paradigm_109536.html

July 8, 2016

Review: China's New Governing Party Paradigm

By Dr. Michael K. Metcalf

China’s New Governing Party Paradigm: Political Renewal and the Pursuit of National Rejuvenation

by Timothy R. Heath
Published by Ashgate, Burlington, VT (2014) 270 pages

While the United States is spending most of its money, time, and attention on Middle East issues, China has burst on the stage as a possible peer competitor. As many have recently discovered, China presents a clear and present threat to surpass the United States in economic might, to challenge it in military might, and to replace it as leader of East and Southeast Asia. The bulk of the world’s population already resides there and, within the foreseeable future, the bulk of the world’s wealth also will. We can thus assess that the world’s political and economic centers of gravity will shift there, too.

It would be no real exaggeration to say that few in the U.S. government or intelligence agencies would have expected this, and most were caught a bit off balance by the suddenness and obviousness as well as the scope of China’s entrance onto the stage. Who would have predicted the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) or the military occupation of the South China Sea? Who is not impressed by their brazenness and imaginativeness? Who is not impressed by the scope of the One Belt and One Road programs and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank? And, more troubling, who was not surprised by these events?

How could so many have been caught off guard by such momentous events? How could so many have failed to anticipate the arrival of a tipping point in China-U.S. relations?1 So great was the failure that a whole publishing industry has emerged, explaining persuasively how we got China wrong for so long and offering suggestions for how we can get it “right tonight.”2 In addition, reams of articles offer policy advice for restructuring U.S.-China relations.3

Why is it that, despite the broad knowledge of China’s economic growth and military modernization and the nonnegotiable nature of China’s current goals, most analysts tended to doubt that there was trouble brewing because most thought that China could be domesticated by and become a responsible stakeholder in the current (U.S.-administered) international order?4 But why would we have assumed this? Why did we believe our own newspaper clippings? Why did we lack imagination?5 We had no definitive answer to the most basic question: What does China want?6 Lacking this, it was easy to answer by our own prejudices. It was simply too easy to assume that China had no grand strategy and that it treated issues on a case-by-case basis.

The issue was more than simple complacency. Determining what China wants and the nature of its grand strategy is a difficult undertaking. Some have turned to international relations theories7 or to studies of China’s strategic culture,8 while others try to read the tea leaves of China’s history. It appears that we all might be in the position Michael Swaine of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace attributes to those who conclude that China is really up to no good:

Those who view China as an aspiring hegemon . . .. almost without exception base their argument on shaky theoretical postulates and faulty historical analogies or on the decidedly non-authoritative views of a few Chinese analysts, not on current, hard evidence regarding either Chinese strategies and doctrines or Chinese behavior, past and present.9

But can the same not be said about every approach to the question? Even about those who do not view China as an aspiring hegemon? Surely Swaine’s rivals could say the same about his approach or that his hard evidence is available to many and that they simply interpret it or weigh it differently than he does, but no less validly. In other words, we are groping in the dark unless there is a demonstrable method that lays out precisely what we should look at (what counts as “hard evidence”) and what method we should use to explain or interpret the evidence, and that also permits actual empirical testing (of a sort) of the accuracy of the approach.

It appears that, in China’s New Governing Party Paradigm: Political Renewal and the Pursuit of National Rejuvenation, RAND analyst Timothy Heath has developed and explained that sought-after method and has employed it in a manner that permits testing of its accuracy. Heath argues that China does tell about its grand strategy and its intermediate goals as well as the steps it is taking in order to achieve those goals. In fact, it gives periodic updates on just how things are proceeding as well as about minor and major revisions of the intermediate means and goals. The revisions are based on careful assessments of the success of those means and the way China’s behavior has shaped its environment, to which China must then adjust. In other words, it is likely that the answer has been there under our noses all along, but we chose to dismiss the evidence as merely political rhetoric somewhat akin to an American party platform or a campaign stump speech (or, perhaps that we chose not to devote the 15 years to developing/ discovering it that Heath devoted). Those peculiar terms and phrases actually meant something specific and important; the only problem was that it has taken years and years of dedicated work to finally break the code.

Heath contends that in the early 2000s, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) began to transform itself into a governing party that sought to rationalize the whole governing process. But instead of beginning a process of transferring policy and planning to the bureaus of experts in the government and away from the CCP, the Party did not intend to wither away but rather to play a more specific role in strategic leadership.

This means, in essence, the formulation, development, implementation and enforcement of strategic policy directives that can unerringly deliver sound governance and guide the development of a modern, prosperous, politically stable, powerful China by the centennial of the founding of the PRC in 2049, an end state the CCP calls the “rejuvenation of the Chinese people.”10

The Party itself does not make laws, rules, or regulations but leaves these functions to the various bureaucracies of government. Instead, the Party issues strategic and policy directives to which the laws and policies must adhere. Heath contends that “[t]his process consists of a dense array of political, intellectual, and theoretical work to formulate and direct the implementation of strategies and polices in a manner that enhances the authority of the ruling CCP and that promotes the party’s strategic objectives.”11 One can find those directives in Party work reports, speeches, white papers, and authoritative editorials in periodicals closely identified with the Party. Careful study of these documents, combined with careful observation of the related changes in policy, will demonstrate that, in my words, the CCP acts much as the Board of Directors of a major corporation. It makes major policy decisions and monitors their implementation, making timely modifications as the policies succeed or fail and as the general business environment changes. Whereas the ultimate corporate goal may vary, the ultimate, overriding goal of the Party always remains the same—the rejuvenation of China.12

After he provides the general model, Heath describes how it illuminates the Party—military relations, core interests and sovereignty disputes, and international relations—in an entirely convincing manner. But, at least in this reviewer’s opinion, the most fascinating part of this book is how it defines the specialized vocabulary involved in these activities. As many China analysts have always suspected, these terms and phrases have exact meanings and are interrelated logically into a maddeningly consistent web that demonstrates how policies in all areas are related to or are logically consistent with polices in all other areas. And, to make it even more complicated, the whole network continuously evolves as it adapts to China’s changing, primarily strategic, situation, with many of the changes being a result of China’s continuous growth and success. In fact, the relatively new interpenetrating relationship to its environment is key to understanding China’s new foreign and military policies and the major shifts that have occurred over the last 5 or 10 years.13 Heath’s method is the only one that withstands empirical verification. In articles and blogs he regularly explains major and minor changes and redirections in China’s policy by interpreting recent official policy pronouncements. To see the results, we may consult three of Heath’s recent articles in which he explains China’s recent strategic behavior.14

Commenting on the 2015 defense white paper, Heath observes that China’s strategic goal remains what it has been for decades: complete the building of “a moderately prosperous society” by 2021 and of a “modern socialist country” by 2049.15 This strategic goal is also called the rejuvenation of China and, more recently, the “China Dream.” But recently, with the need for a new development model, China introduced the “Holistic Security Concept,” in which China has expanded the definition of security to include virtually any and all policy fields and has centralized decision making in all security fields (“top down design”) in order to be able to overcome any obstacle to achieving its development goal. As President Xi said, “development depends on security” and “security requires development.”16 In this light, China has introduced a new major strategic concept, the “Four Comprehensives,” and a new security concept, the “New Asian Security Concept.”

Heath says that the introduction of the Four Comprehensives, although their full meaning has not yet become fully manifest, indicates that the Party has reached a consensus regarding the theoretical interpretation of a major contradiction. The issue or contradiction here is that in 2010 China concluded that the “period of strategic opportunity” that was introduced in 2000 and held that China faced a 10-20 year window in which conditions would be very favorable for China to grow its comprehensive national strength without the threat of war might be coming to an end. Although the window is not completely closing, maintaining the window now would require more activist foreign policies because the West has begun to initiate policies designed to restrain China’s rise. Therefore, China will have to pursue reform of the world governance system, the international financial system, and international economic rules. As Heath says, “China’s economists assess that future growth will depend heavily on the degree of the Asia-Pacific region’s integration with China’s economy, as well as issues related to global economic governance and global international trade rules.”17 But, the integration of the Asian regional economy, with China as its core, faces a security obstacle: The U.S. security alliance system. Therefore, China must change the very foundation of security in the Asia region.

As Heath observes, “China continues to require regional stability to maintain its focus on national development. However, a powerful and regionally integrated China is increasingly finding its security and development needs at odds with the current security order.”18 This is connected to the 2013 replacement of the United States by the periphery as the “priority direction” in China’s diplomacy. Thus, China’s new security policy for the region is to put an end to the U.S.-led system of alliances as the basis of regional security. This is the meaning of Xi’s call at the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia Conference this year for an Asian security order managed by Asians with, of course, China as the core. In other words, although China’s peaceful development has until recently depended on the international stability provided by the U.S.-led international order, now that China has reached a certain level of development and power, its new development needs put it into conflict with that security order. Those development needs have driven it to begin the task of ushering the United States out as its services are no longer required. Thus China’s policy now becomes riskier and more dependent on the PLA. This represents a profound shift in Security policy. As Heath says, “Adoption of the holistic security concept now means that anything Chinese authorities deem an impediment to the realization of the country’s development objectives—regardless of whether it is economic, political, or another category— may now be deemed a security threat.”19

In this reviewer’s eyes, Heath is the most original, exciting, insightful, empirical and bold analyst of China’s strategic policies and actions on the scene today. And even better, he can and does cite his sources and invites you to examine them yourself and judge the validity of his conclusions. In addition, he provides and periodically updates the framework by which to explain the present and anticipate the future.


Notes:

1 David M. Lampton, “A Tipping Point in U.S.-China Relations Is Upon Us,” US- China Perception Monitor, May 11, 2015; Ryan Pickrell, “The Tipping Point: Has the U.S.-China Relationship Passed the Point of No Return?” The National Interest, October 26, 2015.

2 Arthur Waldron, “The Asia Mess: How Things Did Not Turn Out as Planned,” Orbis Spring 2015; Michael Pillsbury, The Hundred Year Marathon (Henry Holt and Company, 2015); Christopher Ford, “The Death of the Liberal Myth in U.S. China Policy” (speech delivered at the Hudson Institute, November, 20, 2014).

3 Kevin Rudd, Summary Report: U.S.-China 21. The Future of U.S.-China Relations Under Xi Jinping: Toward a New Framework of Constructive Realism for a Common Purpose, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School, April 2015; Robert D. Blackwill and Ashley J. Tellis, Revising U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China, Council on Foreign Relations, March 2015; Michael D. Swaine, Beyond American Predominance in the Western Pacific: The Need for a Stable U.S.-China Balance of Power (Carnegie Endowment For International Peace, April 20, 2015).

4 Charles Freeman, “Memorandum to President Hu Jintao,” CSIS, January 2010; Thomas Fingar, “China’s Vision of World Order,” in Strategic Asia 2012-3: China’s Military Challenge, ed. Tellis and Tanner (2012), 341, fn 6.

5 Christopher Walker, “The West’s Failure of Imagination,” Wall Street Journal, August 3, 2015.

6 Timothy Heath, “What Does China Want? Discerning the PRC’s National Strategy,” Asian Security 8, no.1 (2012).

7 G. John Ikenberry, “The Rise of China and the Future of the West,” Foreign Affairs, January/February 2008; John J. Mearsheimer, “Can China Rise Peacefully,” The National Interest, October 24, 2014.

8 Iain Johnston, Cultural Realism and Grand Strategy in Chinese History (Princeton University Press, 1998); Andrew Scobell, “China’s Real Strategic Culture: A Great Wall of the Imagination,” Contemporary Policy, 2014.

9 Michael D. Swaine, Beyond American Predominance in the Western Pacific: The Need for a Stable U.S.-China Balance of Power (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, April 20, 2015).

10 Timothy H. Heath, China’s New Governing Party Paradigm: Political Renewal and the Pursuit of National Rejuvenation (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2014), 5.

11 Ibid., 57.

12 Ibid., 57-71.

13 Related to this, see Heath’s discussion of “core interests” in China’s New Governing Party Paradigm, 99-110.

14 “Asian Economic Integration Fuels PRC Frustration With U.S. Alliances,” China Brief, Jamestown.org, vol 14, issue 12; “Xi’s Bold foreign Policy Agenda: Beijing’s Pursuit of Global Influence and the Growing risk of Sino-U.S. Rivalry,” China Brief, Jamestown. org, vol 15, issue 6; and, “The ‘Holistic Security Concept:’ The Securitization of Policy and Increasing Risk of Militarized Crisis,” China Brief, Jamestown.org, vol 15, issue 12.

15 See Chapter 5 of China’s New Governing Party Paradigm, for a complete description of the components of a “modern socialist country.”

16 Heath, Timothy, “The ‘Holistic Security Concept’: The Securitization of Policy and Increasing Risk of Militarized Crisis,” in China Brief, 15, no 12 (June 19, 2015).

17 Heath, Timothy, “Xi’s Bold Foreign Policy Agenda: Beijing’s Pursuit of Global Influence and the Growing Risk of Sino-U.S. Rivalry,” China Brief 15, no 6 (March 19, 2015).

18 Ibid.

19 Heath, Timothy, “The ‘Holistic Security Concept’: The Securitization of Policy and Increasing Risk of Militarized Crisis,” in China Brief 15, no 12 (June 19, 2015).


Dr. Michael K. Metcalf has been on the faculty of the College of Strategic Intelligence at the National Intelligence University (NIU) since 2008. He teaches courses in China issues as well the global strategic environment. Prior to joining NIU, he worked at DIA and State/ INR on China’s strategic forces.

This article appears in the Journal of Strategic Intelligence - Summer 2016.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.news.com.au/world/asia/s...t/news-story/d23151924e5adcecef79ed228fdd6289

South China Sea tensions at boiling point with region poised for military conflict

July 9, 2016
4:11pm
Emma Reynolds, news.com.au@emmareyn

CHINA is fighting tooth and nail against an impending ruling over a fiercely disputed strategic zone.

The Hague’s Permanent Court of Arbitration will on Tuesday deliver its verdict on the South China Sea and the scramble for the world’s busiest shipping lanes.

But Beijing has said it will reject the tribunal’s decision on the case brought by the Philippines, contesting China’s rapid development of artificial islands and bases on the reef.

The Philippines is just one of several southeast Asian states that lay claim to part of this key transit route, in a war of wills that has sparked fears of a military conflict that could disrupt global trade.

Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan are all involved in the territorial disputes, and Indonesian President Joko Widodo has instructed the military to increase maritime patrols over the waters off Natuna Islands in response to increasing tensions with China, which it claims has up to 20,000 militia fishermen in the region.

The United States yesterday urged respect for the tribunal’s decision and recommended “all claimants to avoid provocative actions or statements.”

It said this would determine whether the region is ruled by law or “raw calculations of power.”

China has meanwhile expressed outrage at the “Freedom of Navigation” missions that the US and others have been conducting in the South China Sea and says America has no business intervening.

Washington says it is merely exercising its right to sail in international waters and has a stake in ensuring freedom of navigation and commerce in seas that carry more than half the world’s merchant fleet tonnage.

Senior Pentagon official Abraham Denmark said the states were providing critical support for diplomacy.

Foreign Minister Wang Yi told a joint news conference with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that China also wants a “peaceful resolution,” but the arbitration ruling would “only escalate the disputes and tensions.”

CHINA’S NOT LISTENING

The Chinese have been determinedly building runways, ports, observation posts and other installations on artificially enlarged islets to strengthen its claim to the vital trading route.

The huge engineering project to create “carrier-killer” fortresses on top of these islands is causing international concern.

In February, the US Center for Strategic and International Studies shared satellite images of high frequency radar, a bunker, a lighthouse and communication towers under construction on Cuarteron Reef, the southern most of a chain of the seven disputed Spratly Islands.

China claims the construction work is purely for civilian use, but Gregory Poling from CSIS told news.com.au it would be “over the top” for non-military purposes in the region.

“It will increase China’s ability to patrol and monitor the South China Sea,” said Mr Poling, head of the CSIS Asian Maritime Transparency Initiative. “We’ll see these facilities come online over the course of a year. The effect is going to be exponential in increasing China’s power in the region. It will increase its ability to project power further south.”

Rodrigo Duterte, president of the Philippines, proposed dialogue with China following the court’s decision next week, suggesting discussions about issues such as setting up joint ventures for sharing resources in the disputed waterway.

That looks unlikely at this point.

Last weekend China announced it would seal-off an large swath of the contested sea for military exercises in the seven days leading up to the announcement.

And Chinese media on Tuesday said Beijing is ready for a “military confrontation” with the United States in the region.

IS CHINA ‘GOING ROGUE’?

China’s People’s Daily newspaper, Beijing’s official mouthpiece, warned the US of a “price” to pay for its “interference” in the South China Sea.

“There is a bottom line with every issue, and a price will be paid if that line is crossed,” said an editorial. “If the United States, regardless of the cost, chooses the path of ‘brinkmanship’ that pressures and intimidates others, there will be only one result, that is, that the US bears all the responsibility for possibly further heightening tensions in the South China Sea.

“China has a solid-rock position over safeguarding China’s national sovereignty and territorial integrity. It will not want anything that does not belong to it, but it will ensure that every inch of land it owns is safe and sound.”

In February, a spokeswoman for China’s Foreign Ministry, Hua Chunying, called on the US to “stop sensationalising the South China Sea issue, stop hyping up tensions and work constructively for regional peace and stability.”

She added: “China’s deployment of limited defence facilities on its own territory is its exercise of self-defence right to which a sovereign state is entitled under international law. It has nothing to do with militarisation. It is something that comes naturally, and is completely justified and lawful.”

Beijing’s aggressive stance on opposition to its territorial claims have put the Chinese population on edge, and left no room for a backdown.

WHY IT MATTERS

The case at The Hague was launched by the Philippines in 2013 — months after China gained de facto control of the rocky outcrop Scarborough Shoal just over 100 nautical miles from the Philippines’ coast.

The Philippines has asked the court to rule on several issues, including China’s controversial “nine-dash line” — a boundary that carves out the majority of the South China Sea for itself.

This growth in military capabilities will make it harder for not only China’s smaller neighbours to operate in the area, but for the US, Japan and Australia. It will give the Asian superpower control over planes and vessels in the Strait of Malacca between Malaysia and Indonesia, one of the most important shipping lanes in the world.

It is a rich fishing ground and is believed to hold substantial oil and gas reserves.

The sea spans around 3.5 million square kilometres and is bordered by Brunei, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam. It is vital to Australia’s interests, carrying the majority of its trade to China, Japan and the Republic of Korea.

The Chinese radar will work like Australia’s Jindalee over-the-horizon system, bouncing radar waves off the ionosphere. They will be able to spot US stealth aircraft such as the B2 Spirit stealth bomber, F-22 Raptor and the F-35, so they can send in fighters with advanced infra-red seekers.

“It’s more advanced than what anybody else has in the South China Sea,” said Mr Poling. “Vietnam occupies 27 islands but in a far less sophisticated way.

“China has been pretty clear it aims to establish de facto, if not legal, control over the area.”

While other countries may be able to remain on nearby islands, their ability to resupply and fish in the region will depend on China, and mineral and fuel resources could becoming bargaining chips for the state as it gains economic and industrial power.

WHAT NEXT?

In November 2013 Beijing declared its sovereignty over another contested waterway, the East China Sea, by imposing an “Air Defence Identification Zone” over a stretch of water including islands which Japan, Taiwan and South Korea also claim.

A similar power play could be made to control the airspace over the South China Sea.

Vietnam and the Philippines have established small outposts on islands such as Scarborough Shoal as counterclaims. China could move to evict these nations from their coral outcrops to further assert its claim.

There are likely to be clashes with other nations, after Beijing expressed outrage when fighters enforcing their Air Defence Identification Zone were intercepted by Japanese jets.

Australia may come under growing pressure from the United States to make its presence felt in the South China Sea, according to the Lowy Institute.

Randy Forbes, the Virginia Republican who chairs the House subcommittee on sea power, said the world is watching to see if China behaves like a responsible stakeholder in the international system.

“What we do — or don’t do — to support our allies and the rules-based international system in the weeks ahead will have echoes across the region and in other corners of the globe,” Forbes said.

Dr John Blaxland, a defence and strategic expert from the Australian National University, said: “We are facing dark clouds on the horizon and it’s hard to see a path out of this that is altogether peaceful.”

As Australia, the US and Europe are distracted by domestic politics, Dr Blaxland said China could use this opportunity to build at Scarborough Shoal.

Were this to happen, they would have a “triangulated series of bases” from which they could dominate the South China Sea.

“There is this moment where they can exert influence to pursue their interests without actually triggering a war because they are confident that no one is going to push back,” he added.

It is not in Australia’s interest to take sides after the court’s ruling but Dr Blaxland said it must work with other Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to create a unified front.

Director of International Security Program at the Lowy Institute Dr Euan Graham said the ruling is significant for what it says about “international order”.

“Australia gains as much if not more than most countries out of the rule of law,” Dr Graham said.

“I think it’s the symbolism around this as to whether China is prepared to pull its punches and move to a position that is consistent with international law or if it withdraws from UN law of the sea and then we are in a much darker place.”

It’s unclear whether any move by China to militarise more disputed land features would prompt a US military response.

If it does, Australia may well have to get involved.

Video

emma.reynolds@news.com.au

— With wires

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...1ceb8c-45b4-11e6-a76d-3550dba926ac_story.html

Europe

The Latest: NATO wants ‘constructive’ ties with Russia

By Associated Press July 9 at 10:23 AM


WARSAW, Poland — The Latest on the NATO Summit in Warsaw (all times local):

4:20 p.m.

NATO leaders say they still want a constructive relationship with Russia “when Russia’s actions make that possible.”

In the past, NATO governments often spoke of forging a partnership with Russia, but that language was absent from a formal declaration issued Saturday by the 28 NATO allies on the second and final day of a NATO summit.

The Warsaw Declaration on Trans-Atlantic Security states that “NATO poses no threat to any country” and that its member nations “continue to aspire to a constructive relationship with Russia, when Russia’s actions make that possible.”


NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told reporters Saturday NATO has not entered another Cold War, but that Russia is no longer conducting itself like a partner.

Russia accuses NATO of provocative behavior with a plan sealed at the Warsaw summit to deploy alliance troops to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, areas under Moscow’s sway less than three decades ago.

Stoltenberg said NATO will explain the decisions taken in Warsaw to Russian government representatives next Wednesday at a meeting of the Russia-NATO Council in Brussels. That forum, designed to bring together Russia and the Western alliance, last met in April after a nearly two-year break as ties deteriorated over Russian actions in Ukraine.

___

3:10 p.m.

NATO leaders have agreed to do more to support countries in North Africa and Middle East that are prey to violent Islamic extremism.

Alliance Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said Saturday NATO will start a training and capacity-building mission for Iraqi armed forces in Iraq, provide assistance for Jordan, and establish a new intelligence center in Tunisia to help that country’s special operations forces.


Stoltenberg said NATO leaders at the summit in Warsaw also agreed in principle for alliance surveillance aircraft to provide direct support to the U.S.-led coalition fighting the Islamic State group in Syria and Iraq. NATO diplomats say they expect the flights to begin this fall.

He said NATO will also launch a new maritime operation in the Mediterranean, Operation Sea Guardian, and cooperate closely with the European Union’s efforts to halt human smuggling operations that have fueled Europe’s greatest migrant crisis since World War II.

___

2.50 p.m.

A few hundred anti-NATO activists have protested in Warsaw against the decision by the alliance to deploy troops on NATO’s eastern flank.

The protesters marched in downtown Warsaw on the second day of the NATO summit in the city, carrying banners reading “Stop NATO” and chanting “NATO get out of here.”

The summit has decided to boost NATO’s deterrence in response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea and support for rebels in eastern Ukraine.

Some protesters carried long loafs of bread Saturday and chanted “money for the hungry not for tanks.”

A separate group of pro-democracy campaigners gathered in a downtown square for a ceremony in which the square was named after Martin Luther King, a U.S. human rights activist and Nobel Peace Prize winner, who was assassinated in 1968.

The gathering was organized by Poland’s anti-government Committee for the Defense of Democracy.

___

2.45 p.m.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg says that the next NATO summit will be held in Brussels in 2017.

The NATO leader made the announcement on Saturday at a summit being held in Warsaw.

Stoltenberg said the summit will be held at the revamped NATO headquarters in Brussels, where the Western military alliance is headquartered, which will be ready in 2017.

___

2.30 p.m.

Lithuanian Foreign Minister Linas Linkevicius says he’s not surprised that Mikhail Gorbachev is accusing NATO of escalating tensions with Russia, but insists the former Soviet leader is simply wrong.

Gorbachev, who was Soviet president when the Cold War ended, accused NATO on Saturday of escalating tensions with Russia at a summit in Warsaw where the Western alliance has finalized plans to deploy four battalions to its eastern flank as deterrence against Russia.

Linkevicius said that kind of language from Gorbachev “was expected” but argued that NATO, in building up its forces in the east, is merely “reacting to aggressive behavior” of the Russians.

He also said Russia’s own military buildup far exceeds in both numbers and intensity what NATO is doing.

“The Russians are very creative in mixing up the consequences and the reasons,” he said. “We are used to these methods.”

Linkevicius said the NATO plan to deploy a German-led battalion to his nation was reassuring given Russian aggression in Ukraine, even though it’s only a force of about 1,000.

___

2 p.m.

NATO allies have agreed to maintain a stable military presence in Afghanistan, bolstered by President Barack Obama’s decision to make a smaller cut in U.S. troop levels than he had planned.

Obama has been urging NATO leaders gathered in Warsaw to expand their support for the war against the Taliban.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said the allies also made commitments to continue to fund the Afghan security forces through 2020, and are “close to” the needed $5 billion per year.

The U.S. has pledged to provide $3.5 billion annually to fund Afghan forces, and the government in Kabul is expected to contribute as much as $500 million. Allies would provide the remaining $1 billion. The funding would maintain a total of 352,000 Afghan Army troops and police officers.

Stoltenberg said it’s too soon to say exactly how many troops allies will agree to keep in Afghanistan but he believes force levels will remain largely stable at about 12,000.

___

12:25 p.m.

The Belgian foreign minister says his nation will provide at least 150 soldiers to a new multinational NATO battalion based in Lithuania.

NATO leaders formalized an agreement at a NATO summit in Warsaw to create four battalions of about 1,000 soldiers each to be deployed to the Western alliance’s eastern flank.

Belgian Foreign Minister Didier Reynders says Saturday all the Benelux countries would be “very active in the region.” But he also stressed the need “keep an open dialogue with Russia, because we need to talk about Syria and Iraq.”

The new plan will see NATO forces deployed on a rotational basis for the first time to a swath of eastern Europe that was part of the Soviet bloc during the Cold War, angering Russia. Germany will lead a multinational battalion in Lithuania, with similar battalions to be led by the United States in Poland, Britain in Estonia, and Canada in Latvia.

___

11:55 a.m.

Mikhail Gorbachev, whose time as Soviet president saw the Cold War end, has strongly criticized NATO for escalating tensions with Russia in the alliance’s summit this week.

NATO’s leaders on Friday announced at the summit in Warsaw plans to beef up alliance forces in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, all of which border Russia. Moscow earlier this this year said it would put more troops along its western borders, including two new divisions.

Gorbachev was quoted as saying Saturday by the Interfax news agency that “NATO has begun preparations for escalating from the Cold War into a hot one.”

He says “all the rhetoric in Warsaw just yells of a desire almost to declare war on Russia. They only talk about defense, but actually are preparing for offensive operations.”

___

11:20 a.m.

Poland’s foreign minister says NATO is open to Ukraine’s ambition to join the military alliance but any talks will be possible only after the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is solved.

Minister Witold Waszczykowski spoke Saturday at the start of the second day of a NATO summit in Warsaw.

In its key decision, the meeting has boosted the alliance’s defenses on its eastern flank, where nations are nervous about their security after Russia seized Crimea from Ukraine and supports separatists in eastern Ukraine.

The NATO agenda on Saturday includes a meeting between the leaders of the 28 NATO member nations and Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko, who has been invited as a guest.

Waszczykowski say as a political climate is building in Ukraine in favor of becoming a NATO member in the future. He also said another country, Georgia, is “eligible and is ready” to join NATO and the decision depends on the “will and the determination on our part.”

___

10:50 a.m.

Over dinner, NATO leaders gave a glum assessment of Russia’s geopolitical intentions, a NATO official says, agreeing that Moscow “is likely to exploit any vulnerability” in the Western Balkans, Moldova and Ukraine.

The official, who was not authorized to make public remarks and spoke on condition of anonymity, says President Barack Obama and the other alliance leaders agreed during their Friday evening discussion that they need to maintain “a firm and united stance” on Russia and that Moscow “has to deliver” on its commitments under the Minsk agreements designed to stop the fighting in eastern Ukraine.



One particular focus of the NATO leaders during dinner was the Western Balkans and the independent nations that once were part of Yugoslavia, like Macedonia.

— John-Thor Dahlburg

___

9:30 a.m.

U.S. President Barack Obama and other NATO leaders have begun the second day of a summit meeting in Warsaw that’s expected to lead to decisions about Afghanistan, the central Mediterranean and Iraq.

On Friday, leaders approved the deployment of four multinational NATO battalions to Poland and the Baltic states to deter Russia, as well as a Romanian-Bulgarian brigade for the Black Sea region.

The Warsaw summit, NATO’s first in two years, is considered by many to be the alliance’s most important since the Cold War.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg says NATO needs to adapt to confront an array of new threats to its member nations’ security, including cyberattacks and violent extremism generated by radical Muslim organizations like the Islamic State group.


4 Comments

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://ramenir.com/2016/07/07/fren...eeds-russia-and-china-to-counter-north-korea/

Frenemies in Need: Why the Next US President Needs Russia and China to Counter North Korea

Posted on July 7, 2016
by Olga Novitsky

The upcoming United States presidential election will be a significant moment for the future of US nuclear policy. While questions relating to nuclear security and deterrence on the campaign trail have largely focused on the Iran Deal, North Korea’s recent provocations are cause for concern. In order to more effectively address the growing North Korean threat, the next American administration will have to cooperate with the US’s frenemies China and Russia

The Growing Nuclear Threat

North Korea’s nuclear program has been increasingly active in the past six months. Since withdrawing from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 2003, North Korea has conducted several nuclear tests, with the most recent success in January 2016. The passage of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 2270 on March 2 was a direct response to the latest nuclear test, as well as North Korea’s missile and rocket launches in February, April, and June. South Korean President Park Geun-hye has stated that North Korea is likely planning a fifth nuclear test by the end of this year, as evidenced by its constant state of readiness and indications of restarting its plutonium nuclear fuel production..

North Korea has been known to conduct nuclear tests in protest of increased sanctions, but the ramp-up in testing and missile launches over this year has some experts worried that their technology might be advancing faster than previously predicted. Based on its tests and model displays (with Russian and Chinese influences), North Korea may be only a few years away from mounting a nuclear warhead on an Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) that would have the capability to reach the west coast of the US. When North Korea held its seventh Congress for the Korean Workers’ Party in May, largely considered a display of Kim Jong-Un’s consolidation of power, the leader stated that North Korea has a “discretionary no-first-use policy.” Nevertheless, these statements have been of little comfort to the US and its allies in the Pacific.

Frenemies in Need?

Working with traditional allies such as Japan and South Korea to counter the North Korean threat may not be enough for the United States, as they do not have as much political or economic influence over North Korea as China and Russia. In April 2016, US Secretary of State John Kerry stated his appreciation for China’s cooperation and its actions to impact North Korean nuclear policy in compliance with UN Resolution 2270. In response to the first nuclear test in 2006, Russia pulled major diplomatic and financial support from North Korea, and it appears that China may be following suit this year. These two nuclear states still contribute greatly to the North Korean economy, however, and therefore have very high leveraging power in the nuclear security discussion. If the next US president further strains relations with Russia and China, he/she will not be able to take advantage of their influence over North Korea.

The United States’ deteriorating relationship with Russia and China is a result of regional issues like Ukraine, Syria, and the South China Sea, which have overshadowed the need for continued nuclear security cooperation. Specifically, the US-Chinese relationship has tensed over its naval and land disputes with US allies in the Pacific, dropping the nuclear cooperation discussion into the background. There were even reports that the United States and China may be headed for a nuclear arms race to develop a new hypersonic glide vehicle, which could be armed with a nuclear warhead. Such a vehicle would be “almost unstoppable” by current anti-missile technology and a huge step in the wrong direction in terms of US-China nuclear cooperation.

Russia has also increased its own nuclear saber-rattling since the beginning of the Ukrainian conflict in 2014, its discord with the United States highlighted by the absence of Russian representatives at the most recent Nuclear Security Summit (NSS) earlier this year. The conflict in Ukraine, increased tensions in eastern and northern Europe, as well as Russia’s continued participation in the Syrian Civil War have all but disintegrated US-Russia talks on strategic nuclear cooperation. It is unclear whether the next administration will bring back the NSS as a method to continue the nuclear security conversation and bring Russia back to the table to discuss strategic stability.

New US President, New Relationship on Nuclear Security?

Our future relationships with Russia and China, and the effectiveness of our nuclear deterrence policy for North Korea, will largely be determined by the upcoming election. Presidential candidate and Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton has the most experience in this field from her time spent as Secretary of State. After the January 2016 nuclear test, Clinton called on the US to work with the UN and China to impose additional sanctions on North Korea. She recently made statements starkly contrasting and condemning Republican front-runner Donald Trump’s nuclear policy, stating that “unpredictability… and loose talk is dangerous.”

Both Clinton and Trump recognize China’s influence on North Korea, but have outlined very different approaches to encourage deterrence. Clinton suggests increasing international pressure on North Korea with the inclusion of China, a policy congruent with her support of increased involvement in the Asia-Pacific. Donald Trump, on the other hand, has suggested engaging in economic blackmail to encourage Beijing to solve the problem. This tactic supports Trump’s plans to scale back US military involvement in the region and to encourage other countries to increase their own deterrence efforts. Trump has also stated that he would be open to allowing South Korea and Japan to build their own nuclear arsenals to which Hillary Clinton commented t “Even letting friendly nations go nuclear would make it harder for us to prevent rogue regimes from doing the same.” Trump has even expressed interest in speaking directly with the North Korean leader, despite referring to him as a “maniac” earlier this year. Despite all the rhetoric of North Korea as well as the recognition of China’s important role, neither candidate has yet mentioned Russia’s possible influence on North Korea. The two have, however, conveyed different methods of dealing with Russia and President Putin in general, with Clinton suggesting taking a harsher line than Trump over Russian regional conflicts.

North Korean missile technology is gradually improving. The window to negotiate and to effectively deter North Korea from launching a nuclear-armed ICBM is closing. The US needs Chinese and Russian leveraging power over North Korea – sooner rather than later. Due to increased tensions with Russia over Ukraine and Syria, as well as strained relations with China over the South China Sea, it is increasingly difficult to predict whether Russian and Chinese cooperation with the United States against North Korean nuclear testing will occur in the next US administration. Despite the next president’s need to address these tensions, the nuclear discussion is one in which we cannot afford to lose these strategic partners.

Olga Novitsky previously served as a graduate fellow at the Peace and Security Funders Group, a network of foundations and philanthropists who make grants that contribute to global security. Olga Novitsky received her MA from Georgetown University’s Security Studies Program with a concentration in Intelligence. She received her BA in International Studies from Boston College. She is regionally focused on Europe and North Africa, and her research interests include intelligence, legal and illicit weapons trade, and non-conventional weapons proliferation.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russian-helicopter-shot-down-isis-military-says-n606566

News

Jul 9 2016, 10:33 pm ET

Russian Military Helicopter Shot Down by ISIS in Syria, Government Says

by Phil Helsel

A Russian military helicopter was shot down by ISIS fighters in Syria, and both pilots were killed, the Russian military said.

Russia's defense ministry said in a statement reported by state media Tass that the Mi-25 helicopter was on a test flight with ammunition near Homs when it responded to help fight an ISIS offensive east of the ancient city of Palmyra.

"After having run out of ammunition, the turning around helicopter was hit by militants' gunfire from the ground and crashed in the area controlled by the Syrian governmental army. The crew died," the defense ministry said in the statement.

Video

In September, the Russians began intervening on behalf of Syrian President Bashar Assad in the government's efforts to fight ISIS. The U.S. and its allies have accused Russia of using warplanes to bomb Assad's moderate enemies instead of focusing on ISIS.

Russian President Vladimir Putin announced in March that he would be withdrawing Russian troops from Syria. Putin declared that the goals of the military had been met.

Russia's airbase in Syria's province of Latakia and a naval facility in the Syrian port of Tartus would continue to operate, Putin said then.

Syrian government forces recaptured Palmyra from ISIS in May.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timdais...-sea-days-ahead-of-court-ruling/#5eb0e6322eb1

Jul 9, 2016 @ 11:29 PM 11,825 views

Chinese Fire Power in South China Sea Days Ahead Of Court Ruling

Tim Daiss, Contributor
Geopolitical analyst and journalist based in Southeast Asia.
Full Bio

China¡¦s PLA Navy has launched its largest ever live fire drill in the South China Sea…S…S just days before the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague is set to issue a ruling over the Philippines¡¦ case brought against Beijing¡¦s South China Sea claims.

On Sunday, the country¡¦s CCTV broadcast images of jet fighters, and navy ships firing missiles, and helicopters taking off and submarines surfacing. The PLA Daily said that ¡§the drill focuses on air control operations, sea battles and anti-submarine warfare.¡¨

Though the Hong-Kong based South China Morning Post said that the it was the largest live-fire drill ever held in the South China Sea, Beijing is claiming that its a ¡§routine drill.¡¨ The CCTV report said that ¡§China¡¦s navy has conducted a routine combat drill in waters off the Hainan and Xisha Islands.
…I
¡§The PLA has always said its drills do not target a third party. But warships from the South Sea Fleet are playing key roles in the drills, and commanders on-site are all top leaders in the army, hinting that the US Navy was the imagined target,¡¨ said Antony Wong Dong, a Macau-based military observer. He added that the prominence of the south fleet taking part in the exercise was noteworthy.

On July 3, China announced that it would hold military exercises near the Paracel islands in the South China Sea, from July 5 to July 11. A statement at the time from China¡¦s maritime safety administration gave coordinates for the drills which cover an area from the east of Hainan island, China¡¦s southernmost territory, down to and including the Paracel Islands. Other ships have been prohibited from entering those waters during that time, the statement said, without elaborating further.

The exercises come days just a few weeks the U.S. also showed a display of force off the cost of the Philippines by sending two aircraft carrier battle groups in what many called a ¡§rare move¡¨ by involving two aircraft carrier groups.

The aircraft carriers, USS John C. Stennis and USS Ronald Reagan, and their respective strike groups launched a three day joint operation, while carrying out a variety of training, including air defense drills, defensive air combat training, long-range strikes and sea surveillance, according to U.S. Navy official statements.

U.S. Navy Adm. John Richardson, chief of naval operations, said that the Navy doesn¡¦t get to operate two-carrier operations very often, calling it a ¡§terrific opportunity for us just to do some high-end war fighting and training.¡¨ He added that the dual-carrier operations should be considered a signal to other nations in the region that the United States is committed to its allies.

U.S. will pay price it can¡¦t afford

In response, the Beijing-based Global Times, which often expresses the views of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), said the ¡§U.S. must pay a price it can not afford if it intervenes in the South China Sea by force.¡¨

Beijing, for its part, has stated repeatedly that is will not recognize The Hague¡¦s ruling and has been trying to line up international support ahead of the Court¡¦s ruling.

The Court, according to many analysts, will likely rule in favor of the Philippines. Manila is claiming that China has violated the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which it ratified in 1992. Beijing, for its part, claims more than 80% of the South China Sea, based on what it calls ancient or historical rights.

In 2012, China seized Scarborough Shoal from the Philippines after a tense two month stand off between a lone Philippine naval vessel and several Chinese maritime surveillance ships. Scarborough Shoal is clearly within the Philippines 200-nautical miles Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), and only 140 miles from Manila.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.wsj.com/articles/oil-gas-fish-indonesias-arsenal-in-south-china-sea-dispute-1468136385

Oil, Gas, Fish: Indonesia’s Arsenal in South China Sea Dispute

Jakarta looks to shore up its control of waters around Natuna Islands ahead of ruling on Beijing’s maritime claims

By Jake Maxwell Watts
July 10, 2016 3:39 a.m. ET
1 COMMENTS

SINGAPORE—As weak oil prices prompt countries and companies to scale back big energy projects, Indonesia is looking to ramp up production in the hope of countering a different kind of threat: Beijing’s military buildup in the South China Sea.

China’s assertiveness over its territorial claims in the disputed sea has stirred worries across Southeast Asia ahead of a ruling from the United Nations Permanent Court of Arbitration on the legality of the Chinese claims. The decision, due July 12, is expected to be unfavorable to Beijing, which has said it will ignore the court’s judgment.

Indonesia says it doesn’t have any territorial disputes with China, which hasn’t challenged Indonesia’s control of the Natuna Islands—a chain off the northwest coast of Borneo—but does claim the right to fish in the surrounding waters.


Related Coverage

China’s Defiance of Court Has Precedent—U.S.
Indonesia’s Widodo Wades Into South China Sea Dispute
Indonesian Warship Fires on Foreign Fishing Boats in South China Sea
Asean Urged to Stand Up to Beijing Over South China Sea
Indonesia Blows Up Foreign Fishing Boats, in Message to Beijing


Like others in the region, Indonesia is building up its economic and military presence as alarm grows over what Beijing’s longer-term ambitions might be. Rear Adm. Achmad Taufiqoerrochman, commander of the Indonesian navy’s Western Fleet, said the number of Chinese fishing vessels has risen around the Natunas since March, and the fishing was an excuse for China to lay claim to the area ahead of the decision by the U.N. tribunal in The Hague.

To protect its own claim on the oil-and-gas fields and the rich fishing grounds around the Natuna Islands, Indonesia is aiming to develop the fields, bring more fishermen to the archipelago, and build a port and airstrip. “Out of 16 oil and gas blocks around Natuna, only five are producing, seven are under exploration, and the other four blocks are under termination stage,” President Joko Widodo told cabinet members last month. “I want all to support the production process to be implemented immediately.”

Stepping up oil and gas production would help entrench Indonesia in the waters surrounding the Natunas and could raise the stakes for any country looking to challenge its control of the 200-mile exclusive economic zone around the islands, to which Jakarta says it is entitled under international law.

Ownership of economic assets in the area could also give Indonesia additional justification for patrolling the waters around the Natunas with military or coast-guard vessels, further deterring other states from entering.

Indonesia will likely find it difficult to quickly scale up production, not least because of the high cost of development. Oil producers, including ConocoPhillips and Chevron Corp. , are looking to unload their stakes in one of the blocks in the area in part because of low oil and gas prices. Companies considering investing in the East Natuna gas field have said it could cost up to $40 billion.

But Mr. Widodo’s instructions reflect a broader effort across Southeast Asian countries to strengthen their economic and military presence in the South China Sea as Beijing’s influence continues to build.

China claims sovereignty over almost all the South China Sea, demarcated on maps by a nine-dash line that vaguely protrudes from its southern Hainan Island to an area near the northern coast of Indonesia more than 700 miles away. Each year more than $5 trillion worth of goods pass through the waters, which are rich in natural resources: around 11 billion barrels of oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in proved and probable resources, according to estimates by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That makes the South China Sea one of the world’s largest untapped gas reserves.

https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OJ-AM061_INDOSC_9U_20160706034513.jpg

China’s claim on the sea overlaps those of other countries such as Malaysia, Vietnam and the Philippines—a U.S. treaty ally—and it has reclaimed several islands that have been outfitted with military capabilities, including surface-to-air missiles, according to U.S. officials. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimates China’s annual military spending has grown nearly threefold in the past 10 years to $215 billion.

Other nations are ramping up spending in response. Indonesia recently approved raising its 2016 defense budget by about 9% above planned levels, even as other ministries had budget cuts. Malaysia has ordered new warships and plans to convert oil-drilling platforms into forward bases. Vietnam has acquired Kilo-class submarines from Russia and recently completed a redevelopment of Cam Ranh Bay, a deep-water base, which it encourages other countries’ navies to use.

The U.S., meanwhile, is preparing to deploy forces to five Philippine military bases under a defense pact signed in 2014. In June, four U.S. Navy EA-18G Growler electronic-warfare fighters were stationed at Clark Air Base, a major facility close to the South China Sea, to support existing U.S. surveillance efforts.

In all, the administrations other than China with a direct claim on parts of the South China Sea—Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, the Philippines and Taiwan—nearly doubled their military spending in the decade through 2015 to a combined $30.4 billion, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

“The military buildup in the region is an unsettling development,” said Timothy Heath, senior analyst at the Rand Corp., a Santa Monica, Calif., think tank which provides research to the U.S. armed forces. “Diplomatic efforts alone could not be expected to restrain China or ensure stability,” he said, adding that the military buildup is a reasonable complement to diplomatic efforts.

Among the bigger risk factors is that the busier the already-crowded waters become, the greater the danger of accidental encounter that could trigger a larger conflict, especially as Chinese fishing boats operate farther into waters claimed by Southeast Asian countries.

There is little hope for the arms buildup to ease, however. Southeast Asia’s rapid economic growth in recent years has made the region’s governments more able to invest in military strength, though the region is far behind China’s capability, said Ian Storey, senior fellow at the Iseas Yusof Ishak Institute in Singapore.

“There is also a dynamic in Southeast Asia that is very apparent,” he said: “Keeping up with the neighbors.”

—Ben Otto contributed to this article.

Write to Jake Maxwell Watts at jake.watts@wsj.com

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/10/africa/south-sudan-violence-juba/

Heavy gunfire outside U.N. building in South Sudan

By Deborah Bloom, David McKenzie and Angela Dewan, CNN
Updated 7:31 AM ET, Sun July 10, 2016


(CNN) — Gunfire from "heavy weaponry" was exchanged outside a United Nations building on the outskirts of South Sudan's capital Juba on Sunday, in fresh violence after a day of relative calm, the U.N. mission to the country said.

The mission sent out a series of tweets at about 8:25 a.m. (1:25 a.m. ET) describing "gunshots" and a "heavily armed exchange" outside a U.N. compound.

UNMISS ý@unmissmedia

Gunshots, heavily armed exchange UN House area once again; going on now since approx. 08:25 @unmissmedia

10:46 PM - 9 Jul 2016
31 31 Retweets
4 4 likes

Juba has been racked with deadly violence this week, as the country on Saturday marked its fifth year of independence.

The weekend violence erupted when President Salva Kiir and Vice President Riek Machar were meeting to discuss previous clashes between their forces. Outside the presidential compound where the meeting took place, a gunbattle kicked off.

UNMISS ý@unmissmedia

Sustained clash, ongoing since approx. 08:25 heavy weapons, UN House area @unmissmedia

11:24 PM - 9 Jul 2016
53 53 Retweets
7 7 likes

Pockets of violence broke out on Thursday evening and by Friday, soldiers loyal to Kiir exchanged heavy gunfire with others backing Machar, in a bloody skirmish that left almost 150 people dead by Saturday, according to Machar's spokesman, James Gatdet Dak. CNN has been unable to independently verify the exact death toll.

"South Sudan today marked the most horrifying Independence Day in the world this year," Dak wrote in a post on Facebook.

It appeared that calm had been restored by late Saturday, but Sunday's gunfire showed tensions are still stirring.


Helicopters, gunships, tanks

The U.N. Security Council in a statement on Saturday strongly condemned the days of violence, which also saw U.N. and diplomatic officials targeted. It called on the transitional government "to quickly investigate these attacks, take steps to end the fighting, reduce tensions, and hold those responsible for the attacks to account." It also confirmed an investigation committee had been formed.

The statement emphasized the importance of command and control and called on the warring factions and "armed actors" to allow the U.N. mission and humanitarian organizations to access civilians in need.

A U.N. base was attacked earlier this week.

"We heard heavy artillery fire at the U.N. (base), and that continued for about an hour or so and then stopped. It was coming form the outer perimeters of the compound," said Shantal Persaud, acting spokeswoman for the U.N. mission.

Helicopter gunships were seen in the sky, and tanks rumbled through the streets. Under the peace deal, both government and opposition troops were stationed in Juba, a plan which many criticized because it put both forces in close proximity.


Command-and-control breakdown

"What we may be seeing is a total breakdown of command and control in Juba," said Kate Almquist Knopf, director of the Africa Center for Strategic Studies. "We need to watch carefully for whether a cycle of reprisal killings by either side begins in the next few days."

Kenya Airways, which operates two flights a day to Juba, said it was suspending all flights to the city because of "uncertain security situation," while Britain's Foreign Office advised against all travel to South Sudan, saying "the security situation in Juba has deteriorated since 7 July."

Two weeks ago, fighting in the western city of Wau between government and opposition troops displaced at least 70,000, according to the United Nations.

The country is nearly out of money because it comes almost exclusively from oil revenue -- the value of which has plummeted in recent years. People have become desperate. In lieu of payment, government soldiers have reportedly been allowed to rape women, a U.N. report said.

South Sudan gained independence in 2011 after 98% of the population voted to break away from Sudan. The East African nation, the youngest country in the world, quickly fell into civil war that took on ethnic undertones.

In December 2013, soldiers from Kiir's Dinka ethnic group tried to disarm Nuer soldiers perceived to be loyal to Machar. Soldiers targeted Nuer civilians in the ensuring fighting, Human Rights Watch says.

The ensuing civil war was gruesome -- at least 50,000 were killed, more than 2 million displaced, and nearly 5 million people faced severe food shortages. Under a peace deal signed in August, Kiir is the president of the country and Machar is the first vice president, but it hasn't stopped fighting.

----

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/09/africa/south-sudan-violence/?iid=ob_lockedrail_bottomlist

South Sudan independence day violence leaves nearly 150 dead

By Justin Lynch, CNN
Updated 7:05 AM ET, Sun July 10, 2016


(CNN) — The fifth anniversary of South Sudan's independence was marred by violence that left nearly 150 soldiers and civilians dead, the spokesman for the country's vice president said over the weekend.

Nearly 150 people were killed after heavy gunfire broke out Friday between soldiers loyal to President Salva Kiir and others backing Vice President Riek Machar, according to Machar's spokesman, James Gatdet Dak.

CNN could not independently verify that number.

"South Sudan today marked the most horrifying Independence Day in the world this year," Dak wrote in a post on Facebook.

He said "sporadic shootings continued throughout the night in pockets of areas around Jebel and Gurei" but relative calm had returned to the capital, Juba, on Saturday.

The latest violence apparently started as Kiir and Machar were meeting to discuss previous clashes between their forces. Outside the presidential compound where the meeting took place, a gun battle kicked off, although it's unclear between whom.

'Plot to target civilians'

Nyargi Roman, another spokesman for Machar, said that many presidential guards who had been stationed outside the presidential compound were missing and feared dead. Local news reported that 146 civilians and soldiers were killed.

On Saturday, security checkpoints appeared across the city, and cellphone networks were not working properly. The Army Chief of Staff urged civilians to stay indoors. There were reports of troop movements across the country, but it was unclear if it was related to the fighting.

The spokesman for the Office of the South Sudan Chief of General Staff said in a statement read on state television that authorities had "credible information of a plot to target civilians in Juba and adjacent areas."

Forces will "act accordingly to protect the lives of civilians at any cost," said the spokesman, Brig. Gen. Lul Ruai Koang.

Echoes civil war

South Sudan gained independence in 2011 after 98% of the population voted to break away from Sudan. The East African nation, the youngest country in the world, quickly fell into civil war that took on ethnic undertones.

The violence on Friday echoes the beginning of South Sudan's civil war. In December 2013, soldiers from Kiir's Dinka ethnic group tried to disarm Nuer soldiers perceived to be loyal to Machar. Soldiers targeted Nuer civilians in the ensuring fighting, Human Rights Watch says.

The ensuing civil war was gruesome -- at least 50,000 were killed, more than 2 million displaced, and nearly 5 million people faced severe food shortages. Under a peace deal signed in August, Kiir is the president of the country and Machar is the first vice president, but it hasn't stopped fighting.

Kiir and Machar held a joint news conference after their meeting was cut short.

"What is happening outside is something we cannot explain to you," Kiir told journalists.

"This incident will be controlled and measures will be taken so that peace is restored," Machar said.

The fighting quickly spread from the presidential compound across Juba.

Command and control breakdown

"We heard heavy artillery fire at the U.N. (base), and that continued for about an hour or so and then stopped. It was coming form the outer perimeters of the compound," said Shantal Persaud, acting spokeswoman for the United Nations Mission in South Sudan.

Helicopter gunships were seen in the sky, and tanks rumbled through the streets. Under the peace deal, both government and opposition troops were stationed in Juba, a plan which many criticized because it put both forces in close proximity. On Friday night, it was unclear if either Machar or Kiir were in full control of their forces.

"What we may be seeing is a total breakdown of command and control in Juba," said Kate Almquist Knopf, director of the Africa Center for Strategic Studies. "We need to watch carefully for whether a cycle of reprisal killings by either side begins in the next few days."

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said the fighting was "a new betrayal of the people of South Sudan, who have suffered from unfathomable atrocities since December 2013"

Both Kiir and Machar are accused of war crimes.

Two weeks ago, fighting in the western city of Wau between government and opposition troops displaced at least 70,000, according to the U.N. The country is nearly out of money because it comes almost exclusively from oil revenue -- the value of which has plummeted in recent years. People have become desperate. In lieu of payment, government soldiers have reportedly been allowed to rape women, a U.N. report said.

"I urge President Kiir and First Vice-President Riek Machar to put an immediate end to the ongoing fighting, discipline the military leaders responsible for the violence and finally work together as partners," Ban said.

CNN's Julia Jones and journalist Angela Dewan contributed to this report.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-iraq-pm-announces-recapture-of-key-base-from-is-militants-2016-7

Iraq PM announces recapture of key base from IS militants

Associated Press
Sinan Salaheddin, Associated Press
14h

BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraqi forces recaptured a northern air base from the Islamic State group on Saturday, a victory hailed by the prime minister as a key step ahead of the long-awaited operation to retake the northern city of Mosul.

In a statement issued on his web site, Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi described the air base in the town of Qayara as an "important base to liberate Mosul," and called on Mosul residents "to get ready for the liberation of their areas."

Mosul, Iraq's second largest city, fell to IS militants in the summer 2014, when the extremist group captured large swaths of northern and western Iraq. In late March, Iraqi forces launched an operation aimed at dislodging IS from areas to the south and southeast of Mosul and gradually cutting off the city's supply lines.

But retaking Mosul itself is not likely to come anytime soon. It will be an enormous undertaking for Iraqi troops, even though they are backed by airstrikes from the U.S.-led coalition and have been joined by pro-government fighters — mostly Shiite militias.

In the mostly Sunni province of Anbar, west of Baghdad, government troops on Saturday consolidated their grip on the provincial capital of Ramadi, retaken from the IS last year, when they captured two villages just north of the city.

An Associated Press video of the fighting showed government troops rocketing IS positions and black smoke pillowing up in the distance. Troops backed by armored cars were later seen marching inside a date palm grove.

The IS group was pushed out of the Anbar city of Fallujah last month after holding it for more than two years.

But despite recent territorial losses in both Iraq and Syria, where the group has established its self-proclaimed caliphate, IS has demonstrated its continued ability to launch offensive attacks in Iraqi government government-held territory and beyond. The militants still hold large pockets of territory in northern and western Iraq.

Last Sunday, a massive truck bombing in Baghdad killed at least 186 people in a predominantly Shiite neighborhood — . the deadliest attack in Iraq since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion. And late Thursday, an attack at a Shiite shrine north of Baghdad killed 37 people. IS has claimed responsibility for both attacks.

On Friday, the prime minister accepted the resignation of Interior Minister Mohammed Salem al-Ghabban. Hours earlier the prime minister fired Baghdad's security chief over the attacks that hit in or near the capital during the past week.

Al-Abadi described the recent attacks as the militants' response to Iraq's "great victory in Fallujah, which stunned the world."

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Exclu...-459905?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Diaspora

By BENJAMIN WEINTHAL \ 07/09/2016 19:36


Exclusive: Iran sought chemical and biological weapons technology in Germany

- German intelligence: Iran seeks illegal nuclear technology

Half of Germany’s state governments reported in their 2015 intelligence documents attempts by Tehran to secure nuclear-related goods.

Comments 50

BERLIN – Iran’s proliferation activities span eight German states and involve a range of activities to advance its chemical and biological warfare capabilities, as well as its nuclear and missile programs.

The vast scale of the Islamic Republic’s network to obtain nuclear and missile technology goes beyond what was disclosed in recent German intelligence reports released on Thursday.

The Jerusalem Post has examined intelligence data and reports from the 16 German states, which included new information on Iranian chemical and biological weapons programs. Half of Germany’s state governments reported in their 2015 intelligence documents attempts by Tehran to secure nuclear-related goods.

The state of Saarland wrote in its 2015 intelligence report released last month that “so-called danger states, for example, Iran and North Korea, make efforts to obtain technology for atomic, biological or chemical weapons.” Iran also seeks “missile delivery systems as well as goods and know-how for proliferation.”

According to the intelligence report from Rhineland-Palatinate state, which was also released in June, Iran was one of the foreign countries that targeted “German companies” in the state whose equipment could be “implemented for atomic, biological and chemical weapons in a war.”

“Special attention was paid in the report’s time period to proliferation relevant activities of Iran, Pakistan and North Korea,” the document stated.

The weapons of mass destruction could be used by Iran to pursue “political goals,” it added.

“These goods could, for example, be applied to the development of state nuclear and missile delivery programs,” the Rhineland-Palatinate intelligence agency wrote. Because of contacts between the Rhineland-Palatinate’s Agency for the Protection of the Constitution (comparable to Shin Bet) and local companies, “illegal exports and the reputational damage” for the businesses could be prevented, the agency wrote. It is unclear how many attempts the Islamic Republic made to illegally secure technology and goods in Rhineland-Palatinate.

The German state of Baden-Württemberg said in its intelligence report in connection with the development of “nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs” that “Iran is not, according to current knowledge, in a position to produce certain construction material, for example, gas ultracentrifgues. The country must procure essential parts and components from its allies or in the West. In addition to vacuum technology, there is special interest in machine tools, high speed cameras, and climate test control chambers.”

In response to the Federal intelligence report on Tehran’s proliferation activities, Israel’s ambassador, Yakov Hadas-Handelsman, told the Berlin daily Tagesspiegel's investigative journalist Frank Jansen last week: “With a view to the nuclear deal with Iran, we see, once again, that our suspicion was confirmed, which is also shared by the German side: It is not enough to trust the regime in Tehran.”

Meanwhile, on Friday, the deputy head of the Revolutionary Guards, Brig.-Gen. Hossein Salami, said the Islamic Republic has more than 100,000 missiles in Lebanon ready for the “annihilation” of Israel. Salami’s speech, in which he also said Iran has “tens of thousands” of rockets to destroy the “accursed black dot” of Israel, was translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).

According to North Rhine-Westphalia state’s domestic intelligence report for 2015, Iran made 141 attempts to secure technology for proliferation, up from 83 attempts in 2014. Ninety percent of the illegal-procurement attempts were for the development of nuclear-weapon devices and missile launchers, the agency said.

Iran’s illicit proliferation work mainly targeted the highly industrialized western German states where many advanced engineering and technology companies are located. The eight German states where Iranian agents sought nuclear and missile merchandise are Hamburg, Saarland, Baden-Württemberg, Schleswig-Holstein, Bavaria, Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia and Rhineland-Palatinate.

Germany’s Federal domestic intelligence agency said in its newest report in late June that Iran’s “illegal proliferation-sensitive procurement activities in Germany registered by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution persisted in 2015 at what is, even by international standards, a quantitatively high level. This holds true in particular with regard to items which can be used in the field of nuclear technology.”

The agency said there was “a further increase in the already considerable procurement efforts in connection with Iran’s ambitious missile technology program, which could, among other things, potentially serve to deliver nuclear weapons. Against this backdrop, it is safe to expect that Iran will continue its intensive procurement activities in Germany using clandestine methods to achieve its objectives.”

The five German states that have not released their 2015 intelligence reports are Saxony-Anhalt, Hesse, Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and Thuringia.

The state of Saxony cited the Islamic Republic’s espionage targeting opposition exile Iranians. According to the report, German authorities arrested an Iranian citizen in October 2015 who was suspected of spying for Tehran.

The reports covering Iran’s pursuit of biological and chemical weapons appear to be the most recent confirmation that its programs are still active.

In response to the German Federal intelligence report, US Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois said on Thursday: “I strongly opposed the flawed nuclear deal because Iran would keep cheating, as shown by Iran’s numerous ballistic missile tests aimed at threatening Israel, and now by the German intelligence report on Iran’s aggressive efforts to secretly buy nuclear and missile technology.

“It’s long past due for the [US] administration to stop giving Iran more and more economic concessions and to start holding Iran’s terror-sponsoring regime fully accountable for its violations. And it’s time for Congress to vote on my Iran Terrorism & Human Rights Sanctions Act of 2016 and [New Hampshire] Senator [Kelly] Ayotte’s Iran Ballistic Missile Sanctions Act of 2016,” he continued.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.euronews.com/2016/07/09/britain-to-hold-vote-on-trident-nuclear-deterrent/

Britain to hold vote on Trident nuclear deterrent

09/07 15:35 CET | updated at 10/07 - 04:03

Video

David Cameron has said he will hold a parliamentary vote later this month over whether to renew Britain’s nuclear deterrent.

Speaking at a NATO summit in Warsaw, the outgoing UK Prime Minister insisted the Trident weapons system was vital for national security and needed to be put “beyond doubt.”

“The nuclear deterrent remains essential in my view, not just to Britain’s security but as our allies have acknowledged here today, to the overall security of the NATO alliance. On Trident, it is a manifesto pledge to have a fully fledged deterrent, a replacement for the four submarines. We need to get on with that. We need certainty about that so that investment decisions can go ahead.”

Currently based at Faslane on Scotland’s West Coast, the bill to replace the UK’s four aging submarines, which carry Trident intercontinental nuclear ballistic missiles, could cost as much as 150 billion euros.

That could rise even further should the Scottish government make a second successful bid for independence following Britain’s Brexit vote.

Edinburgh has vowed to close Faslane and force London to build a new submarine base south of the border if it breaks away from the UK.

 

[ainitfunny]

TIME HAS COME to REFOCUS on what the hell is looming in the MOST DANGEROUS WAR scenario!

Obama has expelled RUSSIAN diplomats and vice versa!! ( The FIRST STEP to official WAR with a NUCLEAR SUPER POWER!)

And the news media is IGNORING it!!

Even the members of this forum are IGNORING that thread!!
Are we here NUTS?

THAT: Potential nuclear War Trumps Race war and ISIS threats for "affecting EVERYONE"!!

 

[Housecarl]

TIME HAS COME to REFOCUS on what the hell is looming in the MOST DANGEROUS WAR scenario!

Obama has expelled RUSSIAN diplomats and vice versa!! ( The FIRST STEP to official WAR with a NUCLEAR SUPER POWER!)

And the news media is IGNORING it!!

Even the members of this forum are IGNORING that thread!!
Are we here NUTS?

THAT: Potential nuclear War Trumps Race war and ISIS threats for "affecting EVERYONE"!!

Thanks Ainitfunny, I haven't gotten that far yet....

U.S., Russia expel each other's diplomats
Started by China Connection‎, Today 05:56 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?494987-U.S.-Russia-expel-each-other-s-diplomats

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-summit-russia-idUSKCN0ZQ0DW

World | Sun Jul 10, 2016 6:45am EDT
Related: World

Moscow says NATO fixating on non-existent Russian threat

Russia's Foreign Ministry said on Saturday that a NATO summit in Warsaw showed that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was focusing its efforts on containing a non-existent "threat from the East".

At a meeting of the NATO-Russia council on July 13, Moscow will seek explanations for the alliance's plans, the spokeswoman for the foreign ministry, Maria Zakharova, said in a statement.

Russia will also seek an explanation from NATO for a Finnish plan to improve air defenses over the Baltic Sea, she said in the statement.


(Reporting by Polina Devitt; editing by Christian Lowe)

 

[Housecarl]

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ows-heavy-weapons-in-Korean-DMZ-(10-July-2016)

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2016/07/205_209010.html

Posted : 2016-07-10 16:45
Updated : 2016-07-10 17:51

UNC allows heavy weapons in DMZ

By Rachel Lee

The United Nations Command (UNC) has revised rules to allow South Korean and U.S. military forces to carry heavy weapons in the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), officials here said Sunday.

The measure came in response to the North Korean military's placement of heavy weapons in the DMZ, a 257-kilometer-long, 4-kilometer-wide buffer zone that has remained since the armistice ending the Korean War was signed in 1953, they said.

The existence of heavy weapons in the DMZ increases the possibility of military conflict between the two sides and weakens the primary purpose of setting up the buffer zone after the 1950-53 war.

According to UNC Regulation 551-4, which outlines and implements responsibilities required to comply with the armistice, the U.S.-led UNC approved the deployment of heavy weapons at the buffer area, including medium and heavy machine guns, recoilless rifles, mortars and automatic grenade launchers. The changes went into effect on Sept. 5, 2014. Only individual arms were originally allowed in the DMZ.

The UNC said in the revised regulation that it made such updates to "take action against weapon systems placed by the North Korean military within the DMZ."

"North Korea has long deployed mortars and large-caliber anti-aircraft machine guns as well as anti-personnel and anti-tank land mines in the DMZ in violation of the armistice agreement. We had to take countermeasures," a South Korean military official said.

The DMZ is the most fortified area in the world with 70 percent of troops from both Koreas stationed nearby. The southern part of the DMZ is under the control of the UNC and North Korea manages the northern part.

The Korean Peninsula has technically remained in a state of war since the 1950-53 war ended in a truce, not a peace treaty.

rachel@ktimes.com

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...at-drone-completes-first-sea-trials/86865214/

'Neuron' Combat Drone Completes First Sea Trials

Pierre Tran, Defense News 2:22 p.m. EDT July 8, 2016

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/f51...ews/DefenseNews/636035841132709031-neuron.jpg

Paris – The Direction Générale de l’Armement flew on July 6 the first sea trials of the Neuron technology demonstrator for a combat drone with the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier, a spokesman for the defense procurement office said.

The demonstrator for an unmanned combat aerial vehicle flew out at sea for “about an hour” at some 1,000 feet, flying both with and without Rafale fighter jets, the spokesman said.

The flight test put the Neuron through its paces above the carrier but the UCAV did not land on the nuclear-powered vessel.

Flying at sea aimed to explore use of a combat drone in naval operations, and forms part of the latest campaign of flight tests, which began in May. A next round of tests at the DGA center at Bruz, western France, will evaluate electromagnetic stealth, with tests due to run through early 2017.


DEFENSE NEWS
Neuron UCAV Conducts 12 Test Flights


In the first test flight program, which ran from December 2012 to September 2015, the Neuron flew 123 times, initially in France, before flying in partner countries Italy and Sweden. The six nations backing the program are France, Greece, Italy, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland, with the DGA acting as program manager for the former.

Dassault Aviation is the prime contractor, with subcontractors Airbus Defence & Space of Spain, Alenia of Italy, Hellenic Aerospace Industry of Greece, Ruag of Switzerland and Saab of Sweden.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htspace/articles/20160706.aspx

Space: China Achieves Orbital Refueling

July 6, 2016: At the end of June China revealed that a recent test of a space satellite capable of refueling other satellites was a success. Many satellites are equipped with small rockets so they can move to different orbits but the fuel only lasts so long. One reason the United States built its Space Shuttle was because it provided an opportunity to keep expensive spy satellites operational by refueling them and even replacing components that failed. But the Space Shuttle program was shut down in 2011 because of cost. The U.S. does not plan to test a similar refueling satellite until 2020.

In the meantime the United States does have the X-37 which is a remotely controlled mini-Space Shuttle. As of mid-2016 the X-37 has made four spaceflights, one off which is still underway. Three X-37s have been built, one X-37A for NASA (for testing, not for spaceflight) and two X-37Bs for the U.S. Air Force (for use in space). The X-37B is believed to have a payload of about 227-300 kg (500-660 pounds). The payload bay is 2.1x1.4 meters (7x4 feet). As it returns to earth, the X-37B lands by itself (after being ordered to use a specific landing area.) The X-37B weighs five tons, is nine meters (29 feet) long and has a wingspan of 4.5 meters (14.6 feet). Max endurance appears to be more than two years, because of the use of a solar array for power while in orbit. In contrast the Space Shuttle was 56 meters long, weighed 2,000 tons and had a payload of 24 tons. Endurance was limited to a few weeks at most because there had to be a human crew on board.

The X-37B is a classified project so not a lot of details are available. It's been in development since 2000 but work was slowed down for a while because of lack of money. Whatever the X-37B is now doing up there has been convincing enough to get Congress to spend over a billion dollars on it. What makes the X-37B so useful is that it is very maneuverable, contains some internal sensors (as well as communications gear), and can carry mini-satellites, or additional sensors, in the payload bay. Using a remotely controlled arm, the X-37B could refuel or repair other satellites. But X-37B is a classified project, with little confirmed information about its payload or mission (other than testing the system on its first mission). Future missions could involve intelligence work and perhaps servicing existing spy satellites, or at least practicing to do so. The X-37B is believed capable of serving as a platform for attacks on enemy satellites in wartime. It is believed that some of the missions may have also involved testing new spy satellite components in space, where the harsh environment, especially the radiation, can have unpredictable effects on microelectronics.

For regular satellite refueling missions the X-37C would probably be used. This is a scaled up X-37B that would have a much larger (probably over a ton) of payload and be able to carry up to six passengers. The X-37C would still be robotic and not require anyone onboard to control it. The Chinese are also working on something like the X-37C but have not put anything into orbit yet.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.army-technology.com/features/featurejapan-a-new-dawn-of-military-innovation-4912440/

Japan: a new dawn of military innovation?

7 July 2016 Dr Gareth Evans

There is an oft-quoted Japanese saying that ‘business is war’ and now, after easing more than forty years of restrictions on foreign arms sales in 2014, it seems Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is hoping that the materiel of war can also become business.

For decades, Japanese arms contractors had been limited to supplying their own defence forces, but this shift in policy opens the way for them to expand beyond their own shores. They will, nevertheless, be minnows entering a very competitive market place. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) in 2014, Japanese firms accounted for just 2.3% of the output of the world's top 100 defence companies, against the US' 54.4%, UK's 10.4% and Russia's 10.2%.

There are bigger drivers behind this, however, than simply making sales, and one of the most important is the chance to drive down domestic acquisition costs.

Cutting costs

For the likes of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Kawasaki Steel - Japan's top two defence contractors, ranked 21st and 50th respectively in the world on SIPRI's 2014 list - supplying a single customer has proven expensive. Small production runs mean a high price tag, often two or three times what other militaries pay for comparable items. The restrictions further compounded this by severely curtailing Japan's involvement in the kind of multinational cooperation that is becoming commonplace today. When Mitsubishi's X-2 'Shinshin' stealth fighter took to the skies for the first time in April of this year, it was a wholly Japanese affair, and largely driven by American reticence over sharing access to F-22 Raptor technology - but the development costs were all Japan's too.

While the X-2 itself is unlikely to ever become part of the export push, the wider thinking is that by relaxing the rules and permitting sales to foreign markets, the sector will benefit from economies of scale, and unit costs will fall. It should help Japan streamline its fragmented arms industry, boost the country's military modernisation programme and allow Japanese input into the consortium-style development of the kind of high-tech weapons and platforms that would be too costly to do alone.

Even so, it is not all about expense; there are other factors in play too. The changing geopolitical climate, both regional and global, means there are greater strategic reasons behind Japan's shift in approach and China is high on the list.

Chinese tensions

Beijing has never made much of a secret of its proprietorial claims to tracts of the Asia Pacific, leading to inevitable tension with neighbours in the region, which its increasing willingness to engage in displays of unilateral power projection has done little to assuage.

The growing militarisation of China and the shifting balance of power in the region has left many in Japan feeling uneasy. According to a survey undertaken by the Washington-based Pew Research Center in 2014, 85% of Japanese felt that territorial disputes between China and its neighbours could result in armed conflict.

With the US in the process of re-balancing commitments to the region and America's military routinely required to 'do more with less', Japanese fears of abandonment have arguably seldom, if ever, been more acutely felt. Shifting Japan's long established position on defence sales is seen as one way to help address this.

It is a two-pronged strategy - increase cooperation and interoperability with the US, and consolidate Japan's role among other similar-thinking regional states - and one designed to promote Japan as a reliable partner sharing the burden of maintaining stability and security.

Selling arms to allies, and being involved in multi-national weapons development programmes, would obviously enable Japan to make money, but more importantly it would also strengthen international relationships and bolster the contributions that other nations can make to the region's collective security.

To help achieve this, in October 2015, the Japanese Ministry of Defence created a new Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Agency, with one section being entirely dedicated to promoting arms exports. So what might those exports be?

Sea planes and submarines

ShinMaywa's US-2 amphibious aircraft and the Soryu submarine, from Mitsubishi/Kawasaki Shipbuilding are two that have already drawn some serious interest.

For a while it looked as if Japan's first major arms deal in over half a century was going to springboard it into the global submarine market with the sale of Soryu-class submarines to replace Australia's Collins-class vessels in 2025-30. Although that will not now happen, the serious consideration given to these highly-competitive, and in some aspects superior, diesel-electric submarines should give the French, German and Russian companies that have so long dominated the market serious cause for thought.

It has been a similar story for the US-2. With a range of 4,700 km (2,538nm) it has caught the eye of a number of Asia Pacific nations including Indonesia, Vietnam and most notably India. However, a $1.65bn deal to sell between 15 and 18 aircraft to the Indian Navy seems to have stalled and its future, for now, remains uncertain.

The market for whole systems may be a difficult one for Japan to crack, not least because Japanese arms do not come with the 'tested-in-combat' label that accompanies many competitors' products. However, Japanese ingenuity and innovation is world-renowned and the avenues to export defence system components look to be far more open.

Research expertise

Mitsubishi already exports seeker gyros made under licence for the Patriot surface-to-air missile system to the US contractor Raytheon, in the first arrangement of its kind to be approved by the Japanese Government under the new policy. A joint research project was also given the go ahead to use Japanese seeker technology in the development of Meteor, Europe's latest beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile project.

With sales which boost security through joint development and production now being particularly promoted by the government, such technology transfers could provide the template for wider co-operation in future.

Japan also has a massive pool of research expertise across a range of 'dual-use' technologies, including sensors, electronics, aeronautics, rocketry, unmanned systems, artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics, which have clear military applications as well as civilian ones.

The strategic importance of these high-tech areas to national security has already been recognised, and with so much talent available on tap, integrating these two strands seems a natural step - but currently universities are barred from working directly on military projects. If that changes, Japan might well be able to leverage all that intellectual capital into the kinds of products, particularly in fields such as unmanned aerial and underwater vehicles, which would take the world's arms market by storm.

Barriers to success

Nevertheless, it could still be an uphill struggle. Some commentators have suggested that after so long out of the game, Japanese companies lack both contacts in the global market and a sufficiently nuanced understanding of how it works. In addition, even if the hoped-for economies of scale do materialise, Japanese products may still seem expensive compared with other emerging suppliers, at least for a while. These problems can be overcome in time, but the real barrier may be much more fundamental.

The pacifist ethos runs deep in Japanese public thinking, and for many, the government's plans are highly controversial. Unlike the US, there are no big specialist defence contractors deriving the bulk of their revenue from arms; even for the largest amongst them, the contribution only amounts to perhaps 10%. More to the point, these companies themselves remain deeply concerned about how extending their defence work might affect their reputation at home.

The unfolding new reality of the Asia Pacific region is undoubtedly slowly changing those sentiments, but it may still take some time before Japan - possibly the most innovative nation on Earth - will feel truly comfortable about channelling that innovation into weapons of war.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...nal-plane-uas-firepower-hypersonics/86524792/

As Air Force Shrinks, Officials Look For New Ways to Amass Firepower

Valerie Insinna, Defense News 6:04 a.m. EDT July 10, 2016

WASHINGTON — The Air Force’s current fleet of aircraft is the smallest and oldest it has ever been, and although a plethora of acquisition programs are slated to update it with new capabilities, service officials are concerned about its ability to control the skies and strike targets at will.

The service is banking on future technologies that can bring additional firepower to the battlefield without having to buy new aircraft, relying instead on unmanned aerial systems (UAS), modified legacy planes and advanced weaponry.

“Warfare is still about amassing firepower at a time and place in space, whether it’s in the air or on the ground,” outgoing Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh told Defense News in June ahead of his retirement later that month. “And amassing firepower means you need weapons, you need precision, and you need the ability to target.”

“We have platforms and sensors that can provide that. We just don’t have the mass firepower available in every scenario we might face because we have shrunk the size of our force,” he said. “So if you can’t bring as many airplanes to the fight, maybe you’ve got to figure a way to bring more weapons to the fight.”

One of the most highly anticipated ways of doing that is the so-called "arsenal plane" under development by the Pentagon’s secretive Strategic Capabilities Office. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter revealed the existence of the outfit, which seeks near-term advancements by modifying and repackaging existing technologies for new uses, earlier this year.


DEFENSE NEWS
Strategic Capabilities Office Looks for Industry Feedback


SCO’s arsenal plane concept will take an older airframe — the office has not yet divulged which platform is to be used — and load it with a large amount of precision-guided munitions. During combat, fifth-generation fighters would penetrate the enemy’s airspace and provide targeting information to the arsenal plane, which could then take out adversaries from standoff distances, said SCO director William Roper during the Defense One Technology Summit.

Welsh said he wasn’t sure if the arsenal plane concept would ultimately be adopted by the Air Force, but that it “absolutely” should be developed further because of the service’s dire need for more firepower.

“Let’s say we get no new force structure for the next twenty years and we’re stuck with what we have, what we have on the books today. If you want to do air superiority on a broader scale than a hundred and eighty-seven F-22s will allow you to do it, the real thing you run out of at first in the forward edge of the battle space is weapons,” he said.

SCO also has high hopes for the “loyal wingman” concept, which gives pilots in manned fifth-generation planes control of an unmanned fourth-generation fighter — allowing, for example, a pilot to fly his F-35 and an unmanned F-16 simultaneously.

“We're probably not ready to build an unmanned fighter that just goes out alone. We're going to have to team it with a piloted system,” Roper said. “What an unmanned system really gives us is the ability to do maneuvers that we wouldn't do with a pilot, carry payloads that might not be safe to have on a manned system, and to put in a little more risk than we would put when we put a pilot in.”

Both SCO and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which aims to develop long-term breakthroughs, are focusing on technology related to swarming unmanned aerial systems, or UAS. One of SCO’s projects involves the creation of cheap, expendable micro-drones that can be carried and deployed by tactical aircraft, but do not need to be recovered, Roper said.

On the other side of the technology curve is DARPA’s Gremlins program, which would make deployable UAS recoverable, allowing the services to operate unmanned systems with more expensive payloads, said its deputy director, Steven Walker. Phase one contracts for concept development have been awarded to Composite Engineering, Dynetics, General Atomics and Lockheed Martin.

Other technologies DARPA is working on include software to aid the decision making of pilots in manned-unmanned teams, as well as payloads that would give UAS different effects, such as electronic warfare capabilities, he said at the Defense One event.

The agency also is investing heavily in hypersonic weapons, including a hypersonic air-breathing missile and a boost-glide vehicle, with the hopes that these super-fast and maneuverable munitions increase the survivability of aircraft. Walker stressed that these weapons will become available in the near future, calling them a “today” technology.

“I would say we're closer on hypersonics than we are with directed energy in terms of making that a real capability” he said. “I look forward to that being a key part of any U.S. air posture in the future.”

Email: vinsinna@defensenews.com

Twitter: @ValerieInsinna

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southkorea-usa-northkorea-idUSKCN0ZQ107

World | Mon Jul 11, 2016 7:26am EDT
Related: World, United Nations, North Korea

North Korea says will treat U.S. detainees under 'wartime law'

SEOUL | By Ju-min Park and Jack Kim

North Korea said on Monday it has told the United States it will sever the only channel of communication between them, at the United Nations in New York, after Washington blacklisted leader Kim Jong Un last week for human rights abuses.

All matters related to the United States, including the handling of American citizens detained by Pyongyang, will be conducted under its "wartime law," the North's official KCNA news agency said.

The move is the latest escalation of tension with the isolated country, which earlier on Monday threatened a "physical response" after the United States and South Korea said they would deploy the THAAD missile defense system in South Korea.

"As the United States will not accept our demand for the immediate withdrawal of the sanctions measure, we will be taking corresponding actions in steps," KCNA said.

"As the first step, we have notified that the New York contact channel that has been the only existing channel of contact will be completely severed," it said.

"The Republic will handle all matters arising between us and the United States from now on under our wartime laws, and the matters of Americans detained are no exception to this."

It was not clear how "wartime laws" would affect the handling of the two Americans detained. But North Korea has indicated in the past that wartime laws would mean that detainees will not be released on humanitarian grounds.

The North and the United States remain technically at war because the 1950-53 Korean War, in which Washington sided with the South, ended only with a truce.

The two Americans known to be detained in North Korea include Otto Warmbier, a University of Virginia student sentenced to 15 years of hard labor in March for trying to steal an item with a propaganda slogan, according to North Korean state media. The other, Korean-American Kim Dong Chul, is serving a 10 year sentence for espionage, state media said.


Related Coverage
› North Korea says to treat matters with US, including detainees, under wartime law: KCNA

A University of Virginia spokesman said the university remains in touch with Warmbier's family but did not have additional comment.

The so-called New York channel has been an intermittent point of contact between the North and the United States, which do not have diplomatic ties, to exchange messages and, less frequently, hold discussions.

North Korea said last week it was planning its toughest response to what it deemed a "declaration of war" by the United States after Washington sanctioned Kim.

On Saturday, the North test-fired a ballistic missile from a submarine, but it appeared to have failed after launch.


ESCALATING TENSION

The United States and South Korea said on Friday that the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-missile system will be used to counter North Korea's growing nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities.

The announcement was the latest move by the allies against the North, which conducted its fourth nuclear test this year and launched a long-range rocket, resulting in tough new U.N. sanctions.

"There will be physical response measures from us as soon as the location and time that the invasionary tool for U.S. world supremacy, THAAD, will be brought into South Korea are confirmed," the North's military said early on Monday.

"It is the unwavering will of our army to deal a ruthless retaliatory strike and turn (the South) into a sea of fire and a pile of ashes the moment we have an order to carry it out," the statement carried by KCNA said.

The North frequently threatens to attack the South and U.S. interests in Asia and the Pacific.

South Korean Defence Ministry spokesman Moon Sang-gyun warned the North not to take "rash and foolish action". Otherwise, he said, it would face "decisive and strong punishment from our military."

The move to deploy the THAAD system also drew a swift and sharp protest from China.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said on Saturday that THAAD exceeded the security needs of the Korean peninsula, and suggested there was a "conspiracy behind this move."

South Korean President Park Geun-hye said on Monday the THAAD system was not intended to target any third country but was purely aimed at countering the threat from the North, in an apparent message to Beijing.

A South Korean Defence Ministry official said selection of a site for THAAD could come "within weeks," and the allies were working to have it operational by the end of 2017.

It will be used by U.S. Forces Korea "to protect alliance military forces," the South and the United States said on Friday. The United States maintains 28,500 troops in South Korea, a legacy of the 1950-53 Korean war.


(Additional reporting by James Pearson; Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan and Tony Munroe)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-usa-idUSKCN0ZR0LT

World | Mon Jul 11, 2016 6:12am EDT
Related: World, Iraq

U.S. sending advisers to help Iraq army push on Mosul: Carter

BAGHDAD | By Yeganeh Torbati


U.S. forces will move advisers and other staff to an Iraqi airfield recaptured from Islamic State to help locals organize a push on Mosul, the militants' largest stronghold, U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter said before arriving in Baghdad on Monday.

Iraqi government forces said on Saturday they took back control of Qayara airbase, about 60 km (40 miles) from the northern city, backed by air cover from a U.S.-led military coalition.

"The seizure of the Qayara West airfield ... will be followed. Its purpose is to create a logistics hub there, so there will be U.S. logistics support," Carter told reporters.

The airfield is "one of the hubs from which ... Iraqi security forces, accompanied and advised by us as needed, will complete the southern-most envelopment of Mosul," he added.

The recapture of Mosul, on major supply roads running further north to the borders of Syria and Turkey, would be a major boost for the Iraqi government and U.S. plans to weaken the group which has launched and inspired attacks in the West.

Two years since Islamic State seized wide swathes of Iraq and neighboring Syria in a lightning offensive, the tide has begun to turn as an array of forces lined up against the militants have made inroads into their self-proclaimed "caliphate".

The militants have increasingly resorted to insurgent-style attacks including a bombing in Baghdad last week that left nearly 300 people dead.


MEETINGS

A senior U.S. defense official said Qayara would be "an important location for our advisers, for our fire support, working closely with the Iraqis and being closer to the fight."

U.S. forces had already visited the airfield to check on its condition and advisers would be able to offer specialized engineering support in Mosul, where Islamic State has blown up bridges across the Tigris River, U.S. officials said.

Iraqi forces were already improving the airfield's perimeter in case of a counterattack from the nearby town of Qayara which Islamic State still holds, another U.S. official in Baghdad said.

Islamic State has suffered a number of territorial losses in recent months including the Syrian town of al-Shadadi, taken by U.S.-backed Syrian forces in February, and the Iraqi recapture of Ramadi in December and Falluja last month.

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has promised to take Mosul by the end of the year.

U.S. officials said Carter would meet Abadi, Defense Minister Khaled al-Obaidi and U.S. Army Lieutenant General Sean MacFarland, the head of the U.S.-led coalition battling Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

Carter announced in April that the United States would send about 200 additional troops to Iraq, mostly as advisers for Iraqi troops as they advance towards Mosul, accompanying Iraqi units of about 2,500 troops.


(Additional reporting by Stephen Kalin; Editing by Andrew Heavens)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-ruling-idUSKCN0ZR0BM

World | Mon Jul 11, 2016 12:50am EDT
Related: World, China, South China Sea

Beijing says should be no South China Sea talk at Asia-Europe summit

BEIJING | By Ben Blanchard


The South China Sea is not on the agenda and should not be discussed at a major summit between Asian and European leaders in Mongolia at the end of the week, a senior Chinese diplomat said on Monday.

The Asia-Europe Meeting, or ASEM, will be the first important multilateral diplomatic gathering after the July 12 ruling by an arbitration court hearing a dispute between China and the Philippines over the South China Sea.

Tensions and rhetoric have been rising ahead of the ruling in the Dutch city of The Hague, a case which China has refused to recognize or participate in. Beijing says the court has no jurisdiction and China cannot be forced to accept dispute resolution.

China has repeatedly blamed the United States for stirring up trouble in the South China Sea, where its territorial claims overlap in parts with Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan.

Chinese Assistant Foreign Minister Kong Xuanyou signaled discussion of the South China Sea would not be welcomed at the event, which happens once every two years, as it's designed to discuss issues between Asia and Europe.

"The ASEM leaders summit is not a suitable place to discuss the South China Sea. There are no plans to discuss it there on the agenda for the meeting. And it should not be put on the agenda," Kong told a news briefing.

However, Beijing-based diplomats involved with preparations for ASEM say it is inevitable the South China Sea dispute will be raised at the summit, which is expected to be attended by Chinese Premier Li Keqiang, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

The United States has conducted freedom of navigation patrols close to Chinese-held islands, to Beijing's anger, while China has been bolstering its military presence there.

Kong said that if there are tensions in the South China Sea it is because certain countries outside the region have been putting on shows of force and interfering.

"There is no reason to get the South China Sea issue into this ASEM meeting citing freedom of navigation and security interests as causes of concern. It's got no leg to stand on," he added.


FILIPINOS TOLD "DON'T TALK POLITICS"

Ahead of the ruling, Philippine nationals in China this weekend received mobile phone text messages from their embassy, warning them not to discuss politics in public and to avoid engaging in discussions on social media. They were advised to carry their passports and residency permits with them at all times and to contact the embassy or Chinese police if there are any untoward incidents.

China says much of the building and reclamation work it has been doing in the South China Sea is to benefit the international community, including for civilian maritime navigation.

The official China Daily said on Monday that China will soon start operations of a fifth lighthouse in the South China Sea, on Mischief Reef.

Taiwan is also watching the case closely.

Its single holding of Itu Aba is the biggest feature in the Spratlys and the one some analysts believe has the strongest claim to island status and an exclusive economic zone.

"If the ruling touches on our sovereign rights we will respond strongly," said deputy foreign minister Leo C.J. Lee to lawmakers in a parliamentary committee session on Monday.

The coast guard, which directly oversees Itu Aba with the support of the military, will not "soften" its defense of the island, coast guard chief Lee Chung-wei added.


(Additional reporting by J.R. Wu in Taipei and Benjamin Kang Lim in Beijing; Editing by Lincoln Feast)

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.newsweek.com/al-shabab-somalia-army-base-african-union-mission-479293?rx=us

World

At Least 10 Soldiers Killed in Al-Shabab Attack on Somali Army Base

By Mirren Gidda On 7/11/16 at 5:08 AM

Al-Shabab fighters have killed at least 10 soldiers after the militants attacked a Somali army base near the country’s capital of Mogadishu. Operatives from the terrorist group crashed an explosives-packed car into the base before rushing inside.

Both sides are reporting differing death tolls. A Somali army officer told Reuters that he had lost 10 soldiers in the attack, but Abdiasis Abu Musab, a spokesman for Al-Shabab, said his group had killed at least 30 soldiers.

The Somali army also claimed to have killed at least 12 Al-Shabab militants, a claim that the militants haven’t verified.

Monday’s assault follows a successful attempt by the Somali government on Sunday to destroy an Al-Shabab storage facility south of Mogadishu.

Al-Shabab, an east African terrorist organization, has launched repeated attacks against the western-backed Somali government, in a bid to overthrow it and introduce Sharia law.

Since 2007, African Union troops have fought against Al-Shabab in Somalia—a mission that has extended well past its planned six months.

However, the bloc announced in a statement on July 6 that all 22,000 of its soldiers will have left Somalia by 2018 with the national army in sole control of the country by 2020.
The move comes after the European Union decided in January to cut 20 percent of its funding to the mission.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://time.com/4400671/philippines-south-china-sea-arbitration-case/

China’s Global Reputation Hinges on Upcoming South China Sea Court Decision

Hannah Beech / Shanghai @hkbeech
6:50 AM ET

The case is viewed as a litmus test of how an increasingly assertive power will engage with other nations and contend with the arm of international law

Few people noticed on a wintry day in the Netherlands when the Philippines submitted a 20-page document for an arbitration case against China. After all, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) hardly commands the glamour of the International Criminal Court, another intergovernmental judiciary based in The Hague that tries suspected war criminals. Recent cases on the PCA’s docket have included a dispute between an Indian potash company and a Nepali agricultural firm, as well as a wrangle over a detained ship involving Malta and São Tomé and Princípe.

In its suit, the Philippines argued that a scattering of Chinese-controlled rocks and reefs in the contested South China Sea do not qualify for so-called exclusive economic zones (EEZs) that grant governments economic control of up to 200 nautical miles of surrounding waters. In other words, Manila asked the international tribunal to strip China of many of its claims in the resource-rich waterway. Beijing, which demarcates nearly all of the South China Sea as its own through a nine-dash line etched on Chinese maps, rejected the Philippine suit and boycotted the entire proceedings. (The Philippine suit also asked the PCA to rule on the legality of the nine-dash line.) But for months, most other nations paid no attention as the five-man tribunal, headed by a judge from Ghana, went about its deliberations.

Read More: China Will Never Respect the U.S. Over the South China Sea. Here’s Why

On July 12, the PCA is expected to deliver its final award on the arbitration case between the Republic of the Philippines and the People’s Republic of China. Far from ignored or insignificant, the case is now viewed as a litmus test of how an increasingly assertive power will engage with other nations and contend with the arm of international law. China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea conflict with those of five other governments: the Philippines, Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia and Taiwan. The PCA’s decision, which is likely to at least partly favor the Philippines, is not enforceable. Beijing’s response has been to dismiss the entire case as a “political farce,” casting itself as the victim of an American-led plot to suppress a rival power. “The case, from the very beginning, is a trap set by the U.S. to maintain its dominance in the Asia-Pacific region,” went a July 8 editorial in the People’s Daily, the Chinese Communist Party’s mouthpiece. “One of its real purposes is to alienate China and its neighbors by defaming China in the name of international law.”

Chinese propaganda czars have unleashed a p.r. blitz blasting the proceedings. The campaign has included everything from advertorials in major Western papers to supportive statements in Chinese state media courtesy of Croatian and Argentine analysts, among other surprising sources. Nevertheless, the PCA’s ruling — and Beijing’s reaction to it — will help shape China’s global reputation. That’s largely because since the Philippines lodged its case three years ago, China has literally redrawn the map, building islands bristling with military hardware atop what were once mostly underwater reefs. In its annual report on China’s military in May, the U.S. Department of Defense estimated that the Chinese have fashioned at least 3,200 acres of new land in the South China Sea’s Spratlys archipelago over the past couple years. All the other claimants combined reclaimed 50 acres over the same period, according to the Pentagon’s estimates.

Under the rules of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), only naturally formed islands that can sustain human or economic life are eligible for significant EEZs. Chunks of rock that disappear under high tide don’t count. Nor do underwater atolls, even if they have been built up by massive sand-dredging. If the PCA rules China’s man-made islands do not qualify for EEZs, China will lose international legal sanction over much of the South China Sea. Of course, Beijing’s islands — complete with tennis courts, missile batteries and fighter jet-ready airstrips — will not be unmade. But, at the very least, Beijing will have to contend with international condemnation delivered via a court in The Hague.

Read More: What’s New on China’s Artificial Islands in the South China Sea? Basketball Courts

Ownership over the South China Sea — or West Philippine Sea, as the Filipinos like to call it, and the East Sea, to the Vietnamese — has been subject to both quixotic and deadly claims. In the 1970s and ‘80s, dozens of soldiers, mostly Vietnamese, died during skirmishes between Vietnam and China over another set of disputed South China Sea islets called the Paracels. In the 1950s, a Filipino fishing and guano (excrement of seabirds used as fertilizer) entrepreneur named Tomas Cloma unilaterally designated the sea’s eastern flank, an entity called the Free Territory of Freedomland. He placed Freedomland’s capital on a Spratly dot called Flat (or Patag) Island, which is now patrolled by seven Philippine marines accompanied by seven dogs. For years, the Philippines tied its title over the Spratlys to the sanctity of the Free Territory of Freedomland. It was hardly the most legally iron-clad of claims. But the territorial assertion had a precedent. In the late 19th century, British officials operating from colonial Borneo granted Western adventurers licenses to mine guano in the Spratlys.

Read More: The Dispute About the South China Sea Is Also a Dispute About History and America’s Role

The Philippine decision to resort to an international tribunal came after China effectively seized control of Scarborough Shoal, a South China Sea reef located fewer than 200 nautical miles from Manila, the Philippine capital. “We are trying to promote rule of law after China’s unlawful and unilateral actions at Scarborough Shoal,” Charles Jose, spokesman of the Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs, tells TIME. “We are trying to establish an international order where might will not equal right.”

The U.S., which has a security pact with the Philippines and has dispatched aircraft carrier strike groups to the South China Sea with increasing frequency, says it takes no position on who owns which bits of South China Sea rock. But top U.S. officials have urged Beijing to respect the tribunal’s ruling. On July 7, the Twitter account of the U.S. Pacific Command, which has engaged in freedom-of-navigation exercises in the South China Sea, quoted a Forbes online column in a tweet: “You have to hand it to China… they can analyze a situation, that they actually created, and turn it completely around and play the victim.”

Meanwhile, Chinese state media ran stories on July 11 about a fifth Chinese-built lighthouse that will soon shine in the South China Sea. Earlier in the month, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei claimed that at least 60 countries backed China’s position on the Philippine suit, even if some of the nations supposedly on Beijing’s side have distanced themselves from any such support. “The arbitration and any award,” said Hong, “are obviously unpopular.” That remains to be seen. But there’s little doubt that the arbitration decision from a once-obscure tribunal in The Hague will be keenly watched.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-us-china-thucydides-trap-view-beijing-16903

The U.S.-China 'Thucydides Trap': A View from Beijing

The “Thucycides trap” isn’t a death sentence.

Mo Shengkai,Chen Yue
July 10, 2016

“It was the rise of Athens, and the fear that this inspired in Sparta, that made war inevitable.” —Thucydides

China’s rising comes as the most pronounced but complicated feature of the twenty-first century. In the past few years, people over the world, especially in the Asia-Pacific region, have witnessed increasing tensions in U.S.-Chinese relations, from all levels and in a wide range of areas. Graham Allison, a world-famous expert on international security and also the founding dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, was the first person to combine the concept of the “Thucydides Trap” with the analysis of China’s ongoing rise, with recent commentaries published in global influential newspapers and websites such as the Financial Times, the New York Times and the Atlantic. In those articles, he warned that over the past five hundred years of human history, twelve of all sixteen cases of global tensions resulted in shooting wars. What’s more, he argued that a Thucydides trap has arisen between the United States and China in the western Pacific in recent years. Thereafter, some world-class masters, including Zheng Yongnian, Robert Zoellick, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Patrick Porter and T. J. Pempel, followed in using this popular term when talking about U.S.-Chinese relations today or in the years ahead, regardless of their personal attitudes toward such a pessimistic term.

Its impact was so great that China’s President, Xi Jinping, had to respond to it publicly once again during his state visit to the United States, when he delivered an address to local governments and friendly groups in Seattle. He presented himself as a constructivist IR scholar, in the eyes of skeptical American realists, by emphasizing the importance of mutual intentions and interactions while rejecting the pessimistic prospect of bilateral relations projected by the widespread identification of a so-called “Thucydides Trap” between the two countries.

Unfortunately, it is the constructivists that always remind us that either discourse or prediction might be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Most scholars in China reject the so-called metaphor from history and regard this simplistic historical analogy as the newest vision of the longstanding “China Threat Theory.” However, from an academic point of view, theoretical and empirical analysis is still necessary. Objectively speaking, the widespread use of the term “Thucydides Trap” just indicates a period when a rapidly rising power has obviously narrowed the gap between itself and the system’s dominant power, simultaneously stirring up fears and anxieties in other countries that are satisfied with the existing distribution of power. As Allison himself puts it, the two crucial variables are rise and fear.

The real risk associated with the “Thucydides Trap” is that business as usual—not just an unexpected, extraordinary event—can trigger large-scale conflict. War is not destined, though risks undoubtedly become very high compared with other periods in the bilateral relationship. Similarly, it implies a period in which all countries, especially emerging and ruling powers, should be very cautious in dealing with their relationships and divergences if neither has any intentions to embark upon a devastating war. We will now illustrate the concrete scenarios of the gathering “Thucydides Trap” between the two giants.

On the Systemic Level: A Battle over Rules?

Some observers of U.S.-China relations describe the most prominent features of bilateral relations in 2015 as a battle over rules. The most important element of an international system is defined by its key norms and rules. As Allison has pointed out, the defining question of global order in the decades ahead will be whether China and the United States can escape the Thucydides trap. In the eyes of sensitive Americans, China’s ambitious “Belt and Road” strategy was nothing more than a parody of the Marshall Plan. Additionally, China’s global efforts to set up the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank encountered resistance from an implicit U.S.-Japanese joint-led coalition. Generally speaking, a battle over rules is visible from both the security and economic dimensions.

In the dimension of security, the most eye-catching problem is the still escalating dispute over the freedom of navigation (FON) and overflight in the South China Sea. It has been a longstanding dispute between the two countries, and has already caused severe crises in 1994, 2001 and 2009. This time it was reinvigorated by China’s unparalleled artificial island construction in the South China Sea, in response to the deliberate provocations of the Philippines and Vietnam. For China’s part, its actions are justifiable to defend its territorial integrity without any room for retreat, when considering surging public opinion and the very high political audience cost that the Chinese government has suffered.

However, on the side of the United States, as the asymmetric theory of IR has suggested and Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian Affairs Daniel Russell has repeated on several occasions, it is not a matter of rocks but rules. U.S. officials believe that its position on FON is universal rather than directed against a specific country, and the United States has been conducting FON operations in many regions, and against many countries of concern, since the 1980s. If it does not react to China’s island construction in the South China Sea with enough toughness, it will consequently send signals to its allies and the world at large that the United States admits its decline and is appeasing China, which will seriously erode the international order built by its overwhelming hegemonic power after World War II and damage its reputation as the leading power of East Asia, not to mention that the Philippines is its formal military ally with clear military obligations. It seems unlikely that either China or the United States will compromise. Given that the United States has promised to continue its cruises and overflight operations within the twelve nautical miles of China’s islands, and that senior military officials have intermittently delivered harsh speeches, the accidental risk of military conflict persists.

In the economic dimension, the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a perfect example. Benefiting from its entrance into the WTO, China’s economy has doubled several times since then, while the U.S. economy was exhausted by its two global wars on terrorism. After the 2008 financial crisis, there emerged a widespread perception (perhaps just a misperception) that in East Asia, a dual-center structure was emerging, in which the United States remained the traditional security center while leaving its place to China as the new economic center. Ever since the financial crisis, Americans have been in a state of unconfident anxiety, watching China’s diplomacy turn from keeping a low profile to striving for achievement. To secure its leading position in the region, the Obama administration is eagerly promoting a new free-trade agreement with high standards in the Asia-Pacific, closed to China in the negotiation stage, as an important component of its “Rebalance Strategy.” Therefore, there are two approaches to regional trade and investment liberation, that is, the coexistence of the negotiation processes of both TPP and RCEP, which are strongly backed by the United States and China respectively. The true story of the struggle between TPP and RCEP can be interpreted as a strategic rivalry on economic rules between the two countries. In other words, the two FTAs’ explicit frameworks reflect the implicit dual centers of the power structure in the region. As President Obama expressed publicly in his 2016 State of the Union speech, with TPP, China doesn’t set the rules in the region—the United States does. Of course, the complex effects on U.S. domestic politics make the prospects of this battle much fuzzier than those in the security dimension mentioned above.

On the Regional Level: Third Parties and Indirect Structural Conflicts

The United States and China are not connected by land, and the Pacific between them is large enough to create a safe distance. But as the sole superpower, the United States is the military ally of many regional countries and has a treaty obligation to defend them when attacked, while many of those countries have disputes with China over maritime territories. In the cases of the China-Japan dispute over the Diaoyu Islands, and the overlapping territorial claims among five parties over the South China Sea islands and their surrounding waters, the United States became involved because of its alliances with Japan and the Philippines. After the United States announced its rebalance strategy, local countries also quickly launched their own visions of rebalance, in order to pursue their own interests. Through escalating the territorial disputes and getting the United States involved, Japan, under the lead of the Liberal Democratic Party, especially since Prime Minister Abe returned to power in 2012, is heading firmly towards its ambitious national goal to regain a normal state status by profiting from the strained atmosphere of U.S.-China relations. To prevent China’s return to the central position of the Asian power structure, Japan is much more active in containing China and interrupting its resurgence.

Similarly, Aquino in the Philippines did the same, out of fear that a much more stronger China would be less willing to compromise in the South China Sea. Under the endorsement and support of the United States, the legally controversial South China Sea arbitration initiated by the Philippines aims at pressing China to soften its policy through seriously damaging its national image before the global audience and deteriorating its neighboring diplomatic atmosphere with ASEAN countries, conversely arousing stronger nationalistic public opinion among the masses in China, and leading the Chinese government to be less compromising.

Another case is North Korea’s wild ambition to be a nuclear country, and its endless military provocations in order to catch enough attention in exchange for economic aid from the international community, and the United States’ security reassurance in particular. The United States is the formal protector of the Republic of Korea, while China’s defense commitment to North Korea, enshrined in a 1961 treaty, is still valid from the perspective of international law. Although the bilateral relations have been seriously harmed by DPRK’s uncompromising stance in obtaining its own nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, considering China’s important geopolitical interests in the Korean Peninsula and its record in the Korean War in 1950, no one should doubt China’s willingness to defend its national interests in this regard. Despite the inescapable responsibility of the United States, an unpredictable DPRK has already became a disguised troublemaker, not only for China-U.S. relations and China-ROK relations but also for regional stability and security, as we can see from the ongoing endless quarrel over the deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system in South Korea.

The most dangerous situation is that the United States has become deeply embedded in cross–Taiwan Strait relations through its contradictory commitments to treaties on both sides. The separation between Taiwan and mainland China is the result of China’s civil war, nearly seventy years ago. Most Chinese see the final unification of Taiwan as an indispensable symbol of its great rejuvenation and the last page of the painful memories of China’s century of humiliation. The increasingly strong pro-independence forces in Taiwan since the 1990s have brought U.S.-China relations to the brink of war several times.

Now, as the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) under the lead of Tsai Ing-wen returned to power on May 20, 2016, and in light of her ambiguous inaugural address on Taiwan’s relations with the mainland, cooling relations across the strait have once again become a potential flashpoint. Beijing has expressed its position again and again: that the DPP government in Taipei must clearly affirm that both sides of the straits belong to one China if it wants to maintain all the achievements reached during Ma Ying-jeou’s Kuomintang government. It seems now unlikely to expect Tsai’s government to make such a commitment, as some influential U.S. experts and officials on the Taiwan issue continue sending misleading if not wrong signals to Taipei. They seem to have been quite satisfied with what Tsai said and done so far, and have turned to urging and pressing Beijing to show a degree of flexibility. Some mad politicians and scholars have even begun to image giving Taiwan a more prominent role in the United States’ rebalance strategy, in order to contain China’s growing strategic advantages within the first island chain.

Furthermore, Japan is also strengthening its support for the DPP, which makes things much more complex. Abe’s August 15 speech paralleling Taiwan with China and other regional states, and his meeting with Tsai, reflect Japan’s attempt to reap profit from deteriorating cross-strait relations. Considering the emerging clash of public opinion across the strait, people on the Chinese mainland have shown their disappointment and impatience for the existing official policy of unification through economic and cultural exchanges without a deadline, which seems to not have been so successful, as the recent situation has indicated. Now, if provoked, appealing for a decisive military campaign will prove overwhelmingly popular, which will undoubtedly force Chinese political leaders to move ahead. After all, the Taiwan issue does not only concern China’s core national interest of territorial integrity, but it is also a major pillar of legitimacy for anyone who wants to rule China. So if the United States fails to constrain itself from an illusory impulse on Taiwan, or Tsai suddenly finds herself losing control of the green forces on the island in the years ahead, a great confrontation may be sparked.

Could This Time Be Different? Ways to Manage the Trap

States go to war for many fixed reasons, sometimes unintentionally, and domestic factors matter in almost every case. However, the “Thucydides trap” has existed for thousands of years, while the basic unit of the world system has evolved from city-states in Thucydides’ era to the present day’s nation-states, which shows that the emergence of the “Thucydides trap” has no necessary connection with the attributes of the unit. Although the characteristics of certain kinds of units do precipitate conflict more than others, it is the focus on the interaction between emerging powers and ruling ones, rather than purely domestic-oriented analysis, that really features in the so-called “Thucydides Trap”.

This finding also applies to the observation of China-U.S. relations today. It is obvious that the recent round of tensions also comes from the despair of America elites, who are suddenly waking up to the fact that Chinese reform and the United States’ engagement strategy may not be able to turn China into another America, as they previously envisioned. But we should still keep in mind where the analytical boundary lies when using the term “Thucydides Trap.” As U.S. policies towards Taiwan and Tibet remind us again and again, more and more Chinese are reaching the consensus that whether China is ruled by the Communist Party or not, hostility from the United States is unavoidable if the Chinese nation, descended from the traditional Chinese Empire, wants to stay on its path to great rejuvenation as a whole, because the roots of the tension are in structural factors. So we will not discuss the ideological and institutional disputes between the two states in this limited commentary. After all, all those barriers have accompanied them since the founding of the PRC, long before the “Thucydides Trap” emerged in recent years, even though they do sometimes exacerbate mutual distrust and tensions.

Though China and the United States are more highly interwoven in the economic, social and political dimensions than any other case in history, and Professor Tang Shiping has made a convincingly theoretical proof that the world has already evolved from the offensive world of Mearsheimer to a defensive world of Robert Jervis, in which a defensive security strategy is the best and prevalent rational choice for all countries, the prospect of conflict implied by the “Thucydides Trap” remains. Optimistic thinkers before World War I, such as Sir Norman Angell, as described in his masterwork The Great Illusion, also yearned for high interdependence among industrial countries as a way to eliminate war as a rational choice from the policy menu of all rational states, but reality was so cruel that closely following the outbreak of war, no space remained for their naiveté.

Consequently, if both China and the United States do not anticipate an unintended war occurring between them, they should take the “Thucydides Trap” seriously and collaborate with each other to manage their bilateral relations. As mentioned above, on the systemic level, due to asymmetric attention to the same issue caused by their different statuses in the international system, both countries need to put themselves in the other’s shoes and avoid circumstance leading the other to lose face, whether before the international audience or their domestic audience. On the regional level, because most structural conflicts are caused and exaggerated by third parties, both need to cooperate with each other, as the United States needs to take good control of its allies to prevent itself from being entrapped in a conflict it may not want to see, and China should continue to show its wisdom in defending its rights. For instance, its coast guard rather than its navy plays an active role on the front line in defending its claims over disputed islands and their surrounding waters, referred to as a pattern of “white hulls.” The United States should learn to tolerate such a resolution that leaves both sides a gray space from confronting directly.

All in all, what really matters is to restrict their adventurous ambitions to gain at the other’s expense. But as history has presented again and again, that is always hard to maintain. Finally, it comes back to the domestic dimension as Allison concluded; historical cases of peace have required huge adjustments in the attitudes and actions of the governments and societies of both countries involved. For China and the United States, perhaps the construction of a new model of major-country relations jointly is the only right choice.

Mo Shengkai is a PhD candidate at the School of International Studies at Renmin University of China, and also a visiting scholar at Columbia University in New York sponsored by the China Scholarship Council and Professor Robert Jervis. He served as the executive editor of the journal China’s Foreign Affairs published by Renmin University of China for more than one year, and has published several academic articles on leading Chinese IR journals. Chen Yue is professor and dean of the School of International Studies at Renmin University of China. He also acts as the president of the Society of All-China Universities International Political Studies, and vice chairman of Political Science Teaching Advisory Board under the Ministry of Education.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/world/asia/japan-election-shinzo-abe.html?_r=0

Asia Pacific

Japan Election, a Landslide for Abe, Could Allow a Bolder Military

By MOTOKO RICH
JULY 11, 2016

TOKYO — The Liberal Democratic Party of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has governed Japan in one way or another for all but four of the past 61 years, a winning record that reflects the political inertia of a society that values stability and tradition.

But even by the standards of Japanese politics, Mr. Abe’s landslide victory in national elections on Sunday was stunning. For the first time, voters gave the Liberal Democrats and their allies more than two-thirds of the seats in Parliament — a supermajority that could allow Mr. Abe to realize his long-held ambition of revising the clause in the Constitution that renounces war and make Japan a military power capable of global leadership.

Opinion polls show only lackluster support for Mr. Abe’s security agenda or even his program to revitalize the Japanese economy, but the public appeared unwilling to take another chance on the opposition Democratic Party, which stumbled badly in its last, rare stint in power, most notably in its response to the 2011 earthquake and Fukushima nuclear disaster.

The vote for stability at home, though, is likely to provoke unease across Asia, where memories of Japanese militarism in World War II endure and the prospect of a more assertive Japan will add to worries over China’s territorial ambitions and North Korea’s nuclear program.

In China, Xinhua, the state news agency, warned in a commentary on Monday that the election results “could pose a danger to Japan and regional stability.”

Experts say that Mr. Abe’s governing coalition will not be able to push through constitutional revisions immediately, given that some of the partners have differing opinions on what needs to be amended and how. For example, the Liberal Democrats’ main ally, a small Buddhist party, has said that it opposes changes to the clause that renounces war. At a news conference on Monday, Mr. Abe said that he intended to press for debate on constitutional revision, though he acknowledged that “it’s not so easy” and added, “I expect the discussion will be deepened.”

Mr. Abe’s party, in a draft proposal of a revised Constitution, has also recommended amendments to the clause on freedom of speech and the press that could limit these rights in cases deemed dangerous to the public interest. Another proposal would expand emergency powers for the prime minister. Any revision would need to be approved by a majority in a public referendum.
Continue reading the main story

But the party’s victory on Sunday appears to have less to do with its proposals and more to do with the disarray in the opposition Democratic Party.

“The people’s distrust towards the Democratic Party is very high,” said Lully Miura, a lecturer on international politics at Tokyo University. “In 2009, the Democratic Party won the government, but they failed and failed and failed, and even once-supporters of the Democratic Party now distrust them.”

Some analysts said the opposition may have overestimated the public’s worries about Mr. Abe’s constitutional agenda at a time when so many remain concerned about Japan’s weak economy. Mr. Abe, for his part, spent most of his time on the campaign trail exhorting voters to allow his economic plan — called Abenomics — to continue, and he barely mentioned the Constitution.

“Probably the opposition parties pushed too much on the constitutional issue as a political agenda,” said Koji Murata, a professor of international relations at Doshisha University in Kyoto who supports constitutional changes. “But people didn’t care about the constitutional agenda in this upper-house election.”

Toshio Ogawa, an opposition candidate from Tokyo who narrowly won a seat, said voters might have had a hard time understanding how his party’s economic plans differed from those of the Liberal Democrats. But, he said, “I knew that Abe’s real goals were security and the Constitution. So I thought I had to point it out clearly.”

Critics said Mr. Abe’s party deliberately played down its agenda on constitutional change. Some also accused the Japanese news media, particularly the public broadcaster, NHK, of conspiring to help the governing party and failing to air enough information about the issues at stake in the election.

Voters seemed more interested in staying the course and giving Mr. Abe’s economic policies more time to yield results than in the debate over rewriting Japan’s pacifist policies.

“I want them to accelerate their economic policy to increase more jobs and improve social welfare,” said Akemi Machida, 29, who voted for Liberal Democratic candidates at a polling station in Sagamihara, a suburban town southwest of Tokyo. As for the opposition, she said, “There were no particular alternatives besides the L.D.P., whose policies sounded more convincing.”

Opinion polls show a majority of respondents in Japan oppose Mr. Abe’s security policies. But when the news media conducts these surveys, the questions are often vague.

“The opinion polls ask whether there is a need to revise the Constitution at all,” said Yasuo Hasebe, a constitutional scholar at Waseda University. “This is quite a strange question. People can’t answer that question before knowing which clause and in what way this change will be made.”

The very language used to describe constitutional revision may also confuse voters.

“In Japanese, the word for revise, ‘kaisei,’ gives an impression that something is improved or made better,” said Minako Saigo, 28, a mother of three children in Kyoto who founded Mothers Against War last July to protest legislation that gave the military some powers to fight in foreign conflicts for the first time since World War II.

“People stop thinking,” Ms. Saigo added. “They don’t question what will happen next.”

Outside Japan, Mr. Abe’s new supermajority is likely to further unsettle an increasingly tense region. South Korea defied China last week by announcing that it would deploy an advanced American missile defense system to protect itself against North Korea. And many in Asia are waiting to see how China and the United States respond to a ruling expected on Tuesday in a complaint brought by the Philippines challenging Beijing’s territorial claims in the South China Sea.

“The Chinese will fear that Abe will find a way to work the system to his advantage,” said Bonnie S. Glaser, a senior adviser for Asia and a China expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. At a regular news briefing on Monday, a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry, Lu Kang, said that China and other Asian countries were “concerned about political moves in Japan” because of its past military action in the region.

In South Korea, an editorial in Munhwa Ilbo, a right-leaning newspaper, said the election results “opened the door for a Japan that can go to war,” though it added that a rearmed country “will also help deter North Korea’s nuclear threat and check the rising military power of China.”

The White House had no immediate comment on the election, but Jonas Stewart, a spokesman for the United States Embassy in Tokyo, said the Japanese government remained “a steadfast ally across our broad agenda of regional and global issues.” The United States supported Mr. Abe last year in the passing of the security bills that enable the military to participate more fully in foreign actions.

While constitutional change may be a long way off, some analysts said they worried the consequences of Sunday’s election were more fundamental.

“Democracy needs a system of checks and balances,” Gerald L. Curtis, a professor of political science at Columbia University, wrote in an email. “But if the opposition parties are impotent and the L.D.P. is firmly under Abe’s control, that system will be weakened to an unprecedented degree.”


Jane Perlez contributed reporting from Beijing, Makiko Inoue and Hisako Ueno from Tokyo, and Choe Sang-Hun from Seoul, South Korea.


Related Coverage

Japan Vote Strengthens Shinzo Abe’s Goal to Change Constitution JULY 10, 2016

Teenagers in Japan Can Finally Vote. But Will They? JULY 9, 2016

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/w...=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&pgtype=article

Asia Pacific | Reporter’s Notebook

China’s Menacing Words for a Boat in Disputed Waters: ‘Get Out!’

点击查看本文中文版 Read in Chinese

By JAVIER C. HERNÁNDEZ
JULY 11, 2016

SCARBOROUGH SHOAL, South China Sea — We could see the glistening turquoise waters in the distance, a haven where deep-sea waves soften and, fishermen say, the grouper and snapper could feed a village for eternity.

But guarding the waters, the mouth of Scarborough Shoal, was a 130-foot Chinese Coast Guard ship. If we were to get more than a glimpse of this speck of coral and rock — the latest potential point of contention between China and the United States in the South China Sea — our boat would have to be quick.

Capt. Alex O. Tagapan, who usually takes tourists on sightseeing cruises, steered toward the entrance of the boomerang-shaped atoll and accelerated. Turning to a small statue of Santo Niño de Cebú, a patron saint of the Philippines known for miraculous powers, he prayed.

Within minutes, the Chinese sent a speedboat painted with the coast guard’s red stripes racing toward us. “Get out! Get out!” a man on the boat wearing a bamboo hat and an orange vest shouted in English, waving his arms.

Over the past two years, China has worked to strengthen its claim of sovereignty over the South China Sea, dredging sand to turn scattered reefs and atolls into islands despite protests from neighbors and the United States.

Now, China is said to be considering plans to build Scarborough Shoal into an island, too, an effort that would be its most ambitious and provocative yet. China would gain an outpost on the eastern side of the sea, more than 530 miles from its mainland but just 140 miles from the Philippines.

That could bolster China’s claim to the sea, including oil exploration and fishing rights, and could substantially extend its radar, air and missile coverage, including over United States forces in the Philippines.

Last month, I set out to see this patch of water, which has inspired bluster from two superpowers but which Charles Darwin once described in almost poetic terms: “a hundred fathoms, colored blue.”

Scarborough does not beckon visitors. Named after a British tea ship that crashed in 1784, it has long been known for shipwrecks, ensnaring Swedish steamers and French cargo vessels caught in typhoons. But as I traveled the coast of the Philippines looking for a boat to take me, the chief worry was China, which wrested control of the reef from the Philippines four years ago.

People everywhere were reluctant to make the journey, afraid of harassment by Chinese ships. Filipino fishermen, clutching bottles of rum, described playing cat-and-mouse games in the moonlight with Chinese crews armed with water cannons and assault rifles.

“The Chinese are relentless,” said Renante Etac, 40, the captain of a ship that fishes near Scarborough. “There’s nothing we can do. We just have to go home.”

In Subic Bay, where the American military once maintained its largest overseas naval base, I stumbled upon the Motoryacht Isla, a boat that took a group of television journalists to Scarborough a few years ago.

But the crew was too scared to make another trip, said Rafael G. Ongpin, the boat’s owner. The last time, he said, the Isla was chased by Chinese warships that maneuvered aggressively to block it, generating large waves that could have swamped it. Crew members worried that the Chinese might sink the Isla or imprison them if they returned.

When I pressed him, Mr. Ongpin found a new crew, led by Captain Tagapan, a quiet man with a sailor’s swagger who saw the loss of Scarborough as a bruise to national pride.

“It is time for us to stand up on our own,” he said.

On a Friday afternoon, we departed. If all went according to plan, it would take 20 hours to reach Scarborough, covering about the same distance as between Miami and the Bahamas.

We motored west through the night, thunderstorms crackling in the distance. As dawn broke, the reef appeared as a blue-teal amoeba on a navigational screen.

“That’s our only way in,” Captain Tagapan said, pointing to a small opening in the atoll’s southeast corner.

As we neared, radar detected three ships. The mood in the pilothouse grew tense. Captain Tagapan, who had never visited Scarborough, played Air Supply’s “Keeping the Love Alive” on his cellphone and smoked a Fortune cigarette.

“I’m praying every minute,” he said.

“We’re ready for attack,” joked the chief mate, Andres B. Arizo Jr.

It is easy to miss Scarborough. China has suggested it is an island, a term reserved in international law for land capable of supporting human habitation. That distinction would allow Beijing to claim an exclusive economic zone, including rights to oil, fish and other resources.

On Tuesday, an international tribunal in The Hague is expected to rule on a request by the Philippines to invalidate many of China’s claims in the South China Sea, including several related to Scarborough. China has boycotted the tribunal, asserting that ancient maps establish its sovereignty.

While the tribunal cannot decide Scarborough’s rightful owner, the Philippines has asked it to declare that Scarborough is not an island that can be used to establish an exclusive economic zone.

From my vantage point on the Isla, it seemed like a strong argument. As our boat approached the atoll’s entrance, I couldn’t see anything protruding from the water.

What I could see was a Chinese Coast Guard ship. The last time the Isla had made the journey to Scarborough, the Chinese intercepted it five miles from the shoal. Now we were less than a mile away.

Suddenly, the Chinese speedboat whirred up behind us. The man in the bamboo hat — one of two men aboard — gesticulated as if conducting a symphony.

The Isla’s crew asked permission to enter Scarborough, first by radio and then by shouting to the men on the speedboat. The requests were met with silence.

After 15 minutes, the crew wanted to turn around. I asked Captain Tagapan if we could circle back or find another way in, but he was uneasy. The Chinese ship was gaining on us, and a larger, 1,000-ton coast guard cutter with water cannons had appeared on the horizon.

“We don’t want to get shot,” Captain Tagapan said.

As we reversed course, the smaller ship pulled within 100 feet, and its crew snapped photographs of us. The cutter came close enough to buffet us with its large wake.

After an hour, the Chinese ships turned back.

Not far from Scarborough, we came upon a small fishing boat, the JJ2. Its 16-member crew, some wearing bandannas and Chicago Bulls jerseys, whistled and cheered as we approached.

The boat’s captain, Paolo Pumicpic Jr., told us that he and his crew had encountered the Chinese Coast Guard a few days earlier and had been chased away.

Captain Pumicpic, whose father and grandfather once fished at Scarborough, said he and his crew used to catch about $1,000 worth of fish daily. Now, he said, they managed less than $100 worth.

In one instance last year, he said, Chinese officers boarded his boat, beat crew members with bamboo sticks, cut their fishing lines and seized their catch.

“They are salot, a plague,” he said of the Chinese Coast Guard. “We used to take refuge inside the shoal when the seas got rough. Now we can’t go there.”


Follow Javier C. Hernández on Twitter @HernandezJavier.


Related Coverage

Philippines v. China: Q. and A. on South China Sea Court Case
JULY 10, 2016

U.S. and Beijing Offer Competing Views on South China Sea
JUNE 7, 2016

Benigno Aquino Says U.S. Must Act if China Moves on Reef in South China Sea
MAY 19, 2016

What China Has Been Building in the South China Sea
FEB. 29, 2016


SINOSPHERE

Soft Power: Beijing Puts On a Show on Disputed South China Sea Island
MAY 5, 2016

 

[vestige]

WASHINGTON — The Air Force’s current fleet of aircraft is the smallest and oldest it has ever been,

Like Clint Eastwood said:

"Wonderful!"

 

[Lilbitsnana]

Conflict News ‏@Conflicts 4m4 minutes ago

BREAKING: #US State Department says it is implementing an "ordered departure" of its staff from South Sudan - @AlArabiya_Eng

 

[Lilbitsnana]

Nathan J Hunt Retweeted
38 North ‏@38NorthNK 9m9 minutes ago

High level of activity detected at #NorthKorea’s nuclear test site, but purpose is unclear http://bit.ly/29wg8lK


posted for fair use and discussion


North Korea: High-Level of Activity at Nuclear Test Site Portal but Purpose is Unclear


By 38 North
11 July 2016

A 38 North exclusive with analysis by Joseph S. Bermudez Jr.

Summary

Recent commercial satellite imagery indicates a high-level of activity at North Korea’s Punggye-ri Nuclear Test Site, specifically at the North Portal area where the DPRK conducted its 2013 and 2016 nuclear tests. Based on imagery alone, it is not possible to determine whether this activity is for maintenance, excavation or preparation for a fifth nuclear test. Nevertheless, it is clear that North Korea is ensuring that the facility is in a state of readiness that would allow the conduct of future nuclear tests should the order come from Pyongyang.

High Level of Activity at North Portal

Commercial satellite imagery from July 7 indicates a high level of activity at the North Portal. What appears to be supplies and/or equipment are stacked on the ground south and southeast of the portal. Additionally, a small vehicle is present at the support building immediately to the south of the portal. Several mine ore carts may also be present southeast of the portal, suggesting the tunnel is being actively worked. However, the resolution of the image is insufficient to provide further insight into the nature of this activity.

Figure 1. Supplies/equipment, vehicle and several mine ore carts identified at the North Portal.
Image © 2016 DigitalGlobe, Inc. All rights reserved. For media licensing options, please contact thirtyeightnorth@gmail.com.

Image © 2016 DigitalGlobe, Inc. All rights reserved. For media licensing options, please contact thirtyeightnorth@gmail.com.

Limited Activity at West Portal

Imagery shows little activity at the West Portal although what appear to be two mine ore carts are present on the tailings pile to the east. Their presence suggests that work is taking place at the tunnel. The winter melt and runoff, combined with recent rains, produced a small landside just uphill of the portal. It is unclear if this has affected operations at the site.

Figure 2. Two mine ore carts present at the West Portal.
Image © 2016 DigitalGlobe, Inc. All rights reserved. For media licensing options, please contact thirtyeightnorth@gmail.com.

Image © 2016 DigitalGlobe, Inc. All rights reserved. For media licensing options, please contact thirtyeightnorth@gmail.com.

No Activity at South Portal or Main Support Area

There is no activity identified at the South Portal, though runoff (caused by winter melt and recent rain) is visible in the area. This is also true at the Main Support Area, although greenhouse activity and light ground scarring indicate the area is active.

Figure 3. No activity at South Portal.
Image © 2016 DigitalGlobe, Inc. All rights reserved. For media licensing options, please contact thirtyeightnorth@gmail.com.

Image © 2016 DigitalGlobe, Inc. All rights reserved. For media licensing options, please contact thirtyeightnorth@gmail.com.

Figure 4. No activity at the Main Support Area.
Image © 2016 DigitalGlobe, Inc. All rights reserved. For media licensing options, please contact thirtyeightnorth@gmail.com.

Image © 2016 DigitalGlobe, Inc. All rights reserved. For media licensing options, please contact thirtyeightnorth@gmail.com.

Activity on Facility Access Road

Several groups of people and small vehicles are visible on the road south of the test facility. The nature or purpose of their presence is unclear, although it is likely that they are either engaged in spring maintenance or travelling to and from the test facility.

Figure 5. Vehicles identified on facility access road.
Image © 2016 DigitalGlobe, Inc. All rights reserved. For media licensing options, please contact thirtyeightnorth@gmail.com.

Image © 2016 DigitalGlobe, Inc. All rights reserved. For media licensing options, please contact thirtyeightnorth@gmail.com.

Figure 6. Group of people visible on road.
Image © 2016 DigitalGlobe, Inc. All rights reserved. For media licensing options, please contact thirtyeightnorth@gmail.com.

Image © 2016 DigitalGlobe, Inc. All rights reserved. For media licensing options, please contact thirtyeightnorth@gmail.com.

Little Activity in the Command Center Area

Imagery shows no vehicles or activity in the secured Command Center area. Camouflage is visible on the southernmost building, but it is unclear why this building has a camouflaged roof since the light blue/dark blue pattern stands out dramatically against the green forests around it.

Imagery indicates the construction of a building east of the Command Center and on the main road to the test facility. The purpose of this new building is unclear, but its position—east of the Command Center and between the north and south guard positions—suggests that it may support the security forces in this area.

Figure 7. New building constructed at the Command Center area.
Image © 2016 DigitalGlobe, Inc. All rights reserved. For media licensing options, please contact thirtyeightnorth@gmail.com.

Image © 2016 DigitalGlobe, Inc. All rights reserved. For media licensing options, please contact thirtyeightnorth@gmail.com

 

[Lilbitsnana]

Pakistan


Conflict News ‏@Conflicts 2h2 hours ago

PHOTO: Posters begging for a military coup turn up over night in cities around #Pakistan

https://www.yahoo.com/news/posters-begging-military-coup-raise-eyebrows-pakistan-105111419.html …

posted for fair use and discussion
https://www.yahoo.com/news/posters-begging-military-coup-raise-eyebrows-pakistan-105111419.html

Posters begging for military coup raise eyebrows in Pakistan
AFP•July 12, 2016

Pakistani commuters drive past posters in Peshawar begging the army to launch a coup
View photos
Pakistani commuters drive past posters in Peshawar begging the army to launch a coup (AFP Photo/A Majeed)

Islamabad (AFP) - Posters begging Pakistan's powerful army chief to launch a coup appeared in major cities including the capital Islamabad overnight, raising eyebrows in a country that has been ruled by the military for more than half its history.

The posters, which also appeared in Lahore, Karachi and the garrison city of Rawalpindi as well as several army-run cantonment areas, were placed there by "Move on Pakistan", a largely-unknown political party founded in 2013.

"Talk of leaving has become old, for God's sake come now," scream the posters, referring to General Raheel Sharif's decision to step down at the end of his tenure this year.

They feature a large photograph of the mustachioed general.

"Dictatorship is much better than this corrupt government," Ali Hashmi, chief organiser behind Move on Pakistan, told AFP Tuesday.

"The way General Raheel Sharif has dealt with terrorism and corruption, there is no guarantee that the next man would be as effective as him," he said.

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif is said to be preparing to name a successor to the wildly popular general, who is no relation and whose three-year tenure expires in November.

Widely credited with Pakistan's improved security situation, he is the frequent subject of hashtags such as #ThankYouRaheelSharif and #PakLovesGenRaheel.

The prime minister and his government, in contrast, have been plagued by accusations of corruption and inefficiency.

But, despite his popularity, the army chief's announcement in January that he would step down at the end of his tenure won him praise for respecting democratic institutions -- unlike three of his predecessors.

There was no immediate reaction to the posters from the military or the federal government.

Political analyst Hasan Askari said he did not foresee any threat to the current political system in Pakistan. "There cannot be an organised movement unless there is a popular sentiment present," he said, dismissing the posters.

Hashmi said that authorities in Islamabad and Punjab province, the prime minister's power base, had removed the posters -- but that they continue to attract attention in other provinces.

Military dictatorships have ruled Pakistan for more than half its 69-year history, and the armed forces are widely seen as controlling defence and foreign policy.

Whoever takes over Raheel Sharif's role will face an array of daunting challenges, including keeping homegrown militants in check, vexed relations with India and the role Pakistan wants to play in promoting peace in Afghanistan.

 

[Lilbitsnana]

financial, but I feel it belongs here too


Reuters Top News ‏@Reuters 23m23 minutes ago

Citibank to close certain Venezuela accounts http://reut.rs/29BvVS9


posted for fair use and discussion
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-v...f9e7&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter

Tue Jul 12, 2016 7:13am EDT
Citibank to close certain Venezuela accounts

A woman enters a Citibank branch in Buenos Aires, Argentina, February 19, 2016. REUTERS/Marcos Brindicci


Citigroup Inc (C.N) said its unit will stop correspondent banking and servicing of certain accounts in Venezuela.

Venezuela President Nicolas Maduro said on Monday that Citibank planned to shut his government's foreign currency accounts within a month, denouncing the move by one of its main foreign financial intermediaries as part of a "blockade."

Citibank said the decision was taken after a periodic risk management review.

Due to strict currency controls in place since 2003, the Venezuelan government relies on Citibank for foreign currency transactions.

(Reporting by Sruthi Shankar in Bengaluru; Editing by Shounak Dasgupta)

 

[Lilbitsnana]

South Sudan, Turkey/France/Syria



SOUTH SUDAN

Conflict News ‏@Conflicts Jul 11

BREAKING: #US State Department says it is implementing an "ordered departure" of its staff from South Sudan - @AlArabiya_Eng



Conflict News ‏@Conflicts Jul 11

SOUTH SUDAN: Ceasefire declared after 3 days of heavy fighting in and near the capital city of Juba.


Conflict News ‏@Conflicts 1h1 hour ago

BREAKING: Foreigners being evacuated from conflict-hit South Sudan: Germany - AFP



TURKEY

Conflict News ‏@Conflicts 4h4 hours ago

BREAKING: Turkish PM Binali Yıldırım says #Turkey will restore normal relations with #Syria - @CNNTURK_ENG



Steve Herman ‏@W7VOA 45m45 minutes ago

#France closes embassy in Ankara, consulate in Istanbul until further notice. http://www.ambafrance-tr.org/ #Turkey

English excerpt from link http://www.ambafrance-tr.org/Annulation-des-celebrations-du-14-Juillet:

Cancellation of celebrations of July 14th

“For security reasons, July 14th receptions planned in Ankara, Istanbul and Izmir are cancelled. We have informed the Turkish authorities of this decision and remain in close contact with them.

The Embassy of France in Ankara, as well as the Consulate General in Istanbul will be closed from Wednesday July 13, 1 pm, until further notice.

We thank the French community in Turkey and all our guests for their understanding”.

Elijah J. Magnier ‏@EjmAlrai 42m42 minutes ago

#France shuts down all diplomatic and consulates in #Turkey for security reasons until further notice.


News_Executive ‏@News_Executive 17m17 minutes ago

BREAKING: France has closed its embassy & consulate in #Turkey closed due to high security reasons