Tag: China
Keeping an eye on Asia
Trying to catch up on my Asia reading, as things are heating up there:
- The Japanese scrambled jets last week in response to a Russian violation of airspace over the Kuril Islands.
- China has been pressuring North Korea not to conduct an announced nuclear test.
- Tokyo is complaining that Chinese radar “locked on” to Japanese ships, a step generally associated with initiating an attack, in the East China Sea (where the two countries dispute sovereignty over the Senkaku/Daioyu islands).
The smart money is still betting that China and Japan won’t go to war over uninhabited islands that Japan administers but China claims. There have been recent rumblings of a possible accord between Russia and Japan on the Kurils. It is of course welcome that China should restrain its North Korean friends from defying the UN Security Council again with another nuclear test. It is unclear whether Beijing will succeed.
The US Navy, facing budget and reducing its presence in the Middle East, has found a useful “hegemon” and bully in China. In the mist of preparations for the Quadrennial Defense Review, naval advocates would like to regain at least some of the budget momentum they lost when Mitt Romney–a strong naval advocate–was defeated for the presidency.
But that doesn’t mean the needs are not real. America’s ships are vulnerable, even to Iranian never mind Chinese cruise and other missiles. Washington has a lot of obligations in Asia: to Japan, to Taiwan, the Philippines, to South Korea. It also has some relatively new friends to oblige: Vietnam and Burma in particular. It is not going to be easy to meet all the needs in a severely constrained budget environment.
Those who complain about US inattention to Syria, Libya, Afghanistan and even the Balkans need to remember how many other commitments need to be fulfilled. Asia represents an important slice of the future of world economic growth. It also represents a serious risk of armed conflict on a scale that would have global consequences. We may not all be able to pivot to Asia, but we should keep an eye on it.
And I just realized: I am in Asia today, in Antalya, Turkey. Maybe that’s why my eyes have turned east, though the East I am writing about here lies thousands of miles away. Here’s the scenery from my hotel room:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Masterful
Secretary of State-designate John Kerry was masterful today in his Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing. It wasn’t so much the details of what he said, but the breadth and depth. This is a guy who really knows international affairs.
His prepared statement was notable for some high points: the emphasis on the importance of American economic health in determining the country’s role abroad, the clarity about preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons and the vigor of his defense of the State Department budget. I would also note that John Kerry regards USAID, whose functions he mentioned but not its name, as an integral part of the State Department.
Then Kerry showed a lot of agility in dealing with not only the questions but also a demonstrator, expressing respect for her cries to be heard. He defended Secretary of Defense-designate Hagel’s views on getting rid of nuclear weapons, which he said was an aspiration for a world different from the one we live in today. He described his own changed view of Syria’s President Asad, whom he now hopes to see go soon.
He showed his clear commitment to maintaining the high priority Secretary Clinton has given to gender issues. He was non-committal on the Keystone pipeline, deferring to the official process under way. He was gentle with the Russians, citing their cooperation on particular issues (other than Syria). He was supportive of American anti-corruption and human rights efforts abroad. He showed he knows what is going on in Sudan’s Blue Nile and South Kordofan provinces. He parried accusations about Benghazi.
Of course part of the reason for this masterful performance is the attitude of the questioners, who showed enormous respect for their long-standing colleague. Gone was the idiot questioning of yesterday’s hearing with Secretary of State Clinton on the Benghazi murders. There was little “gotcha.” Certainly had the President nominated Susan Rice, who is far more combative, the tone if not the substance of the hearing would have been different. In a week’s time the Hagel hearing may be far more contentious, even if Hagel himself comes close to matching Kerry in knowledge and equanimity.
On Syria, Kerry advocated changing Bashar al Asad’s calculations, but he was unclear about the means to achieve that. He wants an orderly transition. The Russians appear willing, but differ on the timing and manner of Bashar’s departure. Kerry fears sectarian strife, implosion of the Syrian state and what they might mean for chemical weapons.
The Syrian opposition has not been ready to talk, Kerry said. In a sentence he struck–one of his few moments of hesitation in this long hearing–he started to say that we need to increase the ability of the opposition to do something unspecified. I’d sure like to know how that sentence was supposed to end: increase their ability to negotiate? increase their ability to strike the regime militarily? There’s a big difference. It sounded to me more like he wanted them to be more flexible on negotiations, but I’m not certain.
Kerry hit a lot of other subjects. On Afghanistan, he put his chips on a good April 2014 presidential election, which has to provide legitimacy to Karzai’s successor. Kerry wants “a metric” for stopping infiltration and attacks on Americans from Pakistani territory. He noted China is “all over” Africa (and America has to get into the game). Al Qaeda has dispersed at the urging of Osama bin Laden and is now a threat in the Arabian Peninsula and the Maghreb, where the solution is not only drone strikes but (unspecified) civilian efforts. We don’t like what Egyptian President Morsi says about Jews, but we need him to maintain the peace treaty with Israel. On Israel/Palestine, Kerry was cagey and refused to be drawn out, except to reiterate commitment to the two-state solution. The solution to climate change is energy policy, which will enable job growth. The “war on drugs” is ill-conceived. We need to do more on the demand side.
Here is the lengthy (four hours?) video of the hearing:
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The Iran nuclear cliff
It isn’t often that Washington reaches a consensus on Iran, but that seems to be what is happening. Patrick Clawson urges a generous offer to Iran, to test definitively whether a deal stopping it short of nuclear weapons can be reached. Suzanne Maloney sees 2013 as the make or break year:
Dennis Ross, Trita Parsi, and Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett had long ago come to the conclusion a big package was needed to woo Tehran from its nuclear ambitions, from widely varying premises.
2013 is the make or break year for the same reason we faced a “fiscal cliff” crisis at the end of the last Congress: Washington has set itself up for a big decision. Either we get a deal that prevents Iran from getting nuclear weapons, or the Administration (with ample Congressional support) has committed the United States to go to war. Suzanne is surely correct that the American people are not “there” yet, but I see that as a good thing: it gives the Administration maximum negotiating leeway. Maximum but not infinite: Congress (Democrats and Republicans) will have to lift sanctions if a deal is reached. It won’t happen unless the majority is satisfied that the deal blocks Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state.
International Atomic Energy Agency officials are in Tehran today trying to gain access to an Iranian site thought to have been used in the past for nuclear weapons research. The Americans regard Iran coming clean on those activities as vital to any deal that lets Iran off the sanctions hook. It is unlikely we’ll have a quick answer to the many questions about Iran’s past activities, but the talks today are important to opening the door.
At the same time, the P5+1 (5 permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany) are haggling with Tehran over a date to continue the political-level nuclear talks, which are supposed to convene this month. The main issue seems to be whether sanctions relief will be on the agenda. The Americans in particular have wanted to reserve all but the smallest sanctions relief (parts for aircraft) for later on, after seeing real progress on nuclear questions. The Iranians want sanctions relief up front.
The emerging consensus in Washington in favor of a big package to test Iran’s intentions and reach a definitive conclusion could end years of uncertainty and haggling. But it also raises the very real possibility of going over the Iran nuclear cliff to war.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This week’s peace picks
A light week as Washington gets back into the swing of things after the holidays.
1. Crux of Asia Conference, Thursday January 10, 9:30 AM – 4:15 PM, Carnegie Endowment
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036
Speakers: Jessica Matthews, Kurt Campbell, David Shambaugh, Frederic Grare, Ashley Tellis, Xia Liping, Srikanth Kondapalli, Daniel Blumenthal, Shen Dingli, Bharath Gopalaswamy, Kevin Pollpeter, Zha Daojiong, Sunjoy Joshi, Sean Mirski
The rise of China and India as major world powers promises to test the established global order in the coming decades. If history is any indication, Beijing, New Delhi, and Washington may all have different visions for this new international system. China and India’s many developmental similarities belie their deep strategic rivalry, which shapes their competing priorities on major global issues. As both states grow, their views on the international system will become increasingly relevant for their relationship, for the United States, and for the world as a whole.
Register for this event here.
2. Discussion with Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction on Challenges Facing the US, Thursday January 10, 2:30 PM – 4:00 PM, Stimson Center
Venue: Stimson Center, 1111 19th Street NW, Washington, DC 20036, 12th Floor
Speakers: John Sopko, Ellen Laipson
In light of plans to transfer security responsibility for Afghanistan to its government by the end of 2014, the United States has a two year window of opportunity to overcome challenges presently facing its reconstruction efforts. Many of those challenges have been identified by audits and investigations conducted by the Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. Most recently its contributions include chronicling “persistent delays in instituting basic anti-money laundering procedures” at the Kabul Airport, detailing the Afghanistan National Security Forces’ difficulties in assuming responsibility for their operations and maintenance costs, and auditing the US’ Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund in response to schedule slips and inadequate sustainability plans.
Afghanistan’s struggles with insecurity and corruption are likely to continue well past the 2014 transition. Meanwhile the US has entered an era of fiscal austerity that will limit resources available to the Pentagon, State Department, and other government agencies involved in reconstruction. Sustainability has become one of the foremost issues for reconstruction investments as a consequence.
Mr. John Sopko’s address at the Stimson Center is his first on-the-record, public speech since taking office in July 2012, and he will use it to comment on the factors that underpin these challenges. Ellen Laipson, Stimson’s President and CEO, will moderate a panel discussion to follow, adding some additional perspectives about reconstruction efforts. We hope this event will provide a useful public forum to consider the US role in Afghanistan’s reconstruction, through 2014 and beyond.
Register for this event here.
3. Overkill: The Case for Reevaluating the U.S. Nuclear Strategy, Thursday January 10, 6:30 PM – 10:00 PM, Cato Institute
Venue: Cato Institute, 1000 Massachusetts Avenue Northwest, Washington, DC 20001
Speaker: Christopher Preble
The United States has far more nuclear weapons and delivery systems than deterrence requires. The triad of intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and bomber aircraft reflects bureaucratic Cold War planning, not strategic vision. Can the United States achieve an effective nuclear program which makes us safer, while adapting to the need for a smaller defense budget? Join us as Christopher Preble, the Vice President of Defense and Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, discusses U.S. nuclear strategy, and the need to bring it into the 21st century.
Register for this event here.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Prevent what?
Most of us who work on international affairs think it would be much better to use diplomacy to prevent bad things from happening rather than waiting until the aftermath and then cleaning up after the elephants, which all too often involves expensive military action. But what precisely would that mean? What do we need to prevent?
The Council on Foreign Relations survey of prevention priorities for 2013 was published last week, just in time to be forgotten in the Christmas rush and New Year’s lull. It deserves notice, as it is one of the few nonpartisan attempts to define American national security priorities. This year’s edition was in part crowd-sourced and categorizes contingencies on two dimensions: impact on U.S. interests (high, medium, low) and likelihood (likely, plausible, unlikely).
Syria comes out on top in both dimensions. That’s a no-brainer for likelihood, as the civil war has already reached catastrophic dimensions and is affecting the broader region. Judging from Paul Stares’ video introduction to the survey, U.S. interests are ranked high in part because of the risk of use or loss of chemical weapons stocks. I’d have ranked them high because of the importance of depriving Iran of its one truly reliable ally and bridge to Hizbollah, but that’s a quibble.
CFR ranks another six contingencies as high impact on U.S. interests and only plausible rather than likely. This isn’t so useful, but Paul’s video comes to the rescue: an Israeli military strike on Iran that would “embroil” the U.S. and conflict with China in the East or South China seas are his picks to talk about. I find it peculiar that CFR does not treat what I would regard as certainly a plausible if not a likely contingency: a U.S. attack on Iran. There are few more important decisions President Obama will need to make than whether to use force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Certainly it is a far more challenging decision than whether to go to war against China in the territorial disputes it is generating with U.S. allies in Pacific. I don’t know any foreign policy experts who would advise him to go in that direction.
It is striking that few of the other “plausible” and high-impact contingencies are amenable to purely military responses:
- a highly disruptive cyberattack on U.S. critical infrastructure
- a mass casualty attack on the U.S. homeland or on a treaty ally
- severe internal instability in Pakistan, triggered by a civil-military crisis or terror attack
It is not easy to determine the origin of cyberattacks, and not clear that a military response would be appropriate or effective. The same is also sometimes true of mass casualty attacks; our military response to 9/11 in Afghanistan has enmired the United States in its longest war to date, one where force is proving inadequate as a solution. It is hard to imagine any military response to internal instability in Pakistan, though CFR offers as an additional low probability contingency a possible U.S. military confrontation with Islamabad “triggered by a terror attack or U.S. counterterror operations.”
In the “moderate” impact on U.S. interests, CFR ranks as highly likely “a major erosion of security in Afghanistan resulting from coalition drawdown.” I’d certainly have put that in high impact category, as we’ve still got 100,000 troops in Afghanistan and a significant portion of them will still be there at the end of 2013. In the “moderate” impact but merely plausible category CFR ranks:
- a severe Indo-Pakistan crisis that carries risk of military escalation, triggered by a major terror attack
- a severe North Korean crisis caused by another military provocation, internal political instability, or threatening nuclear weapons/ICBM-related activities
- a significant increase in drug trafficking violence in Mexico that spills over into the United States
- continuing political instability and emergence of a terrorist safe haven in Libya
Again there are limits to what we can do about most of these contingencies by conventional military means. Only a North Korea crisis caused by military provocation or threats would rank be susceptible to a primarily military response. The others call for diplomatic and civilian responses in at least a measure equal to the possible military ones.
CFR lets two “moderate” impact contingencies languish in the low probability category that I don’t think belong there:
- political instability in Saudi Arabia that endangers global oil supplies
- renewed unrest in the Kurdish dominated regions of Turkey and the Middle East
There is a very real possibility in Riyadh of a succession crisis, as the monarchy on the death of the king will likely move to a next generation of contenders. Kurdish irredentist aspirations are already a big issue in Iraq and Syria. It is hard to imagine this will not affect Iran and Turkey before the year is out. Neither is amenable to a purely military response.
Most of the contingencies with “low” impact on U.S. interests are in Africa:
- a deepening of violence in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo that involves military intervention from its neighbors
- growing popular unrest and political instability in Sudan
- military conflict between Sudan and South Sudan
- renewed ethnic violence in Kenya surrounding March 2013 presidential election
- widespread unrest in Zimbabwe surrounding the electoral process and/or the death of Robert Mugabe
- failure of a multilateral intervention to push out Islamist groups from Mali’s north
This may tell us more about CFR and the United States than about the world. Africa has little purchase on American sentiments, despite our half-Kenyan president. All of these contingencies merit diplomatic attention, but none is likely to excite U.S. military responses of more than a purely emergency character, except for Mali. If you’ve got a few Islamist terrorists, you can get some attention even if you are in Africa.
What’s missing from this list? CFR mentions
…a third Palestinian intifada, a widespread popular unrest in China, escalation of a U.S.-Iran naval clash in the Persian Gulf, a Sino-Indian border crisis, onset of elections-related instability and violence in Ethiopia, unrest in Cuba following the death of Fidel Castro and/or incapacitation of Raul Castro, and widespread political unrest in Venezuela triggered by the death or incapacitation of Hugo Chavez.
I’d add intensification of the global economic slowdown (high probability, high impact), failure to do more about global warming (also high probability, delayed impact), demographic or financial implosion in Europe or Japan (and possibly even the U.S.), Russian crackdown on dissent, and resurgent Islamist extremism in Somalia. But the first three of these are not one-year “contingencies,” which shows one limit of the CFR exercise.
I would also note that the world is arguably in better shape at the end of 2012 than ever before in history. As The Spectator puts it:
Never has there been less hunger, less disease or more prosperity. The West remains in the economic doldrums, but most developing countries are charging ahead, and people are being lifted out of poverty at the fastest rate ever recorded. The death toll inflicted by war and natural disasters is also mercifully low. We are living in a golden age.
May it last.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This week’s peace picks
Slowing for the holidays, but still some interesting events.
1. The World in 2013 – Admiral Mike Mullen and Jessica Matthews, Monday December 17, 12:30 PM – 2:00 PM, U.S. Carnegie Endowment
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036
Speakers: Mike Mullen and Jessica Matthews
How will President Obama use American power in 2013? Will the United States ever restore its fiscal health? And how can Obama ensure the U.S. rebalance toward Asia succeeds? Join us for an in-depth conversation between Admiral Mike Mullen and Carnegie’s Jessica T. Mathews as they discuss the foreign policy landscape confronting the president in 2013.
Register for this event here.
2. Book Event: U.S.-China Relations After the Two Leadership Transitions: Change or Continuity?, Monday December 17, 4:00 PM – 6:00 PM, CSIS
Venue: CSIS, 1800 K Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, B1 Conference Room
Speakers: Andrew J. Nathan, Andrew Scobell, David M. Lampton, Randy G. Schriver, Bonnie S. Glaser
Leadership transitions have brought new leaders to office in China while confirming President Obama in a second term: do these events portend change or continuity in U.S.-China relations? In their new book, China’s Search for Security, Andrew J. Nathan and Andrew Scobell argue that the key to understanding China’s foreign policy is to grasp its geostrategic challenges: despite its impressive size and population, economic vitality, and drive to upgrade its military capabilities, China remains a vulnerable nation surrounded by powerful rivals and potential foes. Even as the country grows and comes to dominate its neighbors, challenges remain, foremost among them, in the eyes of China’s leaders, the United States. The Obama administration, for its part, looks set to continue its policy pivot to Asia. The authors will discuss their book, analyzing China’s security concerns and how the U.S. can protect its interests in Asia without triggering a confrontation with China.
Register for this event here.
3. What is in Store for a Post-Asad Syria?, Tuesday December 18, 12:00 PM – 1:00 PM, Center for National Policy
Venue: Center for National Policy, One Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20001, Suite 333
Speakers: Gregory Aftandilian, Mona Yacoubian, Joseph Holliday
With the end finally nearing for the Assad regime, the question of what type of government will emerge in Syria looms over the horizon. Will it be inclusive and tolerant of minority groups? Will it prevent retribution killings of Alawites? Will the Syrian state remain whole or will some minority groups like the Kurds and the Alawites try to carve out separate statelets? Join CNP’s Senior Fellow for the Middle East, Gregory Aftandilian, and a panel of experts to discuss these timely issues.
Register for this event here.
4. Is Peace Possible?, Wednesday December 19, 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM, New America Foundation
Venue: New America Foundation, 1899 L Street NW, Washington, DC 20036, Suite 400
Speakers: James Zogby, Lara Friedman, Yousef Munayyer, Peter Beinart
The Arab American Institute and the New America Foundation’s Middle East Task Force invite you to the launch of a critical public opinion survey on what Palestinians and Israelis want in a peace deal and their thoughts about the prospects for achieving it.
During the month of September, 2012, Zogby Research Services conducted a comprehensive, unprecedented survey of Israeli Jews and Arabs; Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem; Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and Jordan; and the American Jewish community. The poll was conducted for the Sir Bani Yas Forum in the UAE. Join us for the survey’s public release and a discussion of what Palestinians and Israelis really think about peace.
Register for this event here.
5. Strengthening the Global Partnership Against the Spread of WMD, Thursday December 20, 10:00 AM – 11:30 AM, Hudson Institute
Venue: Hudson Institute, 1015 15th Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, 6th Floor
Speakers: Ambassador Bonnie Jenkins, Andrew Semmel, Richard Weitz
Recent years have seen several nuclear smuggling incidents and revelations regarding the extensive scope of past illicit WMD proliferation activities. An effective international nuclear security strategy requires a broad network of stakeholders to gather knowledge and secure nuclear weapons-related materials and technologies; prevent their misuse; and reduce the risks caused by their availability.
What steps can the United States and other countries take to strengthen nuclear material security in coming years? Please join us to discuss the lessons learned, critical challenges, and the path forward for the G8 Global Partnership in the 21st century.
Register for this event here.
6. The Future of U.S.-Taiwan Relations: Impressions from CNP’s 2012 Scholars Delegation, Thursday December 20, 12:00 PM – 1:15 PM, Center for National Policy
Venue: Center for National Policy, One Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20001, Suite 333
Speakers: Malou Innocent, Jacqueline N. Deal, Michael Breen, Scott Bates, Anthony Woods, John Garafano, Michael Auslin, Andrew Lavigne
Less than a month after the November reelection of President Obama, CNP sent a U.S. Scholars Delegation comprised of current and next generation policy experts and decision makers to meet with Taiwanese officials, trade experts and academics, to examine the future of U.S.-Taiwan relations. Join CNP President Scott Bates and members of the delegation as they offer views on their recent visit to Taipei.
Register for this event here.
7. Benghazi Attack, Part II: The Report of the Accountability Review Board, Thursday December 20, 1:00 PM, House Committee on Foreign Affairs
Venue: House Committee on Foreign Affairs, 2170 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
Speaker: Hillary Rodham Clinton
RSS - Posts
