WAR 08-15-2015-to-08-21-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

[Housecarl]

(176) 07-25-2015-to-07-31-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...31-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(177) 08-01-2015-to-08-07-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...07-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(178) 08-07-2015-to-08-14-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...14-2015_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

_____

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/0...s-chemical-weapons-attacks/?intcmp=latestnews

Terrorism

US reportedly sees possible pattern in ISIS chemical weapons attacks

Published August 15, 2015 · FoxNews.com

U.S. intelligence agencies reportedly believe the Islamic State used chemical weapons in Syria on Kurdish forces at least two weeks before the group may have used it in Iraq, U.S. officials said on Friday.

The reports are fueling concerns that ISIS has acquired an arsenal of banned chemicals that could escalate fighting in the region.

“It could be a pattern,” a senior U.S. official with knowledge of the intelligence told The Wall Street Journal.

U.S. agencies have believed that the Islamic State aspired to obtain chemical weapons, such as mustard gas, but officials said it was premature to immediately connect the three attacks because the agents involved in the Iraq incidents were still in the process of being analyzed.

Officials told the journal the agencies confirmed through tests that mustard gas was used in northern Syria in July, making it the first known attack by ISIs using banned weapons.

Pentagon officials believe the terror group used chemical weapons against Kurdish Peshmerga fighters in northern Iraq Wednesday, Fox News learned. One official who had seen the latest intelligence reports from the region told Fox News Thursday that the victims had “blisters” that matched the symptoms of other victims of mustard gas.

U.S. intelligence agencies are still trying to determine the origin of the chemicals used in the attacks. The journal reports they are looking into the possibility that ISIS built the weapons themselves using ingredients obtained in Syria or Iraq. Officials say the militants have found caches of ready-to-use mustard agent.

Senior officials told The Wall Street Journal that ISIS may have obtained the mustard gas in Syria, whose Damascus government admitted to having large stockpiles of the chemical when it agreed to give up its chemical weapons arsenal in 2013. Another U.S. official left open the possibility that ISIS had taken the mustard gas from old weapons stockpiles that belonged to former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and weren't destroyed.

According to the Journal, U.S. intelligence officials believed ISIS had seized a small amount of mustard gas prior to Wednesday's reported attack, though that assessment had not been made public. Now, the paper reports, officials fear that ISIS could discover more hidden caches of chemical weapons elsewhere in Syria as troops loyal to Bashar al-Assad lose ground in the country's bloody civil war.

Kurdish leaders said on Friday that ISIS had fired 45 mortars carrying chemical warheads, according to the website of a Peshmerga spokesman, Secretary-General Jabar Yawar.

On Thursday, Alistair Baskey, a spokesman for the White House's National Security Council, said the U.S. is taking the allegations "very seriously" and seeking more information about what happened. He noted that IS had been accused of using such weapons before.

"We continue to monitor these reports closely, and would further stress that any use of chemicals or biological material as a weapon is completely inconsistent with international standards and norms regarding such capabilities," Baskey said in a statement.

A senior administration official told The Wall Street Journal the U.S. had no information to suggest that ISIS obtained weapons from Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s arsenal, caches the U.S. believes he continues to hide.

Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst said the alleged use of chemical weapons should prompt the White House to review whether its making the right approach in Syria.

“I think our administration needs to go back to the drawing table and take another look at this—not only are they using it on the Kurdish Peshmerga, but what’s to say they don’t start using it against American soldiers as well?” Ernst told the newspaper.

Following a chemical weapon attack on a suburb of the Syrian capital of Damascus in 2014 that killed hundreds of civilians, the U.S. and Russia mounted a diplomatic effort that resulted in Syrian President Bashar Assad's government agreeing to the destruction or removal of its chemical weapons stockpiles. But there have been numerous reports of chemical weapons use in Syria since then — especially chlorine-filled barrel bombs. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the global chemical weapons watchdog, has been investigating possible undeclared chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria.

Word of the White House's probe into possible chemical weapons use by ISIS came as President Barack Obama was vacationing with his family in Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts. Also on Thursday, IS militants claimed responsibility for a truck bombing at a Baghdad market that killed 67 people in one of the deadliest single attacks there since the Iraq War.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150815/af--west_africa-boko_haram-c4393755dc.html

Cameroon pledges 2,450 troops to anti-Boko Haram force

Aug 15, 7:11 AM (ET)
By EDWIN MOKI KINDZEKA

YAOUNDE, Cameroon (AP) — Cameroon's president has vowed to send 2,450 troops to join a regional army to fight Boko Haram, nearly tripling his initial pledge.

President Paul Biya announced the new troop total in a statement Friday night.

Boko Haram attacks including suicide bombings have mounted over the past year in Cameroon's north and the Nigeria-based extremist group has also recruited fighters in the country.

At a meeting in Cameroon in February, Nigeria and the neighboring countries of Chad, Niger and Benin agreed to deploy around 8,700 troops against Boko Haram, which became an affiliate of the Islamic State group earlier this year.

Cameroon initially pledged to contribute 750 troops. Biya said Friday the increase followed recommendations from a June summit meeting of regional leaders.

Deployment of the force has been delayed for lack of funds, but Chad President Idriss Deby said earlier this week it would be deployed within days. The force is to be based in Chad's capital, N'Djamena.

Gen. Valere Nka, who was serving as military attache to Cameroon's high commission in Abuja, has been appointed second-in-command of the force, Biya said.

 

[Housecarl]

Main Russia/Ukraine invasion thread - NATO: Russian Tanks and Artillery Enter Ukraine
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ian-Tanks-and-Artillery-Enter-Ukraine/page425

War imminent? -- Russia vs. Ukraine &/or Finland -- Putin calls emergency defense meeting
Started by Safecastleý, Today 09:23 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...d-Putin-calls-emergency-defense-meeting/page2
__

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://johnbatchelorshow.com/schedules/friday-14-august-2015

JOHN BATCHELOR SHOW

Hour One
Friday 14 August 2015 / Hour 1, Block A: Elbridge Colby, Center for a New American Security & Foreign Affairs, in re: proposing steps to be taken immediately by the UN and the US to deal with Russian aggression: We need a force from multiple alliance members to discourage potential air, infantry, other invasion; turn the region into a sort of porcupine lest Russia think of attacking. A defensive redoubt that could be resupplied or reinforced. Might need the same force in Asia or Middle East, so this would be a temporary step. / Step Up to Stand Down The United States, NATO, and Dissuading Russian Aggression. This past June, U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter announced that Washington would pre-position heavy military equipment in eastern and central Europe, a move that would allow the United States to respond more quickly and effectively to Russian aggression toward NATO’s exposed eastern member states. Once deployed, the equipment would serve as a physical sign of commitment of the U.S. willingness to protect NATO allies, and would facilitate further movement of U.S. forces into the region in the event of an attack against NATO frontline states by Moscow. Positioning U.S. military equipment forward is a welcome step, but it does not go far enough in deterring potential Russian aggression and coercion, not least because these deployments represent only a modest force in the face of the power and capabilities Russia could bring to bear in the event of war in the area . . . [more] (1 of 2)

Friday 14 August 2015 / Hour 1, Block B: Elbridge Colby, Center for a New American Security & Foreign Affairs; in re: NATO-Russia Founding Act of 1997: allowed NATO to expand into the former Warsaw Pact – but no forward deployment of nukes, or substantial deployment of troops – under current strategic conditions [as of 19970] (2 of 2)

http://johnbatchelorshow.com/podcas...ew-american-security-foreign-affairs-liz-peek

Article....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/poland/2015-08-13/step-stand-down

Snapshot August 13, 2015 PolandUkraine

Step Up to Stand Down

The United States, NATO, and Dissuading Russian Aggression

By Elbridge Colby

ELBRIDGE COLBY is the Robert M. Gates Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security.

This past June, U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter announced that Washington would pre-position heavy military equipment in eastern and central Europe, a move that would allow the United States to respond more quickly and effectively to Russian aggression toward NATO’s exposed eastern member states. Once deployed, the equipment would serve as a physical sign of commitment of the U.S. willingness to protect NATO allies, and would facilitate further movement of U.S. forces into the region in the event of an attack against NATO frontline states by Moscow. Positioning U.S. military equipment forward is a welcome step, but it does not go far enough in deterring potential Russian aggression and coercion, not least because these deployments represent only a modest force in the face of the power and capabilities Russia could bring to bear in the event of war in the area.

Accordingly, NATO (or, if the alliance as a whole cannot agree to take such action, the United States and other interested members) should pursue a dual-track approach toward the problem that strengthens the alliance’s military posture in the exposed frontline states while simultaneously providing incentives for Moscow to reduce its military threat to these states by offering to limit these deployments. One prong of this policy should be to deploy troops, heavy equipment, and support and headquarters components to exposed NATO members in eastern Europe beyond what the United States has proposed, and do so on a permanent basis, beyond the smaller and avowedly temporary deployments pledged in June. The second prong should be for NATO to propose a new conventional arms control arrangement that would substantially limit (or even roll back) such deployments in exchange for the verifiable withdrawal and exclusion of particularly threatening Russian forces from areas close to NATO territory.

Measures to beef up NATO’s defenses in northeastern Europe in particular are necessary due to Russia’s local military superiority around the shores of the eastern Baltic. With its military advantages, Moscow could invade and occupy portions of the Baltic states and possibly even Poland with relative ease and speed, and thereby present Washington and its NATO partners with a fait accompli. Once situated on NATO territory, Russian forces would be difficult and painful to dislodge, necessitating a bloody military campaign that some NATO states would be reluctant to undertake. The alliance would therefore be well served by having a serious local defense in the area to preclude such a Russian capability. The force would not need to singlehandedly repel a determined Russian attack but, rather, would need to be able only to materially slow, complicate, and retard such an incursion, while also enabling the more effective, secure, and rapid reinforcement of such forces by NATO elements coming from out of the area.

As a consequence, NATO and the United States should build a better defense in Eastern Europe—especially within the Baltics. This should go beyond what the Defense Department announced in June, which represents a step in the right direction but is rotationally manned and thinly spread across NATO’s full eastern perimeter. A more adequately potent posture would emphasize forces designed for territorial defense, especially heavier forces, as these would diminish Moscow’s ability to seize territory quickly and easily. Their presence would also be more likely to dissuade Russian aggression, as any attempt to seize NATO ground in the face of such forces would thus be a much more formidable and dicey proposition that would require a much larger and more brazen effort than currently required. Such an attack would make a NATO response more clearly justifiable and therefore more likely, and thus should encourage caution in Moscow. A stronger deterrent would therefore contribute to—rather than detract from—stability. Larger deployments would also be compatible with a reasonable interpretation of the NATO-Russia Founding Act of 1997, even if the act is now of diminished applicability, given Russia’s aggressiveness in the last year and a half.

Although the pursuit of a stronger deterrent would provide Moscow with reasons for restraint in the Baltics and NATO Europe, pursuing this approach alone would be unwise. Rather, NATO should also propose negotiations with Russia on a new conventional arms control arrangement for Europe. At a minimum, such an agreement should verifiably ensure that Moscow could not get a jump on NATO with its conventional forces by limiting the number and types of Russian forces deployed within a certain distance of the Baltic states and Poland, along with inspections and data exchanges to verify the observance of such limits. In return, the United States and NATO should be willing to agree to appropriately comparable limits on their forces in the area.

From NATO’s perspective, such a conventional arms control regime would mitigate Russia’s threat to the alliance’s vulnerable eastern members. Contrarily, if Moscow rebuffed the offer, its recalcitrance would shift the blame for increased tensions to Russia, thereby generating vital political support in Europe for U.S. and NATO deployments. The United States and NATO pursued a similar dual-track approach in the 1970s and 1980s when the United States deployed intermediate-range nuclear weapons to Europe, then negotiated them away as a bargaining chip that removed the Soviet systems that had prompted their deployment in the first place.

This pact would benefit not only NATO but Moscow as well. Concluding such an agreement with NATO could prevent (or roll back) the deployment of substantial Western forces on Russia’s doorstep while allowing Moscow to maintain suitable defensive positions in its territories bordering NATO. Furthermore, a simple rejection of the proposal would paint Moscow further into a political corner, demonstrating to the world an unreasonable unwillingness to engage with the alliance. In fact, a real danger is that Moscow might agree to negotiations and then hope to stymie NATO deployments as it slow-rolled the talks. For this reason, the alliance should proceed with the deployments even as it negotiates with Moscow.

Arms control efforts should not be limited to those to which Moscow might formally agree. Rather, NATO should also take unilateral steps to reduce potential misunderstandings by making their force deployments and posture in the Baltic states as manifestly defensive as possible, and by energetically advertising that fact. A failure to do so might result in Russia perceiving (or caricaturing for propaganda value) such forces as threatening. Although the line between offense and defense in modern warfare is rarely clear, deployments might emphasize anti-armor, anti-infantry, and anti-air systems rather than those better suited for offense. Such limitations would not be a serious problem for the NATO, as its only interest is the defense of its members’ own territory, rather than annexing Russian soil.

Even with these restraints, however, it must be conceded that such deployments could generate anger and insecurity in Moscow, as well as deepen anxieties and disagreements within NATO. But the real risks of Russian anger and alliance disharmony do not obviate the need for the deployments. Rather, this is why efforts to engage Moscow in arms control talks, to minimize the extent to which such deployments worsen instability and political friction, and to intensify intra-alliance diplomacy to build support for these policies would be important and worthwhile. For the simple reality is that NATO invited these nations to join the alliance, and thus its credibility and viability depend on protecting them. Everyone should want to avoid provoking Russia—but weakness is as, if not more, likely to provoke the current government in Moscow than a restrained demonstration of serious deterrent power. Prudence therefore dictates that, even as it offers to engage Moscow to reduce risks, the alliance should make it clear to Russia that it can and will defend its eastern members.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150815/iran-nuclear-65e044965e.html

Iran gives UN agency papers linked to alleged nuke arms work

Aug 15, 12:09 PM (ET)
By GEORGE JAHN

VIENNA (AP) — Iran on Saturday gave the U.N. nuclear agency documents linked to the agency's probe of allegations that Tehran tried to develop atomic arms, along with a confidential explanation that is unlikely to veer from previous Iranian denials of work on such weapons.

Announced by the U.N's International Atomic Energy Agency, the handover meets a key deadline Iran has committed to as part of its overarching deal with six world powers promising Tehran sanctions relief in exchange for nuclear concessions.

The July 14 deal's main focus is curbing Iran's present nuclear program that could be used to make weapons. But a subsidiary element obligates Tehran to cooperate with the IAEA in its probe of the allegations.

The investigation has been essentially deadlocked for years with Tehran asserting the allegations are based on false intelligence from the U.S., Israel and other adversaries. But Iran and the U.N. agency agreed last month to wrap up the investigation by December, when the IAEA plans to issue a final assessment on the allegations. Saturday was the target date for Tehran to provide the agency documents related to the probe and its version of what they mean.

Both Iran and the IAEA were upbeat when announcing the agreement last month. But Western diplomats from IAEA member nations who are familiar with the probe are doubtful that Tehran will diverge from claiming that all its nuclear activities are — and were — peaceful, despite what they say is evidence to the contrary.

They say the agency will be able to report in December. But that assessment is unlikely to be unequivocal because chances are slim that Iran will present all the evidence the agency wants or give it the total freedom of movement it needs to follow up the allegations.

Still, the report is expected to be approved by the IAEA's board, which includes the United States and other powerful nations that negotiated the July 14 agreement. They do not want to upend their July 14 deal, and will see the December report as closing the books on the issue.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150815/ml--iran-nuclear-15d61d815b.html

Iranian hard-liner says Supreme Leader opposes nuclear deal

Aug 15, 2:29 PM (ET)
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI

(AP) In this file picture released by the official website of the office of the...
Full Image

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is opposed to a landmark nuclear deal reached with world powers, a prominent hard-liner claimed Saturday.

Hossein Shariatmadari, editor of the daily newspaper Kayhan and a representative of Khamenei, made the comments in an editorial Saturday. It was the first time someone publicly claimed where Khamenei, who has final say on all state matters, stands on the deal.

Khamenei has not publicly approved or disapproved of the deal. However, he has repeatedly offered words of support for Iran's nuclear negotiators. Moderates believe the deal would have never been reached without Khamenei's private approval.

Iran's parliament and the Supreme National Security Council will consider the agreement in the coming days. The deal calls for limiting Iran's nuclear program in exchange for lifting economic sanctions.

Shariatmadari said in the editorial that many parts of the deal threaten Iran's independence, security and "the sacred system of the Islamic republic of Iran" and would be "disastrous" if implemented.

He also referred to a speech by Khamenei last month during which the ayatollah said, "Whether this text is approved or disapproved, no one will be allowed to harm the main principles of the (ruling) Islamic system."

The editorial noted: "Using the phrase 'whether this text is approved or disapproved' shows his lack of trust in the text of the deal. If His Excellency had a positive view, he would have not insisted on the need for the text to be scrutinized through legal channels ... It leaves no doubt that His Excellency is not satisfied with the text."

Another prominent hard-liner and Khamenei representative, Ayatollah Ahmad Alamolhoda, recently said the deal "crossed the red lines." He said Khamenei said outsiders should never be allowed access to Iran's security apparatus, but the deal violated that by allowing inspection of military sites.

However, Gen. Hassan Firouzabadi, the chief of staff of Iran's armed forces and a close Khamenei ally, backed the deal last week despite having concerns.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asiapacific/china-s-man-made-island/2051350.html

China's man-made island takes shape in Sri Lanka

China has completed its land reclamation project in the disputed South China Sea. But thousands of miles to the west, another Chinese artificial island is slowly taking shape, the largest foreign direct investment in Sri Lanka, which will add more than 500 acres of land to its capital city.

By Pichayada Promchertchoo, Correspondent, Channel NewsAsia
POSTED: 15 Aug 2015 09:05
UPDATED: 15 Aug 2015 21:28

COLOMBO: The Ocean seafood restaurant at Colombo’s five-star The Kingsbury was once famous for its magnificent view of the Indian Ocean. Its open-air wooden terrace that runs along the hotel’s western façade used to be so close to the beautiful coastline that waves lapped the rocks, sending sprays of sea foam into the air.

Not anymore.

The once popular ocean view is now a massive construction site of what is slated to become the most modern metropolis in South Asia, the Port City.

“The project itself is a modern sustainable metropolis in the South Asia continent. It is being planned to be the most modern city in this part of the world,” said Liang Thow Ming, chief sales and marketing officer of CHEC Port City Colombo, which locally operates the construction on behalf of Beijing-based firm China Communications Construction (CCCC).

Located next to the Colombo Port, the US$1.4 billion project will add about 233 hectares of reclaimed land to the capital and house luxury office buildings, apartment blocks, a golf course, a water sport area, medical facilities, education institutions, hotels, a theme park and marinas.

According to the agreement between CCCC and former President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s government, 108 hectares of the real estate would be given to the Beijing firm to cover its investment and marketing promotion costs as well as profits. This includes 20 hectares on an outright basis and 88 hectares on a 99-year lease.

For many, this is China’s attempt to expand its power to this part of the world, a claim denied by officials involved in the project.

“There is a lot of suspicion whether this will become some form of a military installation or some submarine park or something of that nature,” said Mr Ming. “This is a commercial consent. We came into this because we felt that there is money to be made.”

Still, the Port City faces serious hurdles still, centred on an ongoing investigation by the current government under President Maithripala Sirisena.

Since Mar 6, CHEC Port City Colombo has put construction on hold, following Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe’s announcement that a preliminary investigation had shown irregularities and that the real estate deal was carried out without transparency.

According to the World Bank, its parent company CCCC also faces a sanction under the institution’s fraud and corruption policy, stirring up further controversy over the land reclamation project.

“Because of the public outcry after the last presidential election, the project has been put into review,” said Deputy Minister of Highways and Investment Promotion Eran Wickramaratne.

However, he insisted the government’s biggest concern is the environmental impact of the project, as the real-estate deal lacks a “proper” Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

“A complete EIA is being done. If the EIA is satisfactory, the project will continue. For some reason, if the EIA shows there are some problems, if it is not environmentally desirable, then we will have to see if these things can be cured,” Mr Wickramaratne said.

STABILITY

Since President Sirisena took office in January, a number of megaprojects approved by his predecessor have been subjected to scrutiny, driven by allegations of corruption and lack of financial feasibility. Although most of them have resumed, foreign investors’ confidence remains affected.

“Any investors, internationally, what we want to look for is pro-business, pro-growth policies. What we want is consistency. And that is important because we cannot have a change of policies every other five years,” said Mr Ming. “Any stop-work order that is given on ‘a unilateral side’ so to speak would definitely affect confidence to a certain level.”

His view was echoed by the likes of Dr Nishan de Mel, economist and Executive Director of Verité Research, who warned a lack of political stability in Sri Lanka could hurt its economy.

On Aug 17, Sri Lanka will hold a parliamentary election, which could once again see a change in government and economic policy. “The policy regime kept changing quite rapidly. Every quarter, every six months, policies would be reversed, reintroduced and reversed again,” he said.

“I think it is very important, going forward, to look for putting together a stable set of policies that also creates a level playing field for entrepreneurs and business investors so that they can enter the economy with confidence and not feel that their progress is going to be somehow held to ransom by bottlenecked decision-making system.”

CHINA

Still, an effective system of checks and balances is crucial for developing countries such as Sri Lanka, which has just emerged from decades of brutal war against terrorist group the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), known widely as the Tamil Tigers.

According to Dr de Mel, Sri Lanka’s population has become somewhat familiar with undemocratic power used by the state against terrorism, which in turn jeopardised the country’s democratic values and practices.

Since the end of the war in 2009, Sri Lanka has become one of the fastest growing economies in South Asia. Its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita took a leap from US$859 in 2002 to US$3,256 in 2013. Its central bank’s annual report also showed the economy expanded by 7.4 per cent last year, up from 7.2 per cent in 2013.

Growth was mainly influenced by two factors, however, including consumption of imported goods and a construction expenditure largely fuelled by the Chinese.

“China has become an alternative source of capital to the traditional source that exists. But the way that it was dispersed also creates an opportunity for corruption and corrupt practices to significantly increase in Sri Lanka,” Dr de Mel said.

“The conditionality attached to how the project is managed, how contracting is done, tender procedures, etc. are absent in the Chinese lending process. And that absence creates some benefits for policy makers and the government. One of them is speed of unrolling the projects. The other is also, perhaps, the political benefit.”

During the previous administration, President Rajapaksa awarded Beijing many infrastructure developments, from the country’s first coal power plant Norochcholai to the Hambantota Port, Mahinda Rajapaksa International Airport, and a cricket stadium.

More than US$6 billion was borrowed from Chinese lenders during Mr Rajapaksa’s administration, which raised concerns of members of the current government.

“There are no international flights at that airport. The port has hardly any vessels coming in. Therefore, they built infrastructure but there was no demand,” said Mr Wickramaratne.

“They were funded by loans. So, the country is facing, as a result, a crunch on the international loans it has taken.”

Unlike his pro-Beijing predecessor, President Sirisena has been slower on taking loans since he took office. His government is seeking alternative funding sources that offer cheaper interest rates and longer durations.

“We don’t want to push the country into a debt crisis,” said Mr Wickramaratne.

TRADITIONAL FRIENDS

Besides the economic front, the new government is also reshaping its foreign policy to balance its international relations.

During Mr Rajapaksa’s presidency, a number of Western countries were concerned by Sri Lanka’s human rights issues during and after the war against separatists, resulting in limited aid and isolation, while China became financially supportive.

“The country has been somewhat isolated internationally in the last few years. That was very unfortunate,” said Mr Wickramaratne, claiming that the current government has successfully normalised its international ties “at an amazing speed”.

“Our foreign policy is non-aligned but friendly and inviting anyone to come and invest in this country,” he said.

Earlier this year, Sri Lanka welcomed Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US Secretary of State John Kerry. Discussions with Europe are also on the table.

Meanwhile, the government continues to maintain its friendly relations with China, as it treads carefully on China-funded projects.

“Like any relationship, there are tense periods when Chinese contractors and the Sri Lankan authorities have had some issues to resolve. I think the relationship between the two countries is bigger than just those commercial relationships and, therefore, this relationship between the two countries will very much be on track,” he said,

For Chinese investors, however, they want fairness on all fronts.

“It will be very helpful if the government is going to be a little bit blind towards nationality. There has to be balance of interest from various international players and I think, as a Chinese company operating here, we don’t expect preferential treatment. We just wanted to be treated fairly,” said Mr Ming.


Reclaimed Lands: The Colombo Port City is the third part of a digital series on Sri Lanka six years after the war. The series will be released daily until Aug 17.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://nationalinterest.org/feature...re-fixing-the-economy-while-keeping-the-13584

China's Policy Nightmare: Fixing the Economy While Keeping the Peace [1]

"China’s August devaluation indicates that Asia’s largest economy is still very much a work in progress, that the risk of a hard landing is increasing and that the rest of the world has a lot at stake in Beijing getting its policies right."

Scott MacDonald [2] [3]
August 14, 2015

Unlike in Las Vegas, what happens in China does not stay in China. China is a major preoccupation for global markets and economic policy makers. Thus far in 2015, the Chinese economy has cooled, its stock markets have been volatile, and, most recently, the government made a surprise devaluation of the national currency [4], the renminbi (also called the yuan). The August devaluation, the largest since 1994, caused a near-panic in financial and commodity markets, which only subsided when the People’s Bank of China (PBoC), the central bank, intervened to stress that this was a “managed devaluation” and that it had no intention to launch a currency war.

Yet the unease over China is likely to persist.

China’s central bank devalued by lowering the reference rate that determines the midpoint of the renminbi’s trading band against the dollar by an initial 1.83 percent. This was the largest one-day adjustment on record, and as such sent shock waves throughout markets. The currency devalued for two more days until fears of a free fall subsided.

The key reasons for the devaluation were to help stimulate exports, prepare for the U.S. central bank’s raising of interest rates (which could occur as early as September), and help the Chinese currency become part of the basket of reserve currencies held by the International Monetary Fund. The last is an important and desired milestone for Beijing’s policy makers, as it would signal the coming of age of the Chinese economy. The current mix of reserve currencies are the U.S. dollar, pound sterling, Japanese yen and the euro.

But it is the growth issue that is the most critical. In July, data showed that exports are down considerably (8.3 percent year-on-year), a reflection of anemic domestic and global demand. July data also indicated that industrial production, fixed-income investment and retail sales had slowed. Rounding out the picture, the property market is seen as fragile and the outlook is uncertain. While housing sales expended in the January to July period by 16.8 percent, commercial and residential building starts plummeted 16.8 percent over the same period.

Local government finances are generally problematic, caused by considerable debt increases in recent years (the result of easy access to credit). In turn, this is raising questions over the creditworthiness of institutions that have lent money to both local governments and struggling industrial companies. The last official government estimate of local government debt was in June 2013, and given as 17.89 trillion yuan ($2.88 trillion). It is probably larger now and any increase in U.S. rates will make dollar-denominated debt more expensive to repay.

Although the target for real GDP growth is forecast to be around 7.0 percent in 2015, that may be too optimistic. Beijing is seeking to restructure the economy, placing a greater emphasis on domestic demand and de-emphasizing investment-led growth. Structural change like this is difficult—and the economy is slowing. Moreover, some of the older parts of the industrial sector—like steel, shipbuilding and textiles—are heavily indebted and struggling. And then there is that estimated $3 trillion loss in the Shanghai stock market [5] meltdown.

China’s authorities are keenly aware of the challenging nature of the economic landscape. Thus far they have acted forcibly and are backed by the country’s considerable $3.6 trillion foreign exchange reserves. [6] The eventual rise in U.S. interest rates complicates the picture, especially for many of China’s trade partners who might be paying higher U.S. dollar debt bills and have less money available to buy less Chinese goods. While infrastructure spending remains one policy tool to help growth, currency devaluation helps exports and thereby maintains jobs.

Keeping the Chinese population employed is critical for Communist Party rule—the long-standing bargain has been that the party provides employment and the means for a better life, while the people leave politics to the party. It is feared that a sharp economic downturn could upend that bargain, erode the party’s legitimacy and result in social turmoil.

Any student of Chinese history is aware that when the country’s dynasties were unable to provide the basic needs and public order, regime change was not far off. Although the Communist Party is firmly in control, a long period of stalled economic growth could have a corrosive effect on its ability to rule.

China’s authorities maintain that they want to allow freer markets. However, they are also increasingly aware that allowing more leeway to market forces adds to volatility, which could take the economy into unknown territory, such as sharp falls in stock-market valuations. China’s stock markets enjoyed a spectacular rise in the first part of 2015, peaking in June, only to tumble in early July. The fall in markets came only with considerable state intervention in the stock market, including a halt on short trading, having government entities buy stocks and having companies suspend their shares from trading—hardly measures that reflect a free market economy.

The currency devaluation reflects some of the same dynamics at work in the stock markets. By devaluing, China sought to inject more market forces into the economy, but it quickly realized that there is considerable downside risk. As the Wall Street Journa [7]l’s Lingling Wei and Anjani Trivedi observed (August 13) [7]: “The currency commotion comes just after the turmoil in China’s stock markets, which has made Beijing acutely aware that experimenting with market forces exacerbates the risks both to its credibility and its control of the economy.”

Although China maintained that the move was a technical adjustment to introduce market forces into how its currency trades, other Asian governments immediately felt pressure. Vietnam quickly moved to widen its informal currency-trading band. According to Vietnam’s central bank, there is a concern that the Chinese devaluation will have an adverse impact on its economy. China, after all, is one of Vietnam’s major trade partners. The impact of China’s devaluation also hit the Australian dollar, the Japanese yen and a number of Latin American currencies.

The global economy remains highly sensitive to Chinese policy actions. The chill to economic expansion in many emerging-market economies derives from the substantial cutback in Chinese demand for goods such as copper, iron ore and nickel. Prices have fallen around the world and it can be said that the specter of deflationary pressures is haunting more than one emerging-market economy, a development that can be traced back to China. Thus far, most policy makers have been careful in making their own devaluations, but tit-for-tat devaluations between major trade partners could set economic policy down a dangerous path.

The other potential impact of China is on U.S. monetary policy, which is a major focus of global markets with the September 17 meeting looming on the horizon. If China has another currency or stock-market mishap and concern is elevated over a cooling in the Chinese economy—or a hard landing—the U.S. Federal Reserve could delay raising rates. If so, U.S. monetary policy would remain locked in an excessively low rate environment, leaving the shift toward interest-rate normalization for a later date.

Part of the problem for the rest of the global economy is the lack of transparency and disclosure surrounding Chinese economic policy-making decisions. The opaque nature of policy deliberations and official data often conceals policy moves and hides costs, which is likely to become evident in the massive propping up of the stock markets. In this light, the currency devaluation must be observed as part of the effort to keep the Chinese economy moving, even if it triggered a brief global-market meltdown and led to charges that Beijing is starting a currency war.

China remains a critical pivot in the global economy. As China adjusts to slower growth, the rest of the world is also being forced to adjust to slower global growth prospects. Both the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have scaled back their projections for global economic output. This development is most profound in commodity exporters, but equally has an impact on the bottom line of major U.S. and European companies that have invested in China and other emerging-market economies, such as Brazil, Indonesia, Peru and Russia. If nothing else, China’s August devaluation indicates that Asia’s largest economy is still very much a work in progress, that the risk of a hard landing is increasing and that the rest of the world has a lot at stake in Beijing getting its policies right. Stay tuned for the next act.

Scott MacDonald is the Head of Research for MC Asset Management Holdings, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Mitsubishi Corporation. He is the co-author of the book State Capitalism’s Uncertain Future. The views expressed are his own and may not reflect those of MC Asset Management Holdings, LLC, the Mitsubishi Corporation or their affiliates.

Image: Flickr/Herve "Setaou" BRY [8]

Tags
China [9]Currency Devaluation [10]Global Economy [11]
Topics
Economics [12]
Regions
Asia [13] [3]
Source URL (retrieved on August 16, 2015): http://nationalinterest.org/feature...re-fixing-the-economy-while-keeping-the-13584

Links:
[1] http://nationalinterest.org/feature...re-fixing-the-economy-while-keeping-the-13584
[2] http://nationalinterest.org/profile/scott-macdonald
[3] http://twitter.com/share
[4] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/b...te-new-phase-in-global-currency-war.html?_r=0
[5] http://www.business-standard.com/ar...-a-cause-for-global-worry-115070600224_1.html
[6] http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...uld-suffer-1-trillion-foreign-capital-flight/
[7] http://www.wsj.com/articles/china-intervenes-to-support-tumbling-yuan-1439373732
[8] https://www.flickr.com/photos/setaou/10383950794/sizes/l
[9] http://nationalinterest.org/tag/china
[10] http://nationalinterest.org/tag/currency-devaluation
[11] http://nationalinterest.org/tag/global-economy
[12] http://nationalinterest.org/topic/economics
[13] http://nationalinterest.org/region/asia

 

[Housecarl]

A key point is the difference in perception of reality between the politicians in the Obama Admin and DNC vs the military leadership......Housecarl

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pentagon-unsure-if-it-could-beat-russia-in-a-convention-1724226952

Pentagon Unsure If It Could Beat Russia In A Conventional Conflict

Tyler Rogoway
Filed to: Russia
8/14/15 7:33pm
Comments 582

The Daily Beast reports that a series of classified war gaming exercises ran by the Defense Department have clearly shown that the U.S. is ill-prepared for a sustained military engagement with Russia. Such a situation is not that hard to believe as our forces have been mired in counter-terror and counter-insurgency fighting for well over a decade and procurement and modernization of our military has been handled in a almost comically bad way over the same period of time.

The exercises in question touched on a number of well-known issues. These include a lack of precision guided munitions and the Army’s inability to sustain large troop presences overseas for long periods of time. It is not a secret that operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have greatly eroded our ground combat capabilities and seeing as NATO was running thin on precision guided munitions during the comparatively limited Libyan campaign, the lack of deep stocks to take on an opponent like Russia is not surprising at all.

Even America’s airpower footprint is a shadow of the size it was just ten years ago, with many aircraft being retired and many of the ones that were not are in need of updates and structural modifications to keep them combat relevant. These comparatively inexpensive upgrades have been sidelined as funds have been pushed into the struggling F-35 program.

Meanwhile, others within the defense apparatus, some of which talked to the Daily Beast for the article, don’t see things as that bleak as others do as Russia also has its own military capability gaps and struggles, including aging hardware and questionable logistical capabilities. But Russia would largely be fighting along its own border areas and could open up fronts in multiple places, which would make it almost impossible for the U.S. and NATO to sustain a fight against them. Also, Russia’s use of Hybrid Warfare could greatly complicate certain hot points in comparison to fighting a traditional war against a foe with a regular military doctrine.

Gen. Ray Odierno, the famed retiring Four Star Army General, said:


“One of the things we learned is the logistical challenges we have in Eastern Europe. For example, Eastern Europe has a different gauge railroad than Western Europe does so moving supplies is a more difficult. So we are learning great lessons like that.”

That is a pretty stupid lesson to learn considering the U.S. has been operating in Europe for 75 years. Odierno has also stated that only 33 percent of our Army’s fighting brigades are ready to engage Russia, with 60 percent being seen as the minimal number needed to successfully do so. What’s worse is that the Army will only hopefully reach that readiness number right before the end of the decade.

Then there’s the troop number metrics alone. During the Cold War 250,000 U.S. troops were garrisoned in Europe; today there are 31,000. This is a similar number to what America has in South Korea today. Obviously Russia is a much larger peer state threat than crumbling and isolated North Korea. The heavy commitment to South Korea alone, which is a wealthy country with its own powerful military, will have rationalized if our military continues to shrink.

Some will say that the leaked results of these “table-top war games” (where no actual weapons are fired but decision are made based force sizes, capabilities and each players moves) are just another ploy to get more dollars for the military, and that very well may be true, but that does not mean these war games results are inaccurate. The truth of the matter is that it is pretty sad that America can spend $600 billion a year on defense and it still cannot be certain of vanquishing Russia during a conventional conflict.

Although this report largely looks at the external threats that we cannot face with certainty, the bigger threat resides internally, in how our leadership in Washington and at the Pentagon chooses to spend the largest defense budget in the world.

There is no doubt that poor foreign policy decisions — namely two long wars — horrendously poor procurement strategies, short-sighted leadership, and an unaffordable force structure with questionable priorities has degraded our ability to win against a serious threat. Until those factors are addressed, expect things to get worse when it comes to our abilities to fight a serious foe with any sort of certainty of success.

Photos via AP

Contact the author at Tyler@jalopnik.com.

___

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ears-it-s-not-ready-for-a-war-with-putin.html


Face Off

08.14.151:13 AM ET

Pentagon Fears It’s Not Ready for a War With Putin

The U.S. military has run the numbers on a sustained fight with Moscow, and they do not look good for the American side.

Nancy A. Youssef
Comments 451

A series of classified exercises over the summer has raised concerns inside the Defense Department that its forces are not prepared for a sustained military campaign against Russia, two defense officials told The Daily Beast.

Many within the military believe that 15 years of counter-terrorism warfare has left the ground troops ill prepared to maintain logistics or troop levels should Russia make an advance on NATO allies, the officials said.

Among the challenges the exercises revealed were that the number of precision-guided munitions available across the force were short of the war plans and it would be difficult to sustain a large troop presence.

“Could we probably beat the Russians today [in a sustained battle]? Sure, but it would take everything we had,” one defense official said. “What we are saying is that we are not as ready as we want to be.”

One classified “tabletop exercise” or “TTX”—a kind of in-office war game—“told us that the wars [in Iraq and Afghanistan] have depleted our sustainment capability,” a second defense official explained, using military jargon for the ability to maintain a fight. The exercise was led by the Department of Defense and involved several other federal agencies.

In recent months, the top officers of the military have begun to call Putin’s Russia an “existential threat” to the United States. The results of those exercises—and Russian-backed forces’ latest advance in Ukraine—didn’t exactly tamp down those fears.

But these concerns about readiness and sustainability are not universally held—not even inside the Pentagon. Nor is there a consensus about the kind of risk Putin's Russia really poses. Everyone in the U.S. security establishment acknowledges that Moscow has roughly 4,000 nuclear weapons, the world’s third-largest military budget, and an increasingly bellicose leader. There’s little agreement on how likely that threat could be.

“A war between Russian and NATO is an unlikely scenario given the severe repercussions Russia would face. In addition to the overwhelming reaction it would provoke, Russia’s aging military equipment and strained logistical capabilities make a successful offensive attack a very difficult proposition for them,” one U.S. intelligence official told The Daily Beast. “In short, direct conflict with Russia is a low-probability, high-risk situation. The challenge of Putin’s erratic leadership is that low-probability events are slightly more probable.”

The U.S. military still has the upper hand in so many ways, after all. But there are limits—severe limits—on those advantages. For its airpower, for example, the U.S. military would be leaning on worn out fighter pilots and limited maintenance abilities for their planes. And the surveillance drones needed would have to be drawn from other conflict zones.

“Against an adversary like Russia, we can’t take the kind of air dominance we’ve had in conflicts since 9/11 for granted,” a second defense official explained. “Any conflict of significant magnitude against an adversary like Russia means we’d need to commit airmen and resources that are now operating in other parts of the world at a rate that minimizes their ability to train for that kind of fight.”

The official added, “We may very well be able to provide the airpower that would allow us and our allies to prevail in a high-end fight, but the current state of our air forces definitely doesn’t make that a sure bet.”

Around the time of that TTX, in June, the U.S. military also conducted four major field exercises with its NATO counterparts, called Allied Shield, consisting of 15,000 troops and 19 member countries. In March, Russia conducted its own exercises, at one point deploying as many as 80,000 personnel.

“The focus of the exercises is on what each side sees as its most exposed areas, with NATO concentrating on the Baltic States and Poland whilst Russia is focusing primarily on the Arctic and High North, Kaliningrad, occupied Crimea, and its border areas with NATO members Estonia and Latvia,” is how one report summarized the dueling manuevers (PDF).

And like the tabletop exercise, Allied Shield suggested the U.S. could not maintain a sustained fight against the Russians.

Moreover, Russia’s blend of special forces, local proxies, weaponized propaganda, cyber espionage, and sneak attacks has many in the U.S. military struggling to figure out how to respond. Of course, they want to check Russian aggression—especially if Putin makes a move for America’s NATO allies in the Baltics. They’re not sure how do to that without starting down the path toward World War III. Especially now that Russia has declared itself open to the notion of using first-strike nuclear weapons in a conventional conflict.

The Daily Beast’s Anna Nemtsova, who is currently with U.S. military trainers in Ukraine, asked one of them what they would they do if their units were suddenly surrounded by Russian-backed forces.

“Let me think for a moment, that is a difficult one,” the American soldier said.

At his last briefing with reporters, Army General Raymond Odierno, the outgoing Chief of Staff of the Army, said NATO exercises conducted in Europe exposed even small challenges that could have outsized impact in a fight against Russia.

“One of the things we learned is the logistical challenges we have in Eastern Europe. For example, Eastern Europe has a different gauge railroad than Western Europe [where U.S. has traditionally trained] does so moving supplies is a more difficult. So we are learning great lessons like that,” Odierno said.

More serious was Odierno’s warning that “only 33 percent” of the U.S. Army’s brigades are sufficiently trained to confront Russia. That’s far short of the 60 percent needed. Odierno said that he does not believe the Army will reach those levels for several more years.

During the height of the Cold War, there were roughly 250,000 U.S. troops deployed to Europe. After the first Gulf War, that number fell to roughly to 91,000. That number today stands at 31,000—although some additional troops have been added since the stealth invasion of Ukraine.

And yet, many throughout government are not nearly as worried as the military. In fact, these insiders suspect that the Pentagon’s warning is more a means to seek leverage amid threats of budget cuts. The military is hoping to stave off major cuts to its ground force and cash flow as the war in Afghanistan winds down.

Lawrence Korb—a senior fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based Center for American Progress, which is closely aligned with the Obama White House and the Hillary Clinton campaign, said he believes the military is taking advantage of Russian aggressions over the last two years to fight its budget battles.

Further, Korb is not convinced the exercises reflect reality, noting the U.S. spends roughly $600 billion on its defense compared to Russia’s $60 billion. Russian weapons are far less modern, and Putin had to abandon his $400 billion plan to upgrade them earlier this year as the Russian ruble fell.

“We’d clean their clocks. [Russian troops are] not that good. They are not as modern,” Korb said. “I think [the military] took advantage of recent Russian aggression because it has become clear we would not use large ground armies” to confront groups like the self-proclaimed Islamic State.

The U.S. military is now worried about Russia “in the same way the Navy [once] talked about the Chinese” to stop cuts to its budget, he added.

But Lieutenant General Mark Hertling, who retired in 2012 as the commander of U.S. Army Europe, said the Russian threat existed far before the latest budget squabbles. And when he raised them in 2010, they fell on deaf ears.

“We were beating the drum of Russia in 2010 and we were told [by Washington officials], ‘You are still in the Cold War.’ All the things we predicted would happen, happened, but it wasn’t at the forefront of the time,” Hertling said.

“This gets to a lack of trust between the government and the military,” Hertling added. “We were monitoring Russian movement and they were increasing not only their budget but their pace of operation and their development of new equipment. They were repeatedly aggressive and provocative even though we were trying to work with them.”

Since then, the Army has shrunk rapidly—by 80,000 troops. Should Congress enact the across-the-board budget cuts known as sequestration, the Army could fall from 450,000 soldiers to 420,000, making it the smallest U.S. ground force since the end of World War II. Odierno has called such figures dangerous.

“The unrelenting budget impasse has compelled us to degrade readiness to historically low levels,” Odierno said last month at a conference.

Either way, the London-based European Leadership Network released a report Wednesday, and concluded the dueling large-scale military exercises are aggravating tensions, not deterring the opposing side, as intended.

“Russia is preparing for a conflict with NATO, and NATO is preparing for a possible confrontation with Russia. We do not suggest that the leadership of either side has made a decision to go to war or that a military conflict between the two is inevitable, but that the changed profile of exercises is a fact and it does play a role in sustaining the current climate of tensions in Europe,” found the report, titled “Preparing for the Worst: Are Russian and NATO Military Exercises Making War in Europe more Likely?”

 

[Lilbitsnana]

Conflict News ‏@rConflictNews 59m59 minutes ago

BREAKING: An Egyptian military court sentences 26 officers on charges of attempting to overthrow the regime -@AJENews


ETA:


Hasan Sari retweeted
احمد ‏@AhmedWagih 11m11 minutes ago

@EgyptianStreets case goes back to March 2013

 

[Lilbitsnana]

Conflict News ‏@rConflictNews 59m59 minutes ago

BREAKING: An Egyptian military court sentences 26 officers on charges of attempting to overthrow the regime -@AJENews

Hasan Sari ‏@HasanSari7 2h2 hours ago

Hasan Sari retweeted Conflict News

�� This only reported by AlJazeera & Anadoluagency. Completely baseless. No court, no charged officers. Nothing:

Hasan Sari added,

Conflict News @rConflictNews
BREAKING: An Egyptian military court sentences 26 officers on charges of attempting to overthrow the regime -@AJENews

Hasan Sari ‏@HasanSari7 2m2 minutes ago

@rConflictNews Erdoğan's @aa_arabic deleted the tweet. @AJENews still posting this lie to entertain their delusional MB audience. Shame.





ETA: Hasan Sari posts abover were wrong, original info was correct


Hasan Sari ‏@HasanSari7 8m8 minutes ago

Hasan Sari retweeted Egyptian Streets

�� First report on military court in Egypt was just posted (from Egypt):

Hasan Sari added,

Egyptian Streets @EgyptianStreets
#BREAKING| Twenty-six #military officers in #Egypt have been sentenced to prison for planning a military coup. http://bit.ly/1IU4AWy

ETA2:

Hasan Sari retweeted
احمد ‏@AhmedWagih 11m11 minutes ago

@EgyptianStreets case goes back to March 2013

 

[Be Well]

Pentagon Fears It’s Not Ready for a War With Putin

The U.S. military has run the numbers on a sustained fight with Moscow, and they do not look good for the American side.

So get all US military out of Ukraine!!!!! NOW!!!

 

[Housecarl]

If this is correct, it begs several questions considering a MiG-31 isn't a close air weapons system with "conventional" munitions. Assad needs a couple of brigades worth of fresh troops more than he needs a flight of hot rods.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://world.bgnnews.com/russia-sends-six-fighter-jets-to-syrian-administration-haberi/8586

16 August 2015 Sunday, 16:15

Russia sends six fighter jets to Syrian administration

Six MiG-31 fighter jets from Russia have landed in Damascus, in partial fulfillment of a protocol signed between Moscow and the Syrian regime in 2007.

Developed by the Soviet Air Force, the Mikoyan MiG-31 is a supersonic jet, and one of the fastest fighter planes in the world. The jets have a target range of approximately 200 kilometers.

The deal signed in 2007 between Russia and Syria features the sale of a total of 8 MiG-31 jets.

Russia is pushing for a broad international coalition in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) featuring Syria, Iraq , the Kurdistan Regional Government, as well as other nations in the region. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov will host his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif, on Monday.

August 16, 2015 | BGNNews.com | Istanbul

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm........

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2015/08/north-korea-and-the-diplomatic-utility-of-violence/

North Korea and the Diplomatic Utility of Violence

With threats producing diminishing marginal returns, it is not surprising Pyongyang resorts to actual violence.

By Robert Potter
August 16, 2015
228 Shares
3 Comments

North Korea has threatened “to retaliate against the U.S. with tremendous muscle” if the latter doesn’t cancel military exercises scheduled to begin tomorrow. The exercises are going ahead as planned. Earlier in the month, two South Korean soldiers were wounded along the border with North Korea. The blast came from landmines placed along a regular patrol route. The attack quickly produced a response, with the South resuming propaganda exercises within the North.

The North has once again turned to provocations and bellicosity in a bid to gain international attention. This is hardly unexpected, as it fits within a longstanding pattern of actions around the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ).

But after years of threatening violence, the North faces a situation where threats alone were producing diminishing returns. Where once nuclear threats were treated with the utmost gravity and pledges to attack South Korea made the North international enemy number one, the world has essentially stopped listening. As a result, actually engaging in violence is the only real method the North has left to sustain the diplomatic returns it seeks.

As an example of this trend, one need only look at the abductions of U.S. citizens. In 2009, North Korea’s abductions of Euna Lee and Laura Ling brought a visit from former U.S. President Bill Clinton. But when Pyongyang held Kenneth Bae and Mathew Todd Miller, Washington dispatched James Clapper, a non-cabinet level official, to bring them home. Each time North Korea introduces a new strategy, it steadily produces smaller gains.

With actual violence, though, the story is very different. Targeted applications of force by the North do not produce diminishing returns. For example, when the North sank the ROKS Cheonan in 2010, it resulted in the new round of public threats being taken much more seriously. As such, it would be no surprise to see Kim Jong-un use violence to pursue his aims.

And the North often makes the DMZ the focus of its action. The Cheonan, for example, was attacked near the Northern Limit Line, essentially the maritime extension of the DMZ. In bombing Yeonpyeong Island late in 2010, North Korea also chose a target close to the border.

Pyongyang often links violence to diplomacy. Take, for example, the axe murder incident of 1976, in which North Korean soldiers killed two U.S. Army officers. Within hours of the action, Kim Jong-Il, then a functionary under his father, addressed a conference of the Non-Aligned Movement in Sri Lanka where he presented a document labeling the event an “unprovoked attack” by the United States. He then moved a motion condemning the United States. Back in 1976, the North had many more friends than it does today, and the motion passed. The axe used to murder the two Americans is presently on display in North Korea.

Following this most recent incident, South Korea has vowed a “harsh” response. But calibrating a response is not that easy – the perception is that Seoul’s response to the Cheonan sinking was relatively weak. Although the North is unlikely to find the friends it had in 1976, it still has a degree of diplomatic support from China that makes leveraging a diplomatic response more complicated. The need to establish deterrence has to be balanced against the need to avoid a degenerating security situation.

As a result, the South faces a significant policy conundrum. Still, it has options, such as trying to expand the space of civil society within North Korea, where the government does not maintain full control.

The most likely scenario is a fresh drive for sanctions and a cooling of economic engagement between the two states. It remains to be seen, however, if this is the best option going forward. An alternative for Seoul might be to develop information links into North Korea to push an anti-Kim message (and the propaganda response already announced certainly sits within this). It is also possible to undermine Kim’s ability to travel and to have allied states deny North Korea the right to maintain embassies in their countries. Which options the South chooses this time is difficult to ascertain. In the meantime, though, is that the trend of violence on the border is well established and should be expected to continue.

Robert Potter is a PhD candidate at the University of Queensland.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/s...cial-minister-pms-political-heartland-n410711

Aug 16 2015, 3:18 pm ET

Blast Kills Pakistani Provincial Minister in PM's Political Heartland

by Mushtaq Yusufzai, Wajahat S. Khan and Reuters

LAHORE, Pakistan — A bomb killed a Pakistani provincial minister and at least 12 others when it destroyed the minister's home on Sunday in Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's political heartland of Punjab.

Police said the blast appeared to be a suicide attack, launched as Punjab home minister Shuja Khanzada held a meeting in his hometown of Attock in the country's north.

"There were between 20 and 30 people present when the blast took place," district information officer Shahzad Niaz told Reuters. "The roof collapsed."

Salman Rafiq, Punjab's provincial health adviser, confirmed that Khanzada was killed. Rescue workers at the scene said nine bodies had been recovered so far.

Pakistan, a nuclear-armed nation of 190 million people, is plagued by a Taliban insurgency, criminal gangs and sectarian violence. Punjab is its biggest and wealthiest province.

A Taliban-affiliated militant group, Lashkar-e-Islam, claimed responsibility for the attack and said it was retaliation for military operations against them. Khanzada was behind many initiatives of the Punjab provincial government to clamp down on militants.

"We want to tell government of Pakistan and (its) army that you lose this battle of Ideologies," Lashkar-e-Islam said in a statement released to NBC News. "Such types of attacks will continue in the future," group member Saluddin Ayubi told Reuters.

It was unclear if Lashkar-e-Islam, based mainly in the tribal areas along the Afghan border, had actually carried out the attack or was just taking credit for it.

If the claim was true, the bombing would represent a significant development in the group's ability to strike at high level targets. The violence was being considered by Pakistani media as the highest profile terror attack since a school massacre in Peshawar left more than 150 people dead last December.

Another militant movement, a splinter group of the Pakistani Taliban calling itself Jamaatul Ahrar, also claimed responsibility.

Later on Sunday, Pakistani fighter jets pounded militant hideouts in the Shawal Valley near the northeastern border with Afghanistan, with the army's media wing saying that 40 militants were killed.

Pakistan, a nuclear-armed nation of 190 million people, is plagued by a Taliban insurgency, criminal gangs and sectarian violence.

Related: Turning the Taliban: A Rare Visit to Deradicalization Center in Pakistan

Punjab has traditionally been more peaceful than other parts of Pakistan. Sharif's opponents have accused him of tolerating militancy in return for peace in his province, a charge he hotly denies.

Two weeks ago, Punjab police killed the leader of Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, along with his two sons, deputy, and 10 other supporters.

Police described the incident as a shootout as he sought to escape from custody, but many insiders say the shooting had the hallmarks of an extrajudicial killing.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150816/ml--syria-dd61096f14.html

Government air raids near Syrian capital kill more than 80

Aug 16, 1:08 PM (ET)
By BASSEM MROUE

BEIRUT (AP) — Syrian airstrikes on a Damascus suburb killed more than 80 people on Sunday in one of the deadliest such raids of the four-year civil war, as fighting escalated in and around President Bashar Assad's seat of power at a time when his overstretched forces have been losing ground elsewhere in the country.

The air raids struck the main market in Douma during rush hour, when hundreds of people were out shopping on the first working day of the week in Syria, activists said. The strikes appeared to have been launched in retaliation for the capture of an army base in a nearby suburb a day earlier by the Islamic Army rebel group, which enjoys strong support in Douma.

"This is an official massacre that was carried out deliberately," said Rami Abdurrahman, who heads the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. He said warplanes fired a missile at the market and then launched another after people rushed in to retrieve the wounded.

Abdurrahman, whose group relies on a network of activists around the country, said a total of four missiles were fired on the market, killing 82 people and wounding more than 200. He said the death toll is expected to rise because many of the wounded are in critical condition.

The Local Coordination Committees, another activist group, said the air raids killed at least 100 and wounded about 300, adding that rescue workers are digging through the rubble in search of survivors. Discrepancies in death tolls immediately after an attack are common in Syria.

"The situation is catastrophic," a Douma-based activist who goes by the name of Mazen al-Shami told The Associated Press via Skype. He said clinics in the area are full and many of the wounded are being rushed in civilian cars to other medical facilities since ambulances are overwhelmed. Al-Shami said mosque loudspeakers issued calls for residents to donate blood.

An amateur video posted online by activists showed some 40 bodies of men and boys lined up on the side of a street as more bodies were being brought in. Another video showed people helping the wounded leave the heavily damaged market area. The videos appeared genuine and corresponded to other AP reporting of the events.

Al-Shami said "the regime is targeting civilians to avenge" the capture of the army base, known as the "technical academy," in the nearby suburb of Harasta on Saturday.

Douma is one of the largest suburbs of Damascus and has been held by rebels since the early days of Syria's conflict, which began in March 2011 with mostly peaceful protests but escalated into a full-scale civil war after a massive government crackdown. The conflict has claimed more than 250,000 lives and displaced up to a third of Syria's pre-war population.

The fighting in and around Damascus has escalated in recent days. Last week, rebels shelled the capital ahead of a visit by Iran's foreign minister, killing more than 30 people.

Iran is a close ally of Syria's government, and is preparing a peace initiative that would include a cease-fire and a power-sharing government. Assad would remain in the picture, pending internationally supervised elections, according to a Lebanese politician familiar with the proposal, who spoke anonymously because he was not authorized to divulge details of the plan.

Such efforts appear to have gained urgency as Assad's forces have suffered a string of defeats in recent months, mainly in the northwestern Idlib province, where hard-line Islamic militant groups captured the provincial capital of the same name and the city of Jisr al-Shughour earlier this year.

The Islamic State group has also advanced against Syrian troops, capturing the central town of Palmyra, home to world-famous Roman ruins, in May.

Elsewhere on Sunday, fighting raged in the rebel-held mountain resort of Zabadani after a local truce collapsed a day earlier.

The pro-Assad Beirut-based Al-Mayadeen TV reported that the Syrian army and Lebanon's Shiite Hezbollah group have decided to capture Zabadani through military force after the talks that aimed to evacuate fighters and civilians from the town failed.

In response to the truce breaking down, the rebels renewed their offensive against the northwestern Shiite villages of Foua and Kfarya, where they had earlier offered to relocate residents to other government-held areas as part of the Zabadani talks.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150816/ml--libya-0d829dbcc6.html

Libya government calls for Arab airstrikes against IS

Aug 16, 8:53 AM (ET)
By RAMI MUSA

TUNIS, Tunisia (AP) — Libya's internationally recognized government appealed to Arab countries to carry out airstrikes against the local Islamic State affiliate which is expanding its hold on the coastal city of Sirte.

The statement late Saturday came after the IS affiliate seized control of a new neighborhood in Sirte. The militants shelled the area, killed a senior cleric and hung the bodies of prisoners over bridges.

"The Libyan government, unable to ward off these terrorist groups because of the arms embargo, and out of its historic responsibility toward its people, calls on brotherly Arab countries ... to launch airstrikes against specific targets of (IS) locations in Sirte in coordination with our concerned bodies," the statement said.

The government also condemned the failure of the international community to take action against the group's rise in Libya.

The Arab League said it will hold an emergency meeting on Libya on Tuesday.

Egypt has joined Libya's government in calls for international intervention there against IS. Egypt has carried out airstrikes inside Libya, including in February after Islamic State militants killed 21 Egyptian hostages there.

The IS affiliate posted pictures on social media showing booty it seized from the neighborhood in Sirte, including vehicles and ammunition.

Fighting began earlier this week after a rival Islamist group, backed by a local tribe, refused to pledge allegiance to IS and called for a revolt.

Residents fled as IS militants took over the area. Awad Salem, whose family remains in the city, said IS fighters seized homes, refusing to allow residents to return until they search them for weapons.

Libya has slid into chaos since the 2011 overthrow and killing of longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi. It is now divided between an elected parliament and government in the east, and an Islamist militia-backed government based in Tripoli.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150816/eu--france-policeman_shot-345d24399a.html

Attackers shoot French policeman in govt office; manhunt on

Aug 16, 10:37 AM (ET)

PARIS (AP) — French authorities are searching for two assailants who shot a police officer in a government security building outside Paris.

The officer surprised the two attackers during his rounds early Sunday, and one of them grabbed his gun and shot him, according to Interior Ministry spokesman Pierre-Henry Brandet.

The officer was lightly wounded in the abdomen but his life is not in danger, Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said in a statement.

It's unclear why the men were in the Interior Ministry complex, which includes a police vehicle garage. Cazeneuve said authorities believe they were probably motivated by some kind of financial gain.

Special security forces surrounded and searched the building in the suburb of Pantin for the two suspects. They found the officer's discarded gun, but the suspects are still at large, Cazeneuve said.

French authorities remain tense since Islamic extremist attacks in January left 20 people dead, including the three attackers

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150816/as--kashmir-border_violence-540463d06c.html

8 dead as India, Pakistan trade fire and blame in Kashmir

Aug 16, 11:33 AM (ET)
By AIJAZ HUSSAIN

(AP) A civilian injured injured in exchange of fire by troops on the India Pakistan...
Full Image

SRINAGAR, India (AP) — Indian and Pakistani troops traded heavy gunfire and mortar rounds for a seventh straight day Sunday along the highly militarized line of control dividing the disputed Himalayan region of Kashmir between the two archrivals, officials said.

Indian army spokesman Lt. Col. Manish Mehta said Pakistani troops fired on Indian positions in Balakote and Poonch sectors. Indian police officer Danish Rana said six civilians had died in the Pakistani shelling over the last two days. At least 17 others were wounded.

Pakistan's army said in a statement that two civilians had been killed and two others wounded in the fighting.

The fighting follows a familiar pattern, with each side blaming the other. Both sides used terms like "unprovoked firing" and "befitting reply" to describe the actions of the other, and detailed their own response.½a0}

(AP) A civilian injured injured in exchange of fire by troops on the India Pakistan...
Full Image

Despite a 2003 cease-fire, the two neighbors regularly trade fire, the latest coming as India celebrated Independence Day on Saturday. Pakistan observed it a day earlier.

Mehta said the clashes were still going on Sunday evening.

India's ministry of external affairs summoned Pakistan's high commissioner to New Delhi to lodge a formal protest against the "unprovoked" firing, a ministry statement said.

Kashmir is divided between India and Pakistan but claimed in its entirety by both. The countries have fought two of their three wars over their competing claims to Kashmir.

The recent fighting comes even as the top security advisers of both countries are scheduled to meet in the Indian capital on Aug. 23. The two men are expected to talk about combatting terrorism in the region.

---

Associated Press writer Roshan Mughal in Muzaffarabad, Pakistan, contributed to this report.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150815/af-west-africa-al-qaida-97cb0fe188.html

Notorious extremist said to head al-Qaida West Africa branch

Aug 15, 5:52 PM (ET)

ABIDJAN, Ivory Coast (AP) — A militant group that has claimed responsibility for recent violence in Mali has rebranded itself as al-Qaida's West Africa branch while reaffirming that it is led by the notorious extremist Moktar Belmoktar.

The SITE Intelligence Group, a U.S. monitoring outfit, said the latest statement from Belmoktar's Mourabitoune organization was distributed on Twitter this week.

Belmoktar, who is known for daring attacks and for kidnapping foreigners, has been reported killed numerous times, most recently in June.

In May he rejected a pledge of allegiance to the Islamic State group made by a different member of his organization.

On Aug. 9 Mourabitoune reportedly claimed responsibility for an attack in central Mali that killed 10 soldiers and United Nations contractors along with three jihadists.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150816/lt--brazil-protests-702b5ec325.html

Anti-government protests sweep Brazil

Aug 16, 3:22 PM (ET)
By STAN LEHMAN

(AP) Carrying banners that read in Portuguese "Dilma Out" and "Impeachment Now,"...
Full Image

SAO PAULO (AP) — Brazilians took to the streets of cities and towns across the country on Sunday for anti-government protests seen as a barometer of popular discontent with the increasingly unpopular president, Dilma Rousseff.

Called mostly by activist groups via social media, Sunday's demonstrations assailed Rousseff, who is fighting for her political life amid a snowballing corruption scandal that has embroiled politicians from her Workers' Party, as well as a sputtering economy, spiraling currency and rising inflation.

It initially appeared the protests, the third of their kind this year, had drawn relatively modest crowds. Political analysts here have said that Sunday's turnout could help determine the protest movement's future, with massive crowds ratcheting up the pressure on the government. Sunday's lower turnout, however, looked likely give Rousseff some breathing room.

Even in Sao Paulo, Brazil's industrial and economic capital, where dissatisfaction with Rousseff has tended to run particularly high and protests in March and April drew thick crowds, turnout appeared significantly lower. Rousseff supporters in the city staged a small counter-demonstration in front of the offices of Rousseff's mentor and predecessor, former President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

(AP) A woman shouts slogans as bangs on a pan during an anti-government protest demanding...
Full Image

In Rio de Janeiro, several thousand people, many brandishing green and yellow Brazilian flags demonstrated along Copacabana Beach. The Rio demonstration was to coincide with a cycling test event for next year's Olympic Games in the city, but organizers changed the route and timing of the sporting event to avoid a possible clash.

Protests took place in some 16 states, including in the Amazonian metropolis of Belem, Recife, in the northeast, and the central city of Belo Horizonte. In the capital, Brasilia, a march on a central avenue flanked by ministries and monuments also appeared to have drawn several thousand participants.

The demonstrations were called largely by web-based activist groups with demands ranging from Rousseff's impeachment to a return to military dictatorship like the one that ruled the country from 1964-1985. But an end to corruption appeared to be a top demand, amid the widening probe into corruption at the state-run Petrobras oil company. Operation "Car Wash," which began more than a year ago as an investigation into a bribes-for-contracts scheme at Petrobras, has exposed how widely corruption permeates Brazilian society, snaring top members of the Workers' and other political parties, as well as executives of powerful construction companies.

Sao Paulo demonstrator Marisa Bizquolo said she held Rousseff responsible for the Petrobras scandal.

"She must be impeached or resign for ultimately she is responsible for all the corruption and the economic mess this country is in," said the 62-year-old doctor. "But I am concerned that there is no one who could take her place and run a decent government. We have no leaders."

Amid the corruption probe and an economic crunch that has seen the once-booming economy teeter on the brink of recession, Rousseff's popularity ratings have fallen to a level not seen since 1992, when President Fernando Collor de Mello was forced from office after being impeached for corruption. A poll earlier this month showed only 8 percent of those surveyed considered Brazil's government to be "great" or "good." By contrast, 71 percent said the government is a "failure." The Datafolha poll was based on interviews with 3,358 people on Aug. 4 and 5 and had an error margin of plus or minus 2 percentage points.

In a research note, the Eurasia Group political risk consulting firm called Sunday's protests "an important signpost to monitor."

"While calls for Rousseff to step down will be the headline of Sunday's demonstrations ... the greater risk for the government would be if massive protests become frequent and if they are followed by movements from organized labor," the firm said.

In 2013, a wave of nationwide protests took analysts by surprise, with the largest crowds in a generation taking to the streets ahead of the Confederations Cup soccer tournament, a World Cup dry run. Protesters were angry over lavish spending on stadiums and other infrastructure for the 2014 World Cup, which contrasted with the woeful state of Brazil's public schools and hospitals. Dissatisfaction over poor public services and high taxes continues to simmer here as the country gears up for the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro.

 

[Housecarl]

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...min-warns-China-about-agents-operating-in-U.S.

If this is going on you can only imagine how "overt" their intel operators are being.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-admin-warns-china-about-agents-operating-in-u-s/

CBS News/ August 16, 2015, 10:21 PM

Obama admin warns China about agents operating in U.S.

25 Comments

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration has warned Beijing that its law enforcement personnel do not have permission to operate in the United States without notifying the proper authorities, according to a spokesperson.

Officials did not cite a particular case but U.S. State Department Deputy Spokesperson Mark Toner released a statement Sunday saying there are specific rules that foreign law enforcement agents must follow in order to work within the U.S., CBS News reported.

"While we do not comment on specific cases, generally speaking, foreign law enforcement agents are not permitted to operate within the United States without prior notification to the Attorney General," said Toner in the statement. "In regards to China, the United States and China regularly engage on law enforcement matters of mutual concern, including fugitives and anti-corruption, through the U.S.-China Joint Liaison Group on Law Enforcement Cooperation (JLG).

"We continue to emphasize to [People's Republic of China] officials that it is incumbent on them to provide U.S. officials with significant, clear, and convincing evidence to allow our law enforcement agencies to proceed with investigations, removals, and prosecutions of fugitives," said Toner.

The statement comes as The New York Times published a report Sunday evening that said Chinese law enforcement agents have come to the United States in a covert fashion to hunt down and bring back fugitives and conduct other law enforcement operations. The warning, the Times reported, was delivered to Chinese officials recently and demanded a stop to the activities such as using tough tactics to get fugitives to return to Chinese soil.
.
© 2015 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://tribune.com.pk/story/939184/how-the-collapse-of-chimerica-will-affect-south-asia/

How the collapse of ‘Chimerica’ will affect South Asia

By Shahid Javed Burki
Published: August 17, 2015

There is no doubt that the momentous change that is taking place in the global political and economic structures will profoundly affect the countries of the South Asian subcontinent, in particular Pakistan. The most significant aspect of this change is the collapse of the marriage between the United States and China — a union, the historian Niall Ferguson and the economist Moritz Schluarick once called “Chimerica”.They saw the two countries with interests so intertwined that a new term was needed to refer to them. Chimerica was the term they coined.

For more than two decades, Beijing and Washington enjoyed an almost perfect symbiosis. China used its enormous foreign exchange savings to bankroll consumption in the United States. The firms in China produced items of consumption for the American markets at prices that would not have been possible had they been manufactured in America. ‘Made in the United States’, most often was not a viable option. Also, China’s inward-looking foreign policy did not fundamentally undermine American hegemony. Beijing was more interested in pursuing abroad the policies its citizenry wanted — such as settling old scores with Japan — than pursuing those the leadership considered to be in the nation’s long-term strategic interest.

The Beijing-Washington marriage was made in heaven. Together, the two countries accounted for around 13 per cent of the world’s land surface, a quarter of its population, more than a third of global domestic product and about two-fifths of the global economic growth in the 10-year period before the beginning of the Great Recession of 2007-09. The association also had positive externalities for the rest of the world. Global trade boomed and nearly all asset prices surged. But not all marriages remain happy and that, Ferguson and Schularick suggested in a 2009 article, was also happening to Chimerca.

Two years after they wrote the original study, they revised their view of the marriage. “While the temptation to continue business as usual might be great, it is ultimately no longer in the American interest to remain in such a dysfunctional marriage,” they wrote. China was also not prepared to play second fiddle. For instance, rather than using its cheap labour to produce lucrative products such as the iPhone and the iPad for Apple, whose profits soared while the wages of Chinese workers increased only modestly, Beijing sought to encourage its ownenterprises to step in. China gave full support to the Guangdong-based firm Huawei, which was extremely successful making and selling smartphones that mimic the iPhone, to expand its production and increase its exports. It did, and the profits it made stayed home in China rather than fatten those of the Seattle-based Apple. With the marriage dissolved, the two major powers struck out on their own.

What is of great concern for the large global powers is how China will use its economic strength on the world stage. Under the new leadership that assumed power in the spring of 2013, Beijing has become more assertive. President Xi Jinping has begun to talk of the “Chinese dream” by which he means recapturing some of the glories of old China. But that interpretation is too abstract by which to judge the intentions of the new leaders. The basic aim appears to be that the country must continue to advance its economy and reach the point where its citizens have comfortable lives. And that approach is likely to delink its economy from that of the United States. For instance, on August 11 and again on August 12, Beijing surprised the world by devaluing its currency with respect to the American dollar. Relations between China and the United States will have enormous consequences for the world’s future. It could be argued that there will not be a repeat of the Cold War. Although the marriage has dissolved, China and the United States continue to have many common interests.

China has begun to move aggressively and decisively in asserting itself in the regions of great interest to it — Central and Western Asia, the Middle East and Europe. One big part of this effort was the $46 billion investment in Pakistan as a part of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. The announcement that Beijing would invest on this scale was made by President Xi Jinping during his visit to Islamabad in April. “The decision to make such a high-profile investment in its long-time partner is indicative not only of the enduring regional dynamics that have compelled the two countries’ alliance but also of China’s increasingly global ambitions,” wrote Louis Ritzinger in an assessment published by the National Bureau of Asian Research. “The motivations behind China’s promised investment in Pakistan are primarily three-fold in order of global relevance: providing economic support to a long-term ally and strategic hedge, facilitating trade, and building linkages to the West by which China can expand its influence.” While the United States has come up with its ‘pivot to Asia’ approach, China is developing its ‘look west’ policy. The west for China includes Pakistan, Afghanistan and the Central Asian republics.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 17th, 2015

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/16/americas/brazil-protests/

Protesters in Brazil call for President Dilma Rousseff's impeachment

By Shasta Darlington and Dana Ford, CNN
Updated 11:24 PM ET, Sun August 16, 2015

Rio de Janeiro (CNN)—Protesters marched in cities across Brazil on Sunday, demanding the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff.

They are upset over an eroding economy and a corruption scandal that has implicated politicians in Rousseff's Workers Party.

"I'm in favor of anything that will take that party out of government, even impeachment," one protester told CNN in Rio de Janeiro.

Many marched wearing the green, yellow and blue colors of Brazil. Some waved flags and carried banners. One protest poster read simply, "Enough."

Rousseff, who won re-election in a tight runoff last year, now has an approval rating of less than 10%.

A sweeping corruption investigation into a multimillion-dollar kickback scheme at the state-run oil company Petrobras has embroiled dozens of the country's leading businessmen and politicians. The President was the chairwoman of Petrobras during many of the years that the alleged corruption took place.

She has defended Brazilians' right to protest and acknowledged the need to clean up corruption at Petrobras, but denied any prior knowledge of the alleged kickback scheme.

Adding to the turmoil is the country's tanking economy. Brazil is facing a protracted recession, high inflation and a currency that recently hit a 12-year low.

"I'm here because I believe Brazil can change. Enough corruption! Enough thieving already!" another protester said.

Shasta Darlington reported from Rio de Janeiro. Dana Ford wrote from Atlanta. CNN's Catherine E. Shoichet also contributed to this report.

 

[Housecarl]

South Korea, US begin military drill despite North Korea threats
Started by Lilbitsnana‎, Today 08:18 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...in-military-drill-despite-North-Korea-threats


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://news.yahoo.com/south-korea-us-begin-military-drill-despite-north-004752035.html

South Korea, US begin military drill despite North Korea threats

AFP
By Giles Hewitt
37 minutes ago

Seoul (AFP) - Tens of thousands of South Korean and US troops kicked off a large-scale military exercise Monday simulating an all-out attack by North Korea, which has condemned the joint drill as a "declaration of war."

The annual Ulchi Freedom exercise, which the defence ministry said would run through August 28, is largely computer-simulated, but still involves 50,000 Korean and 30,000 US soldiers.

The drill plays out a full-scale invasion scenario by nuclear-armed North Korea and both Seoul and Washington insist it remains purely defensive in nature.

Pyongyang views Ulchi Freedom -- along with other annual South Korea-US drills -- as wilfully provocative and has threatened the "strongest military counter-action" should this year's exercise go ahead.

"Such large-scale joint military exercises... are little short of a declaration of a war," the North's Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of Korea, which oversees cross-border issues, said last week.

The committee specifically warned of the drill's potential for an accidental military clash that could trigger an "all-out" conflict.

Military tensions are already running high along the Korean peninsula after South Korea blamed the North for mine blasts that maimed members of a border patrol earlier this month.

The South retaliated by resuming high-decibel propaganda broadcasts across the border, using batteries of loudspeakers that had lain silent for more than a decade.

- Threats of retaliation -

North Korea has denied any involvement and, at the weekend, threatened "indiscriminate" strikes against South Korean border units unless the broadcasts are halted immediately.

According to the South's defence ministry, this year's Ulchi Freedom drill will place a particular emphasis on reconnaissance and intelligence assets to strengthen monitoring of the heavily-militarised frontier.

.. View gallery
A South Kroean soldier takes position during an anti-terror …
A South Kroean soldier takes position during an anti-terror drill as part of the annual Ulchi Freedo …

The rising tensions were expected to top the agenda of a National Security Council convened and chaired Monday morning by President Park Geun-Hye.

In a speech to mark the anniversary Saturday of the Korean peninsula's 1945 liberation from Japanese rule, Park described the landmine attack as a serious breach of the armistice that ended the 1950-53 Korean War, and vowed a tough response to any further provocation by the North.

"North Korea must wake up from its daydream that it can maintain its regime through provocations and threats ... these will only lead to isolation and destruction," Park said.

Because the 1953 armistice was never replaced by a full peace treaty, the two Koreas technically remain at war.

The 70th anniversary of liberation was celebrated by both Koreas, and there had been hopes earlier this year that the event might offer the opportunity for some diplomatic fence building.

Instead, the last few months have seen cross-border ties caught in a downward spiral, accompanied by the all-too familiar rhetoric of mutual recrimination.

The North has also targeted the US with its verbal broadsides, brandishing its nuclear arsenal with threats of retaliation over Ulchi Freedom.

The powerful National Defence Commission stressed that North Korea had moved beyond the limits of conventional warfare.

The North is now an "invincible power equipped with both latest offensive and defensive means ... including nuclear deterrence," the commission said, adding that only by dropping its "hostile" policies against North Korea could the US "ensure the security of its mainland."

View Comments (136) .

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nationalinterest.org/feature/frightening-thought-china-erodes-americas-submarine-13592

A Frightening Thought: China Erodes America's Submarine Advantage

"The PLA Navy is poised to make a major push to improve its heretofore weak ASW capabilities."

Lyle J. Goldstein
August 17, 2015

In January 2011, the cover of the Chinese naval magazine ÏÖ´ú½¢´¬ [Modern Ships], which is published by giant state-owned shipbuilding conglomerate CSIC, carried a simple and elegant headline: ¡°056À´ÁË¡± [The 056 has arrived [4]]. In an impressive display of shipbuilding muscle, Beijing has proceeded in the 4.5 years that followed in building nearly 20 of this new type of light frigate or corvette.

For an interesting comparison, the U.S. Navy has launched less than half that number of its own small surface combatant, the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) over a longer span of time. Never mind that LCS still lacks for an anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM), so it is quite clearly [5] ¡°out-sticked¡± by the Chinese variant. But what is really impressive about the Type 056 is its ability to fill in a much needed niche-capability in China¡¯s naval arsenal: the requirement for a small, cheap, versatile, rugged and well-armed patrol ship to show the flag in proximate maritime disputes. One obvious lesson from the conspicuous buildup described above is to watch the cover ofÏÖ´ú½¢´¬ [Modern Ships] carefully.

Last year, two covers of that magazine were dedicated to ¡°coming attractions¡± in naval aviation: new anti-submarine warfare (ASW) helicopters are in the pipeline and may well even enjoy prioritized development. One cover (4A) showed a modernized, ASW-optimized version, likely called ¡°Z-18F,¡± of a large workhorse of Chinese naval aviation, the Z-8. Another somewhat more shocking design gracing the cover of Modern Ships last year (2A) was designated as ¡°Z-20,¡± and seemed to be a near carbon copy of the SH-60 Sea Hawk, the frontline naval helicopter operated by the U.S. Navy in a variety of roles, including ASW.

This edition of Dragon Eye will survey some recent developments in Chinese ASW development, emphasizing the surprisingly noteworthy future roles of the two new helicopter variants mentioned above.

But returning momentarily to our theme of Modern Ships magazine covers, yet another issue (3B) from early 2014 shows an illustration of a Type 056 from the stern quarter deploying a prominent variable depth sonar (VDS) as it hunts a nearby adversary submarine. A variety of sources took note of this major design adjustment for the Type 056 with the first of these ASW-optimized light frigates, featuring the much larger aperture in its stern for the VDS, appearing in late 2013.

It is true that Beijing has been experimenting with towed arrays since the 1980s. But most new surface vessels have deployed with long linear-type passive towed arrays. The new VDS will give the 056 additional active sonar capabilities (along with the bow array) that can ¡°ping¡± more effectively from within or below thermal layers. According to the Modern Ships rendering, surface ships that ¡°ÓÃÖ÷¶¯Ä£Ê½¹¤×÷£¬ÈÃDZͧÎÞËù¶ÝÐΡ± [employ active sonar methods of operation will render submarines unable to hide]. Coupled with the possibility of new weapons, such as ¡°»ð¼ý×Ôµ¼µ¯¡±[homing depth bombs [6]] or even ¡°ÐÂÐÍ·´Ç±µ¼µ¯¡±[a new type of ASW missiles], these forces promise a much more formidable challenge. Let¡¯s not forget, moreover, that even as the Chinese Navy has been upgrading the sonars and ASW weaponry in its surface fleet, it has also been pushing ahead with an ambitious program [7] to set up fixed sonar arrays on the sea bed in its proximate waters as well.

Undoubtedly, a Chinese move toward more regularized ¡°far seas operations¡±¡ªquite visible in a variety of realms¡ªwill require a renewed emphasis on airborne ASW. Quite simply, fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft make for highly potent ASW platforms because of their speed, range, search rate and near invulnerability to submarine-launched weapons. Despite these advantages, aerial ASW has long been an Achilles heel of the Chinese Navy¡ªa fact widely acknowledged in Chinese naval circles.

A decade ago, the PLA Navy may have had as few as a couple of dozen large Z-8 helicopters, progenitor of the new Z-18F. However, production was radically increased in the 2004-07 time frame, according to the 2014 covers story in Modern Ships, indicative of a new priority for naval aviation. The same article highlights the much more prominent surface search radar on the new helicopter¡¯s chin. This radar is said to be capable of picking up submarine masts and periscopes at ranges of at least 40-70 km. A rather detailed article [8] on the Z-18F appeared in another prominent defense magazine, º½¿Õ֪ʶ [Aerospace Knowledge] in late 2014. This report seems to confirm a graphic that accompanied the Modern Ships report, which had previously suggested that the Z-18F could heft up to four ASW torpedoes¡ªa significant improvement over its predecessor, the Z-8. Perhaps some skepticism is warranted on this point given perennial difficulties with Chinese helicopter engines. The same report also suggests that the Z-18F will likely have more sonobuoy dispensers than the U.S. Navy¡¯s SH-60 Sea Hawk. The author says its size may imply that only the European EH-101 has comparable range and capabilities. According to this report, the Liaoning aircraft carrier is planned to have a complement of six Z-18Fs. More interesting still is the suggestion that each new Type 055 cruiser will carry two Z-18Fs. That may partially explain that vessel¡¯s expected large [9] displacement.

Even if the Z-18F can shoulder much of the ASW burden for China¡¯s emerging carrier task groups, there still arises a definite need for a sturdy all-purpose helicopter than can fly off the decks of China¡¯s expanding fleet of modern frigates and medium-sized destroyers (Type 052 variants). The 2014 cover article on the Z-20 confirms that the current standard bearer, the Z-9C, has proved disappointing, since it apparently is not capable of carrying all the requisite sensors and weapons. While Chinese analysts do note certain superior characteristics of the Russian Ka-28 even versus the American SH-60¡ªfor example, with respect to range¡ªthey maintain that its electronics and sensors are outdated. Thus, the claimed detection range of the Russian dipping sonar (6-8 km) is said to be half of what the Chinese Navy seeks at this point. In general, the Modern Ships cover story on the Z-20 cites the difficulty of continuously upgrading and also integrating an imported Russian helicopter into the evolving Chinese ASW system. This article is not shy about the close connection between China¡¯s Z-20 and the American Blackhawk, which after all was exported to China back in the 1980s.

The Z-20 is said to have first flown [10] back in late 2013, but the available photograph of the prototype does not clarify whether the naval variant has reached the testing stage. Curiously, neither the Z-20, nor the Z-18F, are discussed in the spring 2015 report by the Office of Naval Intelligence on ¡°The PLA Navy: New Capabilities and Missions for the [11]21 [11]st [11] Century [11].¡±

The initiatives described above should be sufficient to convince any analyst that the PLA Navy is poised to make a major push to improve its heretofore weak ASW capabilities. But there are other major fixed-wing programs including a large ASW-optimized maritime patrol aircraft called ¡°Gaoxin-6¡± that was recently profiled on the front page of the major Chinese newspaper ¹ú¼ÊÏÈÇýµ¼±¨[International Herald Leader]. Another Chinese fixed-wing program that surely has an ASW component is an on-going Chinese effort to produce the world¡¯s largest seaplanes [12]. It is, moreover, highly likely that China will follow the American lead in preparing to deploy drones of all types in the ASW fight.

The above brief survey of recent Chinese writings on ASW force development provides additional evidence to support the apparently growing notion [13] that U.S. undersea superiority could be a gradually, but steadily, fleeting advantage. An obvious policy recommendation may follow that the U.S. submarine force must be large enough that it can sustain losses in battle against improving adversary ASW capabilities. After all, U.S. submarines may well be extremely quiet, yet still vulnerable to detection by active pinging from dipping sonars deployed by helicopters. As Chinese aerial ASW improves, moreover, US submarines should perhaps be equipped with weaponry to strike back against the rapidly growing force of adversary aerial targets. For now, the United States still retains a significant advantage in undersea warfare, but Washington cannot permit superiority to result in complacency.

Lyle J. Goldstein [14] is Associate Professor in the China Maritime Studies Institute [15] (CMSI) at the U.S. Naval War College [16] in Newport, RI. The opinions expressed in this analysis are his own and do not represent the official assessments of the U.S. Navy or any other agency of the U.S. Government.

Editor¡¯s Note: The following is part ten of a new occasional series called Dragon Eye, which seeks insight and analysis from Chinese writings on world affairs. You can find all back articles in the series here [17].

Image: Flickr/DVIDSHUB [18]

Tags
China [19]America [20]submarines [21]
Topics
Security [22]
Regions
Asia [23] [3]
Source URL (retrieved on August 17, 2015): http://www.nationalinterest.org/feature/frightening-thought-china-erodes-americas-submarine-13592

Links:
[1] http://www.nationalinterest.org/feature/frightening-thought-china-erodes-americas-submarine-13592
[2] http://www.nationalinterest.org/profile/lyle-j-goldstein
[3] http://twitter.com/share
[4] http://wuxizazhi.cnki.net/Search/XDJC201101004.html
[5] http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20140724/NEWS04/307240087/LCS-conduct-test-Norwegian-missile
[6] http://cnki.hkisti.cn/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?filename=JCKX201502054&dbcode=CJFD&dbname=CJFD2015
[7] http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2014-04/wired-sound-near-seas
[8] http://hkzs.qikan.com/ArticleView.aspx?titleid=hkzs20141104
[9] http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20150701000006&cid=1101
[10] http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/833783.shtml#.UrxWD3ntmhF
[11] http://www.oni.navy.mil/Intelligence_Community/china_media/2015_PLA_NAVY_PUB_Interactive.pdf
[12] http://thediplomat.com/2015/07/conf...largest-sea-plane-for-use-in-south-china-sea/
[13] http://csbaonline.org/publications/2015/01/undersea-warfare/
[14] https://www.usnwc.edu/Academics/Faculty/Lyle-Goldstein.aspx
[15] https://www.usnwc.edu/Research---Gaming/China-Maritime-Studies-Institute.aspx
[16] https://www.usnwc.edu/
[17] http://nationalinterest.org/profile/lyle-j-goldstein
[18] https://www.flickr.com/photos/dvids/7315372288/sizes/l
[19] http://www.nationalinterest.org/tag/china
[20] http://www.nationalinterest.org/tag/america
[21] http://www.nationalinterest.org/tag/submarines
[22] http://www.nationalinterest.org/topic/security
[23] http://www.nationalinterest.org/region/asia

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.politico.eu/article/germany-ukraine-explosive-russia-war-conflict-minsk/

Germany fears escalation in “explosive” Ukraine

Kiev sees signs of a military build-up by Russia and the rebels.

By Cynthia Kroet
| 8/16/15, 3:10 PM CET
| Updated 8/16/15, 4:59 PM CET

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier is worried that the conflict in eastern Ukraine could escalate dangerously and has urged Kiev and Moscow to cooperate with ceasefire monitors, he told Bild am Sonntag in an interview published on Sunday.

Steinmeier has proposed that his Ukrainian and Russian counterparts hold talks with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in an effort to reduce tensions. Ukraine’s western allies accuse Moscow of direct involvement in the conflict in violation of a ceasefire agreement — something the Kremlin vehemently denies.

Describing the situation in eastern Ukraine as “explosive,” Steinmeier told the newspaper: “If both parties do not start to build on the peace process soon, a new military escalation could be triggered.”

The ceasefire signed in the Belarussian capital Minsk in February in the presence of the German and French leaders has failed to stop the fighting between pro-Russian separatists and Ukrainian government forces and militia.

Earlier this week, Ukraine accused the rebels of violating the ceasefire by carrying out artillery attacks near the city of Mariupol, in what Kiev has described as the most serious incident since February this year. The pro-Moscow separatists denied any involvement.


Britain’s Independent on Sunday newspaper reported that Ukrainian military authorities believe the number of Russian troops within and close to its borders has risen to more than 50,000, raising fears of a substantial escalation.

The paper said it had seen reports from the Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) estimating that almost 9,000 Russian Federation Armed Forces personnel are now based inside Ukraine, with the rest just over the border in Russia.

The newspaper put the number of armed pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine at 33,400, equipped with 400 battle tanks and about 2,000 armoured troop carriers.

On Friday, Oleksandr Turchynov, secretary of the Ukrainian defense council, said Kiev is ready to mobilize its troops if Russia launches an offensive.

“We will actively react and appropriately respond in the event of any provocations,” Turchynov said.

The Russian foreign affairs ministry said in a statement that Ukrainian forces were not cooperating.

“We are calling on the Ukrainian side to display restraint and not to violate the implementation of the Minsk Agreements on security by their irresponsible actions,” the statement said.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.politico.eu/article/turkey-relapse-90-violence-kurds-gezi-protest-pkk/

Turkey risks relapse into ’90s violence

The country is vulnerable to intercommunal tension and attacks from abroad.

By Aykan Erdemir | 8/17/15, 5:30 AM CET

A specter is haunting Turkey. Suicide bombers, assassins and an alphabet soup of terrorist organizations seem to have brought back the carnage of the 1990s. The rapid escalation of violence of the last three weeks may be puzzling for Turkey’s younger generations. For those of us who lived through the 1990s, however, it is eerily familiar.

The 1990s recall memories of Turkey’s dirty war. My generation’s everyday routine was punctuated by gruesome breaking news: the bombing of pro-Kurdish newspapers; 35 people burned alive at an Alevi religious festival; massacres by Kurdish PKK terrorists; the discovery of underground cells where radical Islamists hogtied victims to suffer a slow and painful death.

More traumatic still was the revelation that certain elements of the Turkish state were either complicit or indifferent to these crimes. During those years, Turkey painfully learned how quickly the country could be drawn into lawlessness and a culture of impunity. The backdrop of violence provides ample opportunities for vigilantes to settle intercommunal scores.

For those who remember the 1990s, it was therefore no surprise to witness two separate gun attacks targeting leaders of the minority Alevi faith in the same week. Or to learn that, earlier last month, a 20-year old ISIL suicide bomber massacred 33 volunteers at a socialist youth camp near the Syrian border, and that the PKK youth wing retaliated by killing a suspected ISIL member in Istanbul. In a country where almost 12 million young people are neither at work nor in school, youth radicalization is a recipe for disaster.

The Turkish state has never functioned well under such pressure. Recently leaked footage reminiscent of the 1990s showed Turkish special forces abusing Kurds while shouting, “We’ll show you the power of the Turk!” Many pundits justifiably fear a return to the repressive measures of those years, which included the imposition of a 15-year-long state of emergency in 13 provinces and bans on opposition media, politicians and political parties.

This time, Turkey is threatened by a different kind of violence. The brutal suppression of the 2013 Gezi Park protests underlined the government’s intolerance of non-violent dissent. The current economic slowdown and its excessive dependence on foreign capital has made the government financially vulnerable. Turkey’s fragile democracy and unstable economy could make the imminent crises even more damaging than those of the 1990s.

Increasingly isolated in foreign policy, Turkey also has to deal with a plethora of non-state threats. Ankara’s assertive Middle East policy has engrained extremism in its societal fabric. Sectarianism is on the rise, and ISIL can find fertile recruiting ground not only among Turkey’s radical Sunnis but also its 1.9 million Syrian refugees. The porous nature of the border with Syria exposes Turkey to intercommunal tension and attacks from outside the country.

Conspiracy theories

The 13-year rule of the Islamist-rooted Justice and Development Party (AKP) has taken a heavy toll. Although the AKP’s first five years in office were marked with reforms enhancing minority rights in accordance with European Union norms, pro-government media continued to circulate conspiracy theories and inculcate hate and prejudice towards the minorities. This has created an atmosphere that is as polarized as it was in the 1990s.

Last week, the governor of Istanbul delivered the eulogy at the funeral of a police chief slain by a radical Marxist group. His remarks show the alarming level of delusion at the upper echelons of Turkey’s ruling elite: Speaking to an audience including President Recep Tayyip Erdoðan and ex-president Abdullah Gül, the governor claimed, “No mastermind can prevent the continuity of our state and the prospects of our nation.”

Mastermind was a “documentary” broadcast this spring on an AKP-linked channel that offered a jumbled assortment of conspiracy theories on supposed Jewish domination of the Turkish republic, so the governor’s assertion was part of the prevailing anti-Semitic paranoia.

Government incitement has a way of infiltrating into popular consciousness. Last Tuesday, a columnist for a government mouthpiece accused the leader of the pro-Kurdish HDP party of being “the pawn of the crusader-Zionist alliance” fighting against “independent Muslim Turkey.” More recently, a professor at a prestigious university advocated the killing one HDP deputy in retaliation for each victim of the PKK. His call for violence was received with approval and an online solidarity campaign.

Unless the Turkish government and its die-hard supporters manage to step back from the rhetorical brink, they will be responsible for pushing the country into a spiral of violence that will make the 1990s look tame by comparison.

Aykan Erdemir is a former member of the Turkish parliament and a nonresident fellow at Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

 

[Housecarl]

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?473589-U.S.-Foreign-Policy-Is-Overdue-For-Some-Realism

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realcleardefense.com/art...olicy_is_overdue_for_some_realism_108368.html

August 16, 2015

U.S. Foreign Policy Is Overdue For Some Realism

By Rebeccah Heinrichs

According to a news report, Department of Defense officials admitted the United States might not be prepared to fight a sustained military conflict with Russia. This is not the first time in recent weeks Pentagon officials have raised flags about the Russia threat and the U.S. lack of preparedness to deal with it.

Last month incoming Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Dunford told Senators that Russia posed the greatest threat to the United States. Not mincing words he said, “If you want to talk about a nation that could pose an existential threat to the United States, I’d have to point to Russia…If you look at their behavior, it’s nothing short of alarming.”

General Paul Selva, slated to be the Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reinforced General Dunford’s analysis during his own confirmation hearing.

For some, the most obvious lesson here is to come up with a plan to deter Russia and make up for the readiness gaps, although these things take years and a big bump in resources to do.

But there’s a deeper, more critical lesson policymakers and voters should not miss, because the United States isn’t flat-footed only when it comes to a potential conflict with Russia. China is also challenging the United States in key areas like cybersecurity and in missile development.

Here’s the problem: since the end of the Cold War the idea of war with modern countries with highly sophisticated militaries with nuclear weapons has seemed so unlikely, if not impossible, that U.S. leaders simply haven’t given it as much thought or devoted the necessary resources to keep elements of the military force, especially the nuclear deterrent, fully modernized.

And, since the Al Qaeda attack on September 11th, 2001, most defense planning and resourcing has gone towards combatting Islamist radicals in the Middle East at the expense of defense planning for war with state actors.

President Obama’s mocking of Governor Romney’s assessment that Russia is the preeminent geopolitical foe is a well-known example. Another one was back in 2009, when Director of National Intelligence James Clapper made waves with Senators from both parties when he said Russia and China had the ability to pose mortal threats to the United States.

Why has the mere mention of a threat from Russia or China received such blowback? A big cause is the pervasive belief that modern countries have simply “evolved,” beyond those blood-thirsty eras of the past. But, although technical advancements and cultural shifts make modern countries look quite different than they once did, the nature of international relations evolves no more than the nature of human beings evolves. Some things don’t and won’t ever change. Because human nature doesn’t change, the root causes of war don’t either.

Thucydides, in studying the causes of wars, observed that people are motivated to go to war for a variety of reasons, including “honor, fear, and interest.”

As long as people remain self-interested, it is always possible they will threaten war.

This is the heart of realism. The past 6 years have shown what happens when national leaders formulate security policy based on an idealistic view of people, countries, and international relations.

When Russia invaded Ukraine, Secretary Kerry remarked, “You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text,” as though Secretary Kerry really believes that the 21st century ushered in a new era in which land-grabs are simply inconceivable. If Russia believes the net result of annexing Crimea is a boost in national pride, an increase in power, and instills fear in the NATO alliance of which Russia has stated is its number one foe, why wouldn’t it?

Recall another head-scratcher, this one by President Obama in his first U.N. address. He said, “No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation.” They can’t? It sure is a pleasant thought—and a quick glance at the global state of affairs shows it has absolutely no basis in reality, and anyone who holds this view should be denied the responsibility of safeguarding the American people.

Now during the nuclear age the stakes have never been higher. American policymakers and strategists must hold a realistic view of people and nations, and return to thinking seriously about deterrence.

In 2009 President Obama laid out his “Prague Agenda” that called for steps that would bring the world down a path to zero nuclear weapons. He proclaimed, “Just as we stood for freedom in the 20th century, we must stand together for the right of people everywhere to live free from fear in the 21st century.”

The Prague Agenda is rooted in idealism. It is rooted in the false premises that countries (and therefore, people) are basically good and deserving of equal treatment, and that arms control, not war or the fear of war, keeps nations in place. One can look to the Prague Agenda for what is behind many of the Obama administration’s foreign policy blunders.

For instance, it is what is behind the Iran Deal. In the President’s Prague Speech he said that Iran, seemingly just by way of existing, has a “rightful place in the community of nations, politically and economically.” All evidence suggests the entire Iran Deal rests on the belief that despite Iran’s Islamist inclinations and clear objective to become the preeminent power in the Middle East, it will become a beacon of pluralism and human flourishing once flushed with cash and forgiven for its past (and current and ongoing) transgressions.

The Prague Agenda is also what is behind the New START Treaty with Russia, which will further reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Indeed, since the Cold War, the U.S. has cut the arsenal, ceased to test it, and failed to adequately modernize it. In his speech President Obama said the United States would seek to further “reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy” and persuade others to do the same-- despite it being in their interest to do the opposite.

This brings us to our modern dilemma that Pentagon leaders are now trying to grapple with. Russia has invaded a sovereign nation, shown blatant disregard for agreements and treaties, moved nuclear weapons front and center in its military strategy, and has even threatened to employ nuclear weapons.

China is also becoming more aggressively expansionist and is in the midst of undergoing its own nuclear and missile modernization program.

Despite the steps President Obama and his Administration took to implement the Prague Agenda, by the time his term expires, there will be more for idealists to do should another idealist enter the White House.

Another idealist might continue to elevate arms control above resourcing the military, might seek to further cut the U.S. nuclear deterrent, continue to delay the promised modernization of all three legs of the nuclear triad, seek to ratify the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty, and continue to prohibit the United States from even the possibility of developing new nuclear weapons necessary for maintaining a credible force.

Meanwhile, Russia, China, Iran, North Korea--- regimes with values very different with those of the United States---will be motivated by “honor, fear, and interest” just as rulers have since the beginning of time. They will pursue military capabilities and strategies that will directly conflict with those of the United States.

What the United States needs in power are realists who understand that given human nature war is always possible and we better earnestly seek to deter the most dangerous kind and prepare to win should deterrence fail.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2015/08/16/putins_pivot_to_africa_108366.html

August 16, 2015

Putin's Pivot To Africa

By Eugene Steinberg

From 1961 to 1992, one of Moscow’s most prestigious schools bore the name of Patrice Lumumba, the Soviet-supported Congolese independence leader brutally executed in 1961. Patrice Lumumba University recruited and educated generations of foreign leaders, especially African leaders, and was just one of the many ways in which the Soviet Union cultivated ties with Africa. Then with the fall of the Soviet Union, after years of pouring money, arms, and manpower into left-leaning anticolonial movements, Russia’s presence in Africa, and Lumumba University, nearly disappeared overnight. But today, two decades later, Russia is once again working to establish a foothold on the continent.

Russia’s interests in Africa are manifold. As economic sanctions constrict its trade with the West, Africa is becoming an increasingly attractive investment opportunity. At the same time, Africa’s fifty-four countries represent a political opportunity to relieve Russia’s isolation and build support for its actions in the UN. Finally, Russia’s prominence in Africa lends credibility to its reassertion of world power status. The effectiveness of Russia’s re-engagement policy is still in question, but its progress is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

According to the Atlantic Center’s Africa Center Director J. Peter Pham, between 2000 and 2012, Russia’s trade with Africa increased ten times over. Russia has invested heavily in raw resource megaprojects, signing a $4 billion deal with Uganda in February to build and operate a crude oil refinery and $3 billion deal with Zimbabwe to develop a platinum mine.

Some of its trade has been more overtly political. Russia is a major supplier of arms to both North and sub-Saharan Africa. Russian arms are an increasingly popular alternative to U.S. weaponry, which still dominates the market despite higher monetary and political costs. When the United States rejected a Nigerian request for Cobra attack helicopters in 2014 for instance, Nigeria responded by cancelling a U.S. military training program to fight Boko Haram and investing in Russian aircraft. Now, Russia trains Nigerian Special Forces. The true extent of Russian security deals is difficult to measure because their opaqueness. In at least one case, an African country’s civilian intelligence agency was forced to spy on its own military counterpart and Russia just to figure out what kind of surveillance system they had purchased for $100 million.

There are still some transparent indicators of Russian military presence in Africa that speak to the scale of Russia’s commitment. As Pham has noted, Russian soldiers involved in peacekeeping operations in Africa surpass those of France, the United Kingdom, and the United States combined.

Russia’s outreach goes further than financial and military bonds. Russian leaders visiting Africa capitalize on a narrative that emphasizes their historical support for African independence. At a time when the United States designated Nelson Mandela a terrorist for fear of his socialist sympathies, the Soviet Union actively trained and armed the African National Congress, now the ruling party of South Africa, to fight apartheid. Soviet support helped fuel liberation struggles across Africa. At the same time, Russia today pays little attention to undemocratic practices and human rights abuses that often hinder U.S. efforts on the continent. This strategy of combining historical moralism with present-day moral relativism has had some limited success. Although the UN General Assembly voted to condemn Russian intervention in Ukraine by a large margin, two of the ten countries that voted with Russia were African, while a large portion of the rest of Africa abstained.

Despite formidable investments in Africa, Russia is still eclipsed by the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and China. Unlike those countries however, Russia’s own abundance of natural resources may convince it to focus more on exporting arms. These weapons seem as likely to enforce stability and repress militants, as they are to fall into the wrong hands and spread instability. Russia’s deteriorating economic situation, and more pressing concerns on its borders, may mean the current relationship won’t be sustainable. Nevertheless, the current trend seems toward greater involvement, which makes Russia an important player in any long-term view of U.S. policy in Africa.


This article originally appeared at The Council on Foreign Relations blog.

 

[Housecarl]

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?473590-Global-disarray-as-institutions-falter

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/657480/global-disarray-as-institutions-falter

Global disarray as institutions falter

Thitinan Pongsudhirak; An associate professor at Chulalongkorn University
17 Aug 2015 at 05:10

The international system as we know it is unravelling. Rules and institutions that were set up seven decades ago no longer hold the same weight and authority as they used to. As we grapple with an exacerbating global disorder, established powers and players and old rules and institutions need to be revamped and reinvented to accommodate new realities. Otherwise global tensions will mount, most probably accompanied by confrontation and conflict.

To be sure, the world has never been peaceful and smooth. It has always had problems because we don't have a world government that can govern member states and ensure that they abide by the same set of rules. We have a system of nation states which is organised by the principle of "every state for itself". It has been like that for a long time going back to the mid-17th Century. So with the world being fundamentally unruly, how do we know we have disorder?

Past global order came from empire and hegemony, often after cleansing conflicts. My favourite military general is Hannibal, an ingenious commander and strategist who took the battle to Rome. But Hannibal ultimately lost. After the Second Punic War in 201 BC, Rome's success took off. Carthage was later razed to the ground, and Rome's authority was unchallenged for several hundred years. The Romans imposed a socio-economic and political order with authority and rules that their dominions obeyed.

From 1588 onwards, Great Britain ruled the world through control of the seas. As the saying went, "the sun never set on British soil". So the British had a certain kind of system that provided order and peace. Then we have, of course, the Americans. The American era began at the end of the Spanish-American War in 1898, but maybe could have spanned as far back as the 1840s when it took over parts of Mexico. They came up very fast, and after World War II, they were the top dog. They had a certain kind of hegemonic stability that gave us some peace and order. That now is unravelling. It is being contested. We are seeing early signs of the disorder as a consequence.

The contemporary world order in the 20th Century hinged on international rules and institutions that were established at Bretton Woods around the end of World War II, and became operational throughout the Cold War. We no longer know what to expect after the Cold War. What will happen in the next 20-30 years will determine the shape of things to come thereafter. We may now just be in year 3. If we live long enough we might be able to see how things unfold, but otherwise we will just have to guess with some guiding intuition.

How do we know that we have disorder?

Let's looks at the global trading system. It is in disarray. We have had eight multilateral trade negotiation rounds. These rounds are becoming less frequent and taking longer to complete. From Dillon to Kennedy to Tokyo to Uruguay, each has taken longer to finalise. Doha after 15 years has been empty, and it may be finished. So the global trading system based on multilateral trade negotiations in different rounds has run its course. Issues are also becoming more complicated in the world trading system. Non-tariff barriers (NTBs), intellectual property, rules of origin, data protection on patents, and market access, among others have emerged as the thorniest. It has been two decades since we have had a completed round and Doha is not going to complete.

As a result, we have seen a proliferation of preferential trade agreements. There have been myriad bilateral FTAs. Now there is the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), a 12-member liberalising free trade vehicle that many in Southeast Asia would say has been hijacked by the Americans. It is not what it started out as a small free-trade scheme among four small economies, namely Chile, New Zealand, Brunei and Singapore. It has not become the main arm of US trade policy. These samples suggest that the global trading system is not what it used to be.

Let's look at finance. Global finance is like a casino. I once studied with a teacher who had written a book in the 1980s called "Casino Capitalism". She was ahead of her time. We are really making bets on the international financial system. Hedge funds and various other funds are really ungovernable. We are now seeing more frequent global financial crises. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is no longer universally accepted as the lender of last resort. When we become delinquent and bankrupt, someone ultimately has to lend us the money; otherwise we're not going to make it. We can reduce spending, try to earn more, postpone repayment or issue more money, but in the end someone needs to bail us out.

The IMF is not seen as the acceptable vehicle anymore because there have been so many double standards. We can see it in America's Global Financial Crisis when they propped up their financial sector through quantitative easing, pumping money into the system and keeping the dollar weak. The European Union is in a similar patch, as the Eurozone Crisis is being bailed out by the European Central Bank, IMF and the EU itself. And the Europeans are also engaging in QEs. Viewed from Asia, this seems like a double standard.

We had a ravaging, devastating financial crisis in 1997-1998 which really blew up into an economic crisis, but we weren't able to use the same strategies to get out of it as Europe and America have. It doesn't seem fair. There are, unsurprisingly, some other competing vehicles that have now come up because the established and existing institutions are no longer accepted, such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), which China has spearheaded, as well as the BRICS Bank, a new development bank among Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. So in global finance, the world is not what it used to be after WWII; the rules and institutions are no longer accepted. We need new, recalibrated institutions, but we haven't quite got them yet.

Let's look at other areas. We can have a different lecture on the UN system, its costly and unaccountable bureaucracy, and the structure of the UNSC with its five permanent and 10 rotational countries. The five permanent members with veto power are the countries who got there first. They were the early movers at the outset, and they have the ability to block any outcome. Russia did so recently against a resolution on the Malaysian Airlines flight MH17, which was most certainly shot down by Ukrainian rebels with Russian assistance. The UN system does not reflect real world realities anymore; we have Brazil, Indonesia, India, Germany and Japan which are worthy of a Permanent Five membership. The UN system has run its course, but it will probably take us another 20 years to find that out.

Racial tensions

Let's look at the established states in distress. First, the United States. It is in relative decline. We don't want to go into that too much because there is a whole lot of literature we can read and can go into long debates about what the decline means. But compared to its own past and former global role, reach and resources, it is no longer the same. The Americans are heavily indebted. Their biggest creditor is China.

They have no internal peace, wrecked by intractable racial tensions. There are regular shootings, while the Constitution and Bill of Rights mandate the freedom to bear guns and thereby enable a gun culture which feeds the violence and economic problems. There is structural gridlock making it very difficult to get anything done. Granted, the US is still second-to-none when it comes to military prowess, but in other areas they are weighed down by debt and dysfunction. The military arm, their aircraft carriers and technology still have a lot to command, but overall the US is not what it used to be.

The European Union has really peaked and plateaued since the Maastricht Treaty in 1993. I think Maastricht was a good ending for them. Beyond Maastricht they have come to this complete Union with a single currency, which has only been done successfully by one other country in modern times, namely the US. If we look at the US before the Civil War, the southern and northern states had different currencies and different governments, and they fought and killed each other in the 1860s, with a higher death toll than other US-related wars combined, to see which system would prevail. It took such a catharsis for them to have a complete political-economic community, with some state rights and autonomy and an overarching federal government.

Now, the Europeans are in between. They haven't gone all the way. I think, however, that they went a step too far with the euro. It shows the perils of a monetary union with fiscal sovereignty. When we have a monetary union. we cede monetary sovereignty to the ECB. Yet the Eurozone members have the ability to run their own budgets. The incompatibility we're seeing through Greece -- unless it is lucky by receiving generous debt relief -- may be just the tip of the iceberg. There is a problematic imbalance between welfare, democracy and capitalism, broadly defined.

Maybe New Zealand is a good example. There is good relationship with and recognition of the Maori culture. There is a sensible pension system, which is not means tested and assumes that a citizen needs self-responsibility if he or she wants a comfortable life after retirement. But if a person has not looked after himself during work years, he or she can still have just enough money to subsist. That kind of state-citizen balance is fair and easier to sustain.

In some Eurozone countries, on the other hand, you can retire at 57. Welfare is easy to overspend on because once we introduce something it is very difficult to withdraw. If we don't tax enough and don't find enough income, we're going to have a gap. Inevitably there will be a deficit and if it's not addressed it will stack up!

The Euro debate can be convoluted but also simple. If we spend more than we earn, we will be in deficit. Sure, we have to take care of people and create a safety net but some of the spending has to be for productivity gains and longer-term investment for some value. Otherwise we will go into debt and the system will not work. I think this will afflict the Europeans for some time. We will see some regression of European integration.

Normally for the Europeans, when they have a problem, their solution is "more integration". This time I don't think that will happen because it means that across countries they will have to subsidise others, and they don't have enough of a common bond and identity to do so. The Americans can do it, but I don't think the Europeans can do it. They have come a very long way but they have peaked and we are likely to see some reversal.

The Middle East also has run a course over a century of the Sykes-Picot Agreement. In 1916 the British and French drew straight lines across a map of the region after the Ottoman Empire fell, and it worked for a long while. They also gave the Jewish people in the Balfour Declaration some promises which eventually became Israel. So what we're seeing in the Middle East now is a spectacular but also a nasty, brutish, unravelling of what used to constitute the Sykes-Picot Agreement. The culmination of the breakdown of Sykes-Picot was the Arab Spring and its continuing manifestations.

The future will likely be a reversion to the pre-Ottoman past. We will see more tribal outcomes. The modern Middle East was an imperial European imposition of tribal fiefdoms. We have got the Hashemites in Jordan and the Alawites in Syria, for example.

But that composition and configuration are no longer tenable. So we will see lasting, protracted war and conflict with intensifying Islamist yearnings for the return of a glorious caliphate that they had a thousand years ago. The Middle East is a big mess demanding our vigilance.

Critical challenges

In Asia, China and India are on the rise and a revanchist Russia poses critical challenges for the global system. Southeast Asia is also up-and-coming, while Japan remains in the thick of things. Asia in the 1950s-70s was not like it is today. Now it is more contested, there are territorial disputes in the East China Sea and in the South China Sea.

The resurgence of ethno-nationalism is very conspicuous. There are also a host of ethno-nationalist insurgencies in the Philippines, Myanmar, southern Thailand, and parts of Indonesia.

We are also seeing domestic polarisation from economic development, income disparity, democratisation and globalisation (Thailand, Myanmar and Malaysia for example). Asia is also messier than it used to be.

Looking at different regions and the global trade and financial systems, they're all changing and unravelling. What does this mean? When there is tension and contest, the status quo no longer holds. There are peoples and states, even non-states, that want to change the status quo. For them that status quo is no longer acceptable. So disorder prevails.

Some revisionism emerges; some people say that the Chinese are revisionist and want to change the status quo in their own eyes, maybe Russia as well. We are seeing a system that is degenerating increasingly into a kind of "self-help".

When we have order and peace, there is collaboration, coordination, cooperation and adherence to common rules and institutions. When it becomes unilateral and driven by self-help, we have more disorder. To restore order short of a cathartic war, the older and more established peoples and states have to make more space for others who are coming up.

The up-and-coming also must realise that rules and realities cannot be imposed but must be worked out collectively. Otherwise it will be in no one's interest to have more tension and conflict around the globe.


Thitinan Pongsudhirak is on leave from Chulalongkorn University. He is the Sir Howard Kippenberger chairman at the Centre for Strategic Studies, Victoria University, Wellington. The article is first of a two-part series that is drawn from the Kippenberger Lecture 2015. The concluding article will appear on Friday.

 

[vestige]

Looks like everything is proceeding on schedule.
bump

 

[doctor_fungcool]

Looks like everything is proceeding on schedule.
bump

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150817/ml--yemen-9a8ec61a89.html

Yemen border missile attack kills 2 Saudi soldiers

Aug 17, 9:55 AM (ET)

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) — The Saudi military says two soldiers have been killed along the border by a missile fired from inside Yemen.

The statement released Monday says the soldiers were killed in the Saudi border region of Jizan. Saudi Arabia has been leading a coalition of Arab countries in airstrikes against Shiite rebels and their allies in Yemen since March.

Several dozen Saudi soldiers have been killed in border attacks since the airstrikes began, mostly by missiles launched by the Houthi rebels and their allies. The United Nations says health facilities in Yemen have reported more than 4,000 conflict-related deaths since the coalition began airstrikes.

The Houthis overran Yemen's capital and other cities last year, forcing the country's Saudi and U.S.-backed President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi into exile in Saudi Arabia.

---

This story has been corrected to show that the statement was released Monday, not Tuesday.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150817/eu--migrants-syrian_fighter-f08960fe5d.html

Syrian rebel leader seeks Europe - fleeing gov't and jihadis
Aug 17, 12:36 PM (ET)

(AP) In this photo taken on Saturday, Aug. 15, 2015, Syrian former rebel commander Laith...
Full Image

KOS, Greece (AP) — In the jostling chaos of a crammed refugee center, one man tries to introduce order — forming migrants into lines and collecting names for overwhelmed Greek police clerks.

Laith Al Saleh, a plasterer from Aleppo, stands out from the crowd waiting in the sweltering August heat, and it's not just his battle-scarred face that sets him apart. He is accustomed to being in command — he led a 700-strong rebel unit in Syria's civil war — and he is now keen to help others dealing with exile.

Al Saleh, 30, had a home, a wife and a normal life, before the start of the fighting that has claimed more than 250,000 lives and displaced up to a third of Syria's population. Now, he's one of the tens of thousands of Syrian men, women and children who risk drowning to be smuggled into Greece by sea on frail, crammed dinghies, paying up to thousands of dollars for the service.

At least 135,000 people — mostly Syrians — have crossed over from Turkey this year, more than the total for all of 2014 and 2013 together.

(AP) In this photo taken on Thursday, Aug. 13, 2015, Syrian former rebel commander Laith...
Full Image

None want to claim asylum in financially broken Greece, which can hardly provide for its own destitute. Their target destinations are wealthier parts of the European Union such as Germany, The Netherlands and Sweden, all only reachable after a further series of illegal border crossings, involving more danger, expense, humiliation and hardship.

"The situation in Syria is very bad, war is eating everything," Al Saleh told The Associated Press in an interview on Kos. "(The) government destroy everything, buildings, people, they kill children, women — there are no safe areas in Syria."

The eastern Greek island is the first milestone on an odyssey that he hopes will end in The Netherlands, where a successful asylum application would allow his family to join him legally — without having to follow the same arduous path.

An intense, wiry man with short-cut hair, Al Saleh speaks slowly as he searches for the right words in English.

"Everyone wants to leave Syria," he said. "My (home) is the most dangerous city in the world. About 70 percent of the city is destroyed ... In Syria, Al Qaeda want me, Daesh (the Islamic State extremist group), the government — I fought them all. I don't care. Some people are afraid. I'm not."

(AP) In this photo taken on Saturday, Aug. 15, 2015, Syrian former rebel commander Laith...
Full Image

As a seasoned fighter, Al Saleh moves fast. He clandestinely crossed Syria's porous border with Turkey, walking for several hours, proceeded by bus to the coastal city of Bodrum, opposite Kos, and got on the first boat he could find.

He reached Kos at the crack of dawn on Aug. 5, after a four-hour journey. The rubber boat held dozens of people swaddled in life-vests — a new money-crop in Bodrum — and clutching inflated inner tubes to keep afloat in case of sinking. Smugglers charged him $1,000 for the berth.

Despite a brief alarm when the engine failed, the migrants made it ashore safely and walked the 4 to 5 kilometers (2 to 3 miles) to the main town of Kos, a tourist playground where visitors commonly party to dawn, and spend the days on the very beaches where the refugee boats make landfall.

There, they suffered hardship and delay, as authorities on the island found themselves unprepared for the influx. Many locals vented anger at the crowds of refugees sleeping rough in parks and public spaces at the height of the key tourist season.

"The people here hate us," Al Saleh said of his ten days waiting for temporary travel documents on the eastern Aegean Sea island. "I don't know why. We come here on our way, not to stay here ... We slept on the ground in the parks, in the stadium, nobody helped us to get a place to sleep, water or food. On the first day I went to a supermarket to buy food but they threw me out."

(AP) In this photo taken on Saturday, Aug. 15, 2015, Syrian former rebel commander Laith...
Full Image

Kos held a more sinister encounter for him — a man he recognized as a Syrian enemy. "Two days ago, I saw a sniper for the government forces," he said. "I didn't talk to him, but I am still very angry."

On Aug. 15, clean and rested after a couple of days in a small hotel with another 25 paying Syrian guests, Al Saleh took a last photo with his friends before boarding an Athens-bound ferry. The very next day, he was travelling through Macedonia, on a packed train that he could only board through a window.

"I was so tired and upset at what I found (in Macedonia) that I wanted to cry," he said, speaking to The AP by phone.

Al Saleh said he has a cousin in The Netherlands, a former senior officer in the Syrian army who defected to the rebels before being badly injured.

"When I get to Holland I will get my papers and bring my family," he said. "Everything I do for them, for my wife and 3-year-old son. I hope they will be able to join me, after two or three months."

Syria's conflict began in March 2011, with mostly peaceful protests against the authoritarian regime, but later escalated into a full-scale civil war after a massive government crackdown.

Al Saleh joined the Free Syrian Army, the moderate, Western-backed forces opposing President Bashar Assad — but also fighting the Islamic State group and the Al-Qaeda affiliated Nusra Front.

"It's hard to take up weapons and fight, but we want freedom," he said. "When I started fighting my son was 28 days old. Sometimes, he couldn't remember me because I was away fighting. He didn't call me papa, he called me by my name," Laith — Arabic for lion.

Al Saleh's home was destroyed in the fighting and he was injured twice, seeing action in Aleppo and the Kurdish border town of Kobani, and rising to command a unit of 700 men.

"In the first month of revolution, I was injured in the head," he said. "I stayed in my house about one month. After that, I came back to fight, and after a year I was wounded again, a government airplane shot a rocket at me."

The missile missed him by two meters (about 6 feet.) But it blew up his car, killed four people and buried Al Saleh in rubble. He was dug out by civil protection volunteers. After playing the video on his mobile phone, he has a startling thought — musing about a possible return to the fight in Syria.

"Everything in Syria is beautiful. It is destroyed but it is beautiful for me. Our streets our buildings, my friends ... everything is beautiful in Syria," he said. "Maybe I will come back after my family is in Holland. I can't leave my country, I have a name in my country. I can't lose it. My friends are still fighting there."

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150817/lt--mexico-missing_students-9b1ae86167.html

Experts report on 43 disappeared students in Mexico

Aug 17, 4:50 PM (ET)

MEXICO CITY (AP) — Mexican authorities did not notify families of 43 college students who disappeared after a clash with police that some of the young men's clothing was discovered shortly after they went missing, a group of independent experts said Monday.

The Interdisciplinary Group of Independent Experts also reported that security videos containing visual evidence may have been destroyed.

The group said it will issue a final report on Sept. 6, but wants its investigative mandate extended beyond that date.

The 43 students from the Rural Normal Ayotzinapa teachers college disappeared last September in the nearby city of Iguala, in the southern state of Guerrero.

Relatives have criticized prosecutors, who concluded the students were turned over to a drug gang, which killed them and incinerated their bodies.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.......

For link see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.ibtimes.com/will-israel-...rs-israeli-defense-forces-train-golan-2056137

Will Israel Invade Syria? Amid Rocket Attack Fears, Israeli Defense Forces Train In Golan Heights

By Jess McHugh †y@McHughJess ‰Òj.mchugh@ibtimes.com on August 17 2015 8:19 AM EDT

The Israeli army has begun preparing for a possible ground invasion of Syria, Israel's Channel 2 news reported Sunday. The Israeli military began large division-scale training in the occupied Golan Heights over the weekend, preparing for how Israel would react if attacked by rocket fire from Islamic State group militants in Syria.

The group also known as ISIS has taken over vast swaths of Iraq and Syria as Syria has been devastated by a civil war between President Bashar Assad's regime and various rebel groups. The group is trying to establish a theocratic Sunni Islamic caliphate across the region.

Exercises in the Golan Heights, occupied by Israel since 1967, in preparation for a possible ISIS attack also include defense against chemical weapons, given ISIS' reported stockpile of chemical weapons. Israeli defense officials have said the odds of a chemical attack by ISIS on Israel are very low, though they want to be prepared for anything

New reports of chemical attacks by ISIS began appearing Thursday after Kurdish fighters returning from an artillery barrage in the village of Sultan Abdullah, south of Mosul, Iraq, showed symptoms consistent with the use of mustard gas. The chemical, made infamous in World War I, is a blister agent that works by liquefying the skin.

Israel has been targeting ISIS through airstrikes across the Syrian border since April. The offensive being prepared in the Golan would be the first Israeli ground invasion in the fight against ISIS.

Israeli military officials said that while the border area is relatively quiet, that could change very quickly and they want to be prepared for all possibilities. Israeli authorities estimate that near the demarcation line with Syria in the Golan Heights there are hundreds of militants of Hezbollah, a U.S.-designated terror group that is allied with the Assad regime and Iran.


Related

‰ê Israel's Revenge Airstrikes
‰ê ISIS Sinai Branch Skilled, Deadly And Enigmatic: Israeli Defense Official

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realclearworld.com/artic...s_exports_could_boost_its_proxies_111375.html

August 17, 2015

How Iran's Revived Weapons Exports Could Boost Its Proxies

By Farzin Nadimi
Policywatch 2471

Given Tehran's noncompliant track record and the UN Security Council's imperfect arms restrictions, the nuclear deal could allow Iran to offer its allies a growing range of weapons systems designed to increase survivability and lethality in asymmetric warfare scenarios.

The nuclear deal will open up opportunities for Iran to export arms, though exactly when and under what conditions is a matter of dispute. This raises the question of how the upsurge in arms exports could affect the Islamic Republic's allies and proxies in the Middle East and beyond. In the past, UN Security Council resolutions have done little to prevent Iranian arms deals; in February 2014, for example, Tehran signed a $195 million agreement to sell arms and ammunition to Iraq, in clear violation of Resolution 1747 (2007). It is therefore important to assess what types of weapons Iran might export and to whom -- whether it decides to exploit gaps in Resolution 2231 (the Security Council document approving the nuclear deal and extending the arms embargo), flout the UN entirely, or simply wait until sanctions and other restrictions are lifted in the coming months and years.

A SIZEABLE INDUSTRY

Iran's military-industrial complex has been growing rapidly since the mid-1990s. Today, it reportedly exports weapons to fifty-seven countries, many in conflict areas, in violation of UNSCR 1747. According to the arms-transfer database maintained by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Iran exported at least $200 million worth of arms and ammunitions between 2010 and 2014; the real figure is probably much higher and is expected to rise even further as various restrictions are relaxed and eventually lifted. Iran's traditional arms customers are believed to be Middle Eastern, African, and South American countries, but its market share may grow gradually in emerging markets if it can keep offering cheap, reliable weapons.

For obvious reasons, Iran closely guards its annual military export figures and customer identities, and very little is reported about them. Yet the Islamic Republic has been identified as a major exporter in most available databases, and ten separate independent investigations have found Iranian weapons and ammunition in service with a variety of nonstate entities, including foreign-backed insurgents, rebel forces, Islamist armed groups, and warring civilian communities in Cote d'Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea, Kenya, Niger, Nigeria, South Sudan, Sudan, and Uganda, not to mention primary beneficiaries such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iraqi Shiite militias. While encouraging Tehran to disclose details of its arms exports once international sanctions are lifted would be ideal, there is no guarantee that it would comply.

Iranian military equipment suitable for regional proxies and other customers includes but is not limited to small arms and ammunition, explosively formed penetrators (EFPs), communications equipment, night-vision goggles, thermal scopes, high-power sniper rifles, long-range mortars, man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS), and artillery rockets. A more detailed review of this product list reveals major potential threats to regional security if such equipment ends up in the wrong hands -- such as terrorist and extremist groups in the Middle East, West Asia, and Africa -- once Iran is allowed to more freely export its arms.

MISSILES AND ROCKETS

Iran currently produces advanced antitank guided missiles, some of which have been used in conflicts in Lebanon and Gaza. Yet its newest missiles and guided projectiles have more advanced tandem warheads and guidance systems, making them more lethal against up-armored vehicles and even low-flying helicopters. These include an increasing array of electro-optical and laser-guided missile systems such as the Sadid (which appears to be based on the Israeli Spike), Tondar, Qaem, Dehlaviyeh, and Toufan-5 (a copy of the American TOW-2A), with 4-5 km maximum range. These missiles can be difficult to counter if used effectively. Iran has also begun manufacturing its own version of the versatile RPG-29 rocket-propelled grenade, used during Hezbollah's 2006 war with Israel. Named "Ghadir" in Iran, this weapon uses either a thermobaric or armor-piercing warhead and has a range of 500 meters.

Also manufactured in Iran are local versions of the Chinese QW-1 and QW-1M MANPADS, which go by the names Misaq-1 and -2 and are capable of quickly engaging aerial targets flying up to 4,000 meters high from a range of 5 km. Iran can offer even more in terms of mobile guided antiaircraft defense. The so-called "Herz-e-Nohom" is a relatively compact radar and electro-optically guided mobile air-defense system mounted on a medium truck chassis and capable of operating in densely populated urban areas. Such systems can set up air-defense ambushes and engage low-flying aircraft as far away as 10 km. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the army are also attempting to develop three rapid-fire Gatling guns -- the three-barrel 23 mm Assefeh, and the six-barrel 7.62 mm Akhgar and 12.7 mm Moharam and Nasir -- to shoot down cruise missiles. Obviously some of these are just research projects, but others could eventually end up in militant hands somewhere in the Middle East. Iranian defense officials are very hopeful that they can export their indigenously developed air-defense systems in the coming years once sanctions are lifted.

Mortars can also be very useful in urban warfare and other asymmetric environments, and they are not covered by the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or UNSCR 2231. In addition to smaller versions, Iran manufactures the 120 mm Razm and 160 mm Vafa mortars with claimed ranges in excess of 16 and 20 km respectively. If true, this is a formidable capability for mortar systems; compared to field artillery, mortars are easier to move and operate from concealed positions, making them suitable for asymmetric scenarios.

Iran also famously produces and proliferates the Fajr family of artillery rockets. Iranian rockets are spreading all over the world in both legal and illicit ways, according to the Geneva-based Small Arms Survey. Iranian military leaders have already spoken about supplying friendly countries and "resistance movements" with rocket manufacturing techniques that use local materials and tooling. For example, recent reports from Yemen suggest that Houthi forces have produced and used their own Shooting Star-1 and -2 rockets with claimed specifications similar to the Iranian Fajr-3 and -5.The Fajr-3 has a range of 43 km, and its 85 kg warhead can cause considerable damage to a radius of 50 meters. The larger Fajr-5 can reach 75 km with its 178 kg warhead; Iran has also tested a newer two-stage version with a range of 180 km and a destructive radius of 100 meters, as well as a guided version resembling a miniaturized Fateh-110.

Other widely exported Iranian rockets are the shorter and very flexible 240 mm and 333 mm Falaq-1 and -2, which can be fired from small pickup trucks against targets up to 10 km away. These rockets have been seen in widespread use by Iranian-backed militias in Iraq and Syria.

The most worrisome short-range missile system, though, could be the fourth-generation Fateh-110D1, which can deliver a 750 kg warhead up to 300 km with better accuracy than Iran's other missiles and can be fired from multiple launchers. This missile has been seen in action in Syria; moreover, despite substantial Israeli interdiction efforts, some reports indicate that several Fateh-110s (or electro-optical-guided or anti-radar derivatives) may have already reached Hezbollah territory in Lebanon. If these reports are true, and if Fateh and its derivatives can indeed deliver on their promise, they open up a whole new range of options to Hezbollah and other operators. For example, IRGC commanders predicted two years ago that the "resistance" missiles would soon achieve a range of 400 km and pinpoint accuracy.

SNIPER RIFLES

One line of products that Iran finds very promising -- and which would be very dangerous in the wrong hands -- is high-power sniper rifles. A string of recent unveilings highlight this trend, including the 12.7 mm AM50, 14.5 mm Shaher, 20 mm Arash, and 23 mm Baher anti-materiel sniper rifles with effective ranges approaching 1,200, 3,000, 1,800, and 4,000 meters respectively. When used by a trained operator, these weapons can bring down a low-flying helicopter by knocking out its powertrain or other sensitive parts using special armor-piercing ammunition developed in Iran. The AM50 (a copy of the Austrian Steyr HS .50) has been seen in the hands of Syrian and Iraqi government forces and militia, as well as Hamas militants.

These are not the only weapons that Iranians claim they have developed to counter helicopters. They also recently showed the J-AHM "anti-helicopter" fragmentation jumping mine, which can be controlled from as far away as 5 km with an effective radius of 50 meters. The Sayad anti-helicopter cluster mine and Remit remotely controlled roadside bomb are similar products whose development was based on Iranian operational experience in Iraq.

DRONES

Iranian unmanned aerial vehicles have been proliferating across the Middle East at an alarming rate. Hezbollah has been operating Iranian attack and reconnaissance drones for years; the group is also reportedly running its own production line. Hamas has fashioned its own drones as well, probably with technical help from Iran.

Yet Iranian drones face increasing competition from Chinese models. A recent video released by the Iraqi Shiite militia Kataib Hezbollah showed what appeared to be a strike against an ISIS target using a Chinese CH-4 armed drone. Nigeria is also known to have deployed cheap armed Chinese drones. The lifting of sanctions will allow Iran to confront such competition head on, as in South America where it has already sold Mohajer drones to Venezuela and Ecuador.

ELECTRONICS

Defense electronics is another area where Iran has made noticeable advances. Some of the products made by the conglomerate Iran/Shiraz Electronics Industries (now desanctioned by the JCPOA) have already found their way to Tehran's Hezbollah and Syrian allies, but many more customers might be interested when sanctions are lifted. Equipment such as portable frequency-hopping radios with encryption capability, data terminals, cellular and fiber-optic networks, laser range finders, thermal cameras, and night-vision goggles can all contribute greatly to the effectiveness and lethality of asymmetric operations.

Iran will almost certainly offer its proxies cheap radars such as the IRGC's Tareq man-portable short-range surveillance radar (which has a range of 8 km against helicopters and vehicles and 4.5 km for humans), or vehicle-mounted combined passive/active electro-optical and radar surveillance and targeting systems with ranges of up to 50 km. The 2006 Lebanon war also showed Hezbollah's Iranian mentors the value of automation, so one can expect to see a trend of automated antiaircraft and antipersonnel guns, armed drones, and remote-controlled exploding boats coming out of Iran's development bureaus in the future, gradually replacing young, martyrdom-seeking zealots.

CONCLUSION

As shown above, Iran can offer proxy groups and third-world countries a wide range of force multipliers designed to increase survivability and lethality in asymmetric warfare scenarios, especially since most of these systems are not even covered by UNSCR 2231. The lifting of sanctions will also enable Iranian firms to more easily obtain the critical components and materials needed to develop even more effective systems.

The international community should therefore encourage Tehran to assume a more responsible role in limiting the proliferation of lethal arms in conflict zones in the absence of sanctions, and to adopt more transparent arms export policies. Iran and other actors should also be reminded that expanding the use of sophisticated weaponry in urban conflicts will have escalatory effects that increase civilian casualties, which already comprise 80 to 90 percent of all deaths and injuries caused by armed conflicts, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Farzin Nadimi is a Washington-based analyst specializing in the security and defense affairs of Iran and the Persian Gulf region.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-iran-lavrov-zarif-meeting/27192710.html

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Russia

Russia, Iran Plan To Expand Military Cooperation

By RFE/RL
August 17, 2015

Moscow and Tehran say they plan to expand military and economic cooperation after international sanctions against Iran are lifted under a nuclear deal between Tehran and world powers.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and visiting Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said in Moscow on August 17 that both sides hope the agreement on Iran's nuclear program will enter into force "in the nearest weeks."

"There are all the opportunities today to bring Russian-Iranian relations to a new, more advanced level in the spirit of the agreements reached by the two presidents and taking into account those decisions that were made to resolve the situation around the Iranian nuclear program," Lavrov told a joint press conference after meeting Zarif.

The talks in Moscow come after Iranian President Hassan Rohani and Russian President Vladimir Putin met in July on the sidelines of the seventh BRICS summit of emerging economies (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) in Ufa, Russia, where they agreed to broaden cooperation in the event of a deal ending a weapons embargo and other sanctions on Iran.

Russian media reports say that among items Lavrov and Zarif discussed was the possible delivery of S-300 surface-to-air missiles from Russia to Iran.

The Kremlin said in April that Putin signed a decree ending a self-imposed ban since 2010 on selling the S-300 antimissile rocket system to Iran. The United States and Israel had previously lobbied Russia not to deliver the weapons system, saying it could be used to shield Iran's nuclear facilities from possible future air strikes.

Zarif said on August 17 that Iran attaches "huge significance" to relations with Russia and that the "the Vienna agreement is of great help to the development of relations between the two sides.

"We are confident that the Vienna agreement will have an enormous impact on developing ties between our two countries," Zarif said.

Russia is seen as eager to get a head start in what is expected to be an international race for lucrative contracts with Iran once sanctions are lifted. Of particular interest to Moscow is Iran's nuclear power sector.

Lavrov said on August 17 that a contract between Moscow and Tehran for the construction of eight nuclear units will strengthen Iran's power industry. Iranian and Russian officials announced in November that they had negotiated terms for the construction by Russia's state nuclear-power company Rosatom of four new reactors at Iran's existing, Russian-built Bushehr facility, and four more at another site in the country.

Lavrov and Zarif said they also discussed their joint initiative to broker a diplomatic resolution to Syria's civil war.

They reaffirmed that they both reject calls for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down from power.

"The Syrians must themselves decide their fate, their future, while foreign states should only make this easier," Zarif said. He said the only way to settle the Syrian crisis is political and that "we have a common view on this issue with the Russian Federation and this similarity of positions will continue."

The United States, the European Union, the Arab Persian Gulf states, and Syria’s moderate opposition have all rejected any peace plan that allows Assad to remain in power.

The nuclear deal signed between Iran and world powers in Vienna on July 14 envisages a lifting of sanctions on Iran in exchange for curbs on Tehran's nuclear program, which Washington and others fear is aimed at a bomb-making capability.

The deal has yet to go into effect as it faces resistance in the U.S. Congress. U.S. President Barack Obama has vowed to use his executive power if necessary to override legislators' efforts to oppose the accord.

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say on all state matters in the country, has not publicly approved or disapproved the deal. However, he has repeatedly offered words of support for Iran's nuclear negotiators.

With reporting by Interfax, ITAR-TASS, and Reuters

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.rferl.org/content/ukraine-mariupol-fighting-artillery/27192538.html

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Ukraine

Intense Artillery Duel Rocks Ukraine's Coastal City Of Mariupol

By RFE/RL
Last updated (GMT/UTC): 17.08.2015 13:11

Reports from eastern Ukraine say seven people were killed overnight in fighting along the front lines between government forces and pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine -- including an intense artillery duel at the southeastern Ukrainian city of Mariupol.

Residents describing the battle as the heaviest fighting there in more than three months.

Correspondents say the fighting on August 17 was between government forces on the eastern side of Mariupol and artillery positioned to the east of the city in territory under the control of pro-Russian separatists.

Reports say houses were destroyed in the village of Sartana about 20 kilometers east of Mariupol, and that an oil depot has also been damaged.

Regional police in Mariupol said that two civilians -- a man and a woman -- were killed by separatist shells that landed in Sartana.

Separatists said at least three people were killed by government shelling of Horlivka, a hot spot northeast of Donetsk.

There also were reports of heavy shelling by government forces into separatist-controlled Donetsk early on August 17.

Donetsk city officials say at least two people were killed by shells that exploded withing the administrative center of Donetsk.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in Moscow on August 17 that recent developments in eastern Ukraine suggest Kyiv may be preparing to renew large-scale fighting.

The latest violence comes after a week of intensifying clashes between Ukrainian forces and pro-Russian separatists near the government-held coastal city on the Sea of Azov.

Germany’s Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier warned on August 16 that the situation in eastern Ukraine is "explosive," saying urgent talks are needed to prevent "a new military escalation spiral."

Steinmeier made the comments in an interview published in the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag.

He said he has proposed that representatives of Kyiv and the Russia-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine meet immediately with representatives of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) for talks on reducing tension.

A cease-fire deal signed in Minsk in February has eased the violence somewhat since early in 2015.

But clashes have been occurring with increasing frequency during the past week with both sides accusing each other of violations on a daily basis.

Much of the fighting has been along a key road linking Mariupol with the separatist-controlled city of Donetsk to the north.

Mariupol sits along a strategic coastal route linking Russia and separatist-controlled parts of eastern Ukraine with Crimea, which was illegally annexed by Russia in March 2014.

Ukraine's government also accuses Russia of deploying Russian military forces within eastern Ukraine to support the pro-Russian separatists.

It also has accused Russia in the past of firing artillery and rockets from Russian territory at government-held positions on the eastern edges of Mariupol.

Despite mounting evidence to support the allegations, Russia continues to deny having any direct military role in the confict,

More than 6,400 people have been killed in eastern Ukraine since fighting broke out there in April 2014.

With reporting by Reuters, BBC, Interfax, TASS, and Bild am Sonntag


Related Articles

Heavy Fighting In Eastern Ukraine
Steinmeier: Ukraine Crisis Is 'Explosive'
Cultivating Ties: Ukraine Feeds China's Growing Appetite For Crops
Civilians Killed In Shelling In E. Ukraine

 

[Housecarl]

South Korea, US begin military drill despite North Korea threats
Started by Lilbitsnana‎, Yesterday 08:18 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...in-military-drill-despite-North-Korea-threats


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2015/08/north-korea-threatens-to-attack-us-homeland/

North Korea Threatens to Attack US Homeland

Pyongyang promised dire consequences should a joint ROK-US military drill begin today.

By Franz-Stefan Gady
August 17, 2015
855 Shares
5 Comments

North Korea threatened to attack the United States should it not call off this year’s Ulchi Freedom Guardian (UFG) exercise, an annual joint U.S.-South Korean military drill, CNN reports.

“If [the] United States wants their mainland to be safe, then the Ulchi Freedom Guardian should stop immediately,” a newswoman for the state TV station, KCNA, emphasized.

North Korea is ready to “retaliate against the U.S. with tremendous muscle,” according to a spokesman for North Korea’s National Defense Commission (NDC).

“The further Ulchi Freedom Guardian joint military exercises are intensified, the strongest military counteraction the (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) will take to cope with them,” he added.

The spokesman also noted that the North Korean military has new weapon systems unknown to the world in its arsenal:

The army and people of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) are no longer what they used to be in the past when they had to counter the US nukes with rifles. North Korea… is the invincible power equipped with both [the] latest offensive and defensive means unknown to the world.

However, South Korea and the United States appeared unimpressed by the North’s bellicose rhetoric and commenced the military drill today. According to Yonhap, Admiral Choi Yoon-hee, the head of South Korea’s military, ordered South Korean forces to “retaliate more powerfully and resolutely against any enemy provocation” during the UFG exercise.

“The (South Korean) military is standing with a war-readiness position under which any types of North Korean provocations could be retaliated against strongly at the spot,” another South Korean military official resolutely noted.

The military drill, involving 80,000 troops from South Korea, the United States, Australia, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, France, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, will last for 14 days and end on August 28.

According to South Korean media, it is the largest computerized military exercise and simulates the defense of South Korea against attacks from the North.

The aim of the drill is to “to enhance … readiness, protect the region and maintain stability on the Korean peninsula,” according to a statement from the Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command quoted by CNN.

North Korea will in all likelihood test-fire missiles during the drill. Back in March, Pyongyang fired two ballistic missiles into the sea in order to voice its discontent over two South Korean-U.S. military exercises that took place in March and April 2015. North Korea has already designated the next 14 days as a special vigilance period, according to Yonhap.