North Korea has fired another ballistic missile which flew over the Japanese island of Hokkaido. The Japanese did not shoot down the missile and officials do no yet know what type of missile was fired. The trajectory, however, was a clear challenge to the United Nations Security Council as well as to US President Trump. North Korea typically refrains from sending missiles over the territory of US allies, South Korea and Japan. But US and Japanese forces just completed military exercises on the island of Hokkaido, so the North Korean message seems aimed at both.
Vietnam and China have a very tense relationship. They share memories of several wars that go back centuries and Vietnam suffers from a common malady that many small nations have when they have a large, dynamic neighbor. Despite the memory of a long and brutal war with the US, the Vietnamese chose to get closer to the US in hopes that American military power could act as an effective counterweight to Chinese power. But the US has given clear signals that it may no longer wish to act as a balancer in the region, and the Vietnamese are wondering whether they need to seek an accommodation with China–a difficult and complex policy given the interests of both states in the oil and natural gas reserves in the disputed South China Sea.
China controls the headwaters of some of the most important rivers in the world, many of which start in the Tibetan plateau. There are ten major rivers, including the Indus, the Ganges, Mekong, Yangtze, Irrawaddy, and the Tsangpo-Brahmaputra, and about 2 billion people depend on these rivers. The Chinese have built almost 10,000 dams on these rivers including many mega-dams which control the flow of water and sediment throughout South, East, and Southeast Asia. The countries that are downriver and depend on these rivers are apprehensive about the degree to which China controls them, as well as the extent to which accidents, such as earthquakes, could have a dramatic effects over which they have little control. Control of water is an important dimension of power in world politics.
Yesterday’s post on the three North Korean missile tests was incorrect. Initial reports indicated that all three tests failed, but new evidence suggests that only one of the launches failed. The other two actually indicated a new capability on the par of the North Koreans: the ability to fire a missile from a multiple rocket launcher. The two successful launches flew about 150 miles, far enough to threaten US and South Korean forces on the peninsula. The North Koreans have thousands of multiple tube rocket launchers which are easier to hide than typical missile launch pads. Additionally, rocket launchers are much less expensive to manufacture and deploy.
A Russian tanker, the Christophe de Margerie, trip from Norway to South Korea through the Arctic has completed a without the aid of an icebreaker. This trip is a first and it was completed in only 19 days, 30% shorter than the traditional route through the Suez Canal. The ship has advanced technology to facilitate the passage, but the trip also signals the effects of climate change. The Arctic Ocean will likely seen a dramatic increase in activity by many states as the sea ice continues to recede for much of the year.
Christophe de Margerie
Qatar has announced that it will restore its diplomatic relations with Iran. The decision is a sharp rebuff to Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies which had demanded that Qatar sever all relations with Iran. The decision is a victory for Iran, but it also reflects Qatar’s dependence on its shared natural gas reservoir with Iran. Qatar actually had little choice in the matter since its economy relies almost completely on the revenues generated from the natural gas.
North Korea has launched three missiles in violation of the UN Security Council sanctions. They appear to have been short-range missiles, and the launches do not appear to have been successful. Nonetheless, it remains to be seen if the launches will induce US President Trump to take some action in response. Stay tuned.
The number of US active-duty military personnel stationed abroad has dropped below 200,000 for the first time in 60 years. In 1967, the US had over 1.2 million soldiers stationed abroad–half of them in Vietnam. About 15% of US soldiers are stationed abroad and the top five countries in which they are based are Japan (38,818), Germany (34,602), South Korea (24,189), Italy (12,088) and Afghanistan (9,023). Only Afghanistan is experiencing active conflict. The pullback reflects the decision by President Obama to pull back from commitments abroad. It remains to be seen if President Trump will reverse this trend.
Russia has sent nuclear-capable bombers over the Korean peninsula as US and South Korean forces are conducting military exercises in the region. Russia has been outspoken in its opposition to the use of force on the peninsula but it is difficult to interpret the message the Russians are trying to send. The bombers entered the South Korean air identification zone which is considered rude but does not violate international law. It is unlikely that Russia would come to the defense of North Korea if it were attacked. But Russia continues to demonstrate its military power in both Europe and Asia. I doubt that many are unaware of Russian military strength in both regions.
Russian TU-95 bomber
US Secretary of Defense Mattis has indicated that he will recommend to President Trump that the US should supply Ukraine with lethal defensive weapons. Such a policy would change current US policy which is to restrict aid to non-lethal supplies such as medicine and transport. Giving Ukraine lethal defensive weapons, such as anti-tank weaponry, would allow Kyiv to fight the Russian-backed rebels in eastern Ukraine more effectively. It would also raise the stakes for Russia in Ukraine and increase the level of violence in the country. The move would also deepen the US commitment to Ukraine and Russia would take the move as a significant challenge. President Trump has resisted such a move in the past, so it remains to be seen whether he will act in such a provocative way toward Russia.
The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has issued an “Early Warning and Urgent Action” resolution on the outbreak of violence in Charlottesville, VA, USA on 11-12 August 2017. The last time the Committee issued such a resolution was in late 2016 on the outbreak of racial violence in Burundi. It is not the first time the US has been called out over racial violence, but, like all the earlier times, the US will likely ignore the call for action by the international organization.
The US Treasury has added ten new organizations and individuals from China and Russia to the sanctions list for their activities with North Korea. These new sanctions are unilateral–they are not part of the sanctions that were unanimously approved by the United Nations Security Council. Both countries have protested the additional sanctions, arguing that they are being subjected to US law outside of the framework of an international organization. An editorial in the Global Times states the Chinese position:
“The US resorts to domestic laws to sanction Chinese companies and people, which severely violates international law and cannot be accepted by China. So far the US sanctions have exerted little impact on China, but it breaks the rules and offends China.”
It remains to be seen how the sanctions will affect the Chinese role in defusing the crisis over North Korea’s nuclear program.
New research indicates that up to 60 million Pakistanis are susceptible to very high levels of Arsenic in their water. The study tested groundwater samples from numerous sites in Pakistan all along the Indus Valley. The arsenic is a feature of the geology of the region and it leaches into the groundwater affecting the quality of drinking and irrigation water. Ingesting arsenic at high levels has many short- and long-term health effects which are very difficult to counteract.
I have had some time to go over President Trump’s Afghanistan speech. The new policy is dramatically different from what he promised as a candidate, a change he freely acknowledged in the speech. In the speech he identified three “core” interests in Afghanistan:
“First, our nation must seek an honorable and enduring outcome worthy of the tremendous sacrifices……
“Second, the consequences of a rapid exit are both predictable and unacceptable……
“Third and finally, I concluded that the security threats we face in Afghanistan and the broader region are immense…..”
In truth, I suspect that both Presidents Bush and Obama would have stated American interests in Afghanistan in essentially the same words. On 7 October 2001, President Bush said:
“By destroying camps and disrupting communications, we will make it more difficult for the terror network to train new recruits and coordinate their evil plans.
“Initially, the terrorists may burrow deeper into caves and other entrenched hiding places. Our military action is also designed to clear the way for sustained, comprehensive and relentless operations to drive them out and bring them to justice.
“This military action is a part of our campaign against terrorism, another front in a war that has already been joined through diplomacy, intelligence, the freezing of financial assets and the arrests of known terrorists by law enforcement agents in 38 countries.
“Given the nature and reach of our enemies, we will win this conflict by the patient accumulation of successes, by meeting a series of challenges with determination and will and purpose.
“To all the men and women in our military, every sailor, every soldier, every airman, every Coast Guardsman, every Marine, I say this: Your mission is defined. The objectives are clear. Your goal is just. You have my full confidence, and you will have every tool you need to carry out your duty.”
“So, no, I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.
There is not too much distance between the three Presidents. There is one important new element of the Trump strategy which is a decision-making process based on conditions on the ground and not timetables:
“Conditions on the ground — not arbitrary timetables — will guide our strategy from now on. America’s enemies must never know our plans or believe they can wait us out. I will not say when we are going to attack, but attack we will.
It is true that President Obama did impose a timetable on his troops commitments and that timetable reflected his intent to limit the US commitment. President Trump’s emphasis on conditions is precisely what the US military has been asking for in Afghanistan, but that criterion is not defined. As I pointed out yesterday, some conditions would require an extended commitment; others would require a minimal commitment. In his speech, President Trump was careful to say that the new policy was not a “blank check”. President Obama made the same promise: “The days of providing a blank check are over. ”
President Trump also indicated that Pakistan had not been a reliable partner in Afghanistan and that he would try to force Pakistan to be cooperative: “We can no longer be silent about Pakistan’s safe havens for terrorist organizations, the Taliban, and other groups that pose a threat to the region and beyond. Pakistan has much to gain from partnering with our effort in Afghanistan. It has much to lose by continuing to harbor criminals and terrorists.” President Obama made the same observation: “Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan….We’re in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That’s why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.”
President Trump also indicated that he wanted India to become more involved in the economic development of Afghanistan: “Another critical part of the South Asia strategy for America is to further develop its strategic partnership with India — the world’s largest democracy and a key security and economic partner of the United States. We appreciate India’s important contributions to stability in Afghanistan, but India makes billions of dollars in trade with the United States, and we want them to help us more with Afghanistan, especially in the area of economic assistance and development.” The objective is noble, but it overlooks the competition between India and Pakistan in Afghanistan–the two countries have very different objectives.
Finally, President Trump indicated that he had lifted the restrictions on the American military in the field (“Finally, my administration will ensure that you, the brave defenders of the American people, will have the necessary tools and rules of engagement to make this strategy work, and work effectively and work quickly”). Again, this has been a long-standing request from the military and a complaint against political interference in the conduct of war that dates back to the Vietnam War and President Johnson’s insistence on approving bombing targets in North Vietnam. These restrictions exist because there is a clear political dimension to military actions, and protecting civilians is a top priority for those who wish to gain the support of a local population. Perhaps there is no longer a divide between civilian and military authorities on the importance of this consideration, but it it not observed, as some have argued in the case of the use of drones, then “winning” a war is hopeless.
The speech does not give me much hope for a resolution in Afghanistan. The New York Times is reporting that Mr. Trump is thinking about sending 4,000 more soldiers to supplement the 8,400 that are already there. But that number does not include the close to 24,000 private contractors in the country. We should not forget that there were close to 100,000 American soldiers in Afghanistan in 2011 and they were unable to accomplish the objectives outlined by President Trump. It also appears that US Secretary of State Tillerson also shares doubts about the possibility of President Trump reaching his objectives. The day after President Trump’s speech, Mr. Tillerson gave this message to the Taliban: “You will not win a battlefield victory. We may not win one, but neither will you.”
US President Trump has announced a new policy in Afghanistan. I just listened to the speech he delivered in Arlington, VA and have not had a chance to read the speech or go over it in detail. I will probably have more the say about the speech in subsequent posts. My initial reaction is a degree of confusion. President Trump announced that the US would move from a time-based decision-making process to a conditions-based one. In military terms, that shift is a very important one, but the conditions are not specified so we do not know what the costs might be. If the conditions include a fully-functioning central government in Afghanistan, then the costs might be very high. It they include the elimination of all 22 groups identified by President Trump as security threats to the US, then the costs might be very high as well. If the condition simply means an agreement between the Taliban and the central government in Afghanistan to divide up control of the country, then the costs might be very low. As this point, I really know very little about what the US objectives might be.
The US has been in Afghanistan since October 2001 when it overthrew the government of Afghanistan to hunt down Osama bin Laden. The war is the longest in American history and has cost the lives of 2,350 US soldiers and over $1 trillion. The new policy does not square with his statements about US policy in Afghanistan while he was a candidate. Zack Beauchamp has compiled a partial list of the statements and tweets Mr. Trump made before his election and he appeared at that time to be adamantly opposed to any continued military role for the US.
One of the most important determinants of political legitimacy is the faith that citizens have that their political and economic systems function in a way that assure a better future for the next generation. If that faith holds true, then parents are willing to suffer a great deal in the present so that their children will be better off. The Pew Research Center has conducted a poll in many countries asking the question, “When children today in our country grow up, they will be better off or worse off than their parents?” The results are quite diverse although a general pattern does emerge: the currently rich countries are pessimistic and those countries which we call emerging economies are more optimistic.
Globalization gave us the apple. Researchers have done a genetic analysis of the modern apple and traced its origins back to the Tian Shan (Heavenly) Mountains in modern-day Kazakhstan. According to the report in Nature Communcation:
“Cultivated apple (Malus domestica Borkh.), one of the most widely produced and economically important fruit crops in temperate regions, has been domesticated from M. sieversii in the Tian Shan Mountains for 4000–10,000 years, and dispersed from Central Asia to West Europe along the Silk Road, allowing hybridization and introgression of wild crabapples from Siberia (M. baccata (L.) Borkh.), Caucasus (M. orientalis Uglitz.), and Europe (M. sylvestris Mill.)”
Scuffles have broken out between Indian and Chinese troops along their disputed border near Kashmir. The video, broadcast by India’s NDTV, shows Indian and Chinese troops throwing stones and punches at each other near Pangong Lake in Ladakh. This incident is far from the Doklam region which has also seen tensions rise between India and China over Chinese road building near Bhutan. There is little question that India and China are having a very difficult time adjusting to each other’s rise in the region and the world. The volatility in South Asian international politics seems to be increasing quite dramatically.
A group of countries calling itself the Lima Group, consisting of 12 Latin American states plus the US and Canada, condemned the Venezuelan Constituent Assembly as an illegitimate usurpation of power by the government of Nicolas Maduro. The Constituent Assembly has taken on the powers of the Venezuelan Congress which is controlled by opposition parties and there is no part of the government in which the opposition has any effective voice. The Maduro government immediately attacked the Lima Group declaration as an illegal intrusion into the internal affairs of Venezuela. The international community is going to have to speak effectively to force the Venezuelan government to allow opposition voices, but it must be careful not to give Maduro any excuse to tighten his control any further.
The election of Emmanuel Macron three months ago was hailed as a new phase of French politics, as all the traditional political parties were trounced by Macron and his relatively new political party, République En Marche. The bloom has faded quickly from that rose as Macron’s popularity has fallen precipitously. There are a variety of theories about Macron’s fall from grace, but the more important issue is how difficult it has become for effective governance in today’s political climate. The level of citizen dissatisfaction all over the world seems to have reached levels that defy normal politics. Where that leaves us all is completely unknown.
The US has initiated an investigation into Chinese trade practices using Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. The move is significant because that section has rarely been used since the World Trade Organization was created in 1995 and most trade disputes now are handled through that organization. Section 301 bypasses the WTO and allows the US to unilaterally impose sanctions if trade violations are determined. THe investigation will be on Chinese protections of international property rights, a very contentious issue in US-Chinese trade. Almost certainly the Chinese will respond and we may be witnessing the opening of a trade war. Such a war would be truly unfortunate since the US benefits tremendously from trade with China.
Cambridge University Press has removed Chinese access to certain articles from its prestigious journal, China Quarterly, at the request of the Chinese government. Articles that deal with materials the Chinese government regards as sensitive, such as references to the protests in Tiananmen Square in 1989, are no longer available to Chinese citizens. In addition, the press has blocked access to many books. The moves come in response to Chinese President Xi’s decision that all media in China must be consistent with the doctrines of the Communist Party. The decision reflects the determination to resist the freedoms necessary for a liberal society.
Stephen Metcalf has written an essay on the meaning of the word “neoliberalism”. We see the word everywhere and it is used as a pejorative as well as an indisputable truth. Metcalf’s short definition is borrowed from the IMF and he takes to to describe policies that mandate deregulation, opening national markets to trade and capital, and for governments to shrink themselves via austerity or privatization. It is, according to Metcalf, an ideology that holds “that competition is the only legitimate organising principle for human activity.” My favorite passage in the essay is his description of Adam Smith, who would absolutely shudder in disgust at how market capitalism has been perverted by “free market” advocates (“Who is John Galt?”):
“Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” had already given us the modern conception of the market: as an autonomous sphere of human activity and therefore, potentially, a valid object of scientific knowledge. But Smith was, until the end of his life, an 18th-century moralist. He thought the market could be justified only in light of individual virtue, and he was anxious that a society governed by nothing but transactional self-interest was no society at all. Neoliberalism is Adam Smith without the anxiety.”
I highly recommend the essay for those who wish to understand more about this ideology.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9132359/Hokkaido_Map.jpg)
World Politics News 