| Congress Rushes to Respond to Epstein Death Before Conspiracies Take Over Posted: 12 Aug 2019 06:05 PM PDT  Photo Illustration by The Daily Beast/GettyMembers of Congress, furious over Jeffrey Epstein's death in federal custody, are set on getting to the bottom of it before the many conspiracy theories swirling around the accused serial sex offender's demise completely overshadow the facts. They are, obviously, running far behind. By the time the Democratic and Republican leaders of the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to the Federal Bureau of Prisons on Monday demanding answers about the circumstances of Epstein's apparent suicide, the country already had two full days to marinate in President Trump's retweet of a conspiracy theory that former President Bill Clinton was somehow to blame. Beyond Trump, political and media figures on the right and left have been openly entertaining on social media every idea from foul play being involved to the death was faked altogether since the news of Epstein's demise broke on Saturday."Where you have few facts, you have much speculation," said Rep. Al Green (D-TX). "If we don't get facts before the people… we will find ourselves dealing with speculation about what happened in that cell."The challenge now for Congress is to chart a path forward for an investigation that will answer key questions and establish a factual record, without veering into partisan turf—a tall order, given that two U.S. presidents, royalty, and prominent political and business figures have been linked to Epstein, fueling the conspiracy chatter. Recently unsealed court filings revealed that Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre claimed that the financier's close associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, directed her as a minor to have sex with former Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson and Prince Andrew of Great Britain. Both Trump and Clinton, meanwhile, have flown on Epstein's private jet. In their Monday letter, Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and Ranking Member Doug Collins (R-GA) gave the Bureau of Prisons until Aug. 21 to answer nearly two dozen questions surrounding Epstein's custody and death. Many of them focus on discovering how Epstein, who was placed on and then taken off suicide watch at the Metropolitan Corrections Center in New York, was in a situation where he could take his own life. They ask who in the federal government was notified that Epstein's suicide watch had terminated, for example, in addition to what plan was in place to observe him and who was meant to do so. But plenty of lawmakers are already demanding much more investigative firepower. Green, for his part, told The Daily Beast the Epstein case warrants a federal fact-finding effort on par with the Warren Commission that investigated the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The Texas Democrat has written to Trump asking him to appoint a special investigator to head up such a probe; he has also requested that House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-MD) open up an investigation. While the Judiciary Committee oversees federal prisons, the Oversight Committee's broad jurisdiction has prompted members to call on Cummings not only to investigate Epstein's death but also his criminal conduct and others who may have been implicated in it. Spokespeople for Cummings did not respond to requests for comment about the chairman's plans.Rep. Lois Frankel (D-FL), who represents many of Epstein's victims in the Palm Beach area where he owned a mansion, called for a wide-ranging Oversight investigation. "I'm calling for the House Oversight and Reform Committee to begin an investigation so we can get answers to many questions, like why the U.S. Attorney's Office entered into such a lenient non-prosecution plea deal and who was given immunity," she said in a statement to The Daily Beast. "Additionally, there needs to be a forum for Epstein's victims to be heard if they so desire."Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), another member of the Oversight panel, told The Daily Beast he will urge Cummings to open up an Epstein probe and appoint a special counsel who has dealt with similar cases before."We need to understand whether it was suicide or whether there was any foul play," said Khanna. And, he added, "we need to make sure nothing was done to impede the investigation and expose anyone who may be involved in a criminal scheme of sex trafficiking."Entities within the Trump administration have already said they will be investigating the circumstances of Epstein's death: On Saturday, Attorney General William Barr said the FBI and the Department of Justice's internal watchdogs would be on the case.To Democrats, Barr's role only makes congressional involvement more urgent. "Bill Barr has covered up administration wrongdoing since Iran-Contra," said Khanna. "After what he did with the Mueller Report, I don't think anyone on the Democratic side trusts him."Read more at The Daily Beast.Got a tip? Send it to The Daily Beast hereGet our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.
|
| UN probing 35 North Korean cyberattacks in 17 countries Posted: 12 Aug 2019 05:52 PM PDT  U.N. experts say they are investigating at least 35 instances in 17 countries of North Koreans using cyberattacks to illegally raise money for weapons of mass destruction programs — and they are calling for sanctions against ships providing gasoline and diesel to the country. Last week, The Associated Press quoted a summary of a report from the experts which said that North Korea illegally acquired as much as $2 billion from its increasingly sophisticated cyber activities against financial institutions and cryptocurrency exchanges. The lengthier version of the report, recently seen by the AP, reveals that neighboring South Korea was hardest-hit, the victim of 10 North Korean cyberattacks, followed by India with three attacks, and Bangladesh and Chile with two each.
|
| Trump considering North Korea envoy as next ambassador to Russia - source Posted: 12 Aug 2019 04:51 PM PDT ![Trump considering North Korea envoy as next ambassador to Russia - source]( "Trump considering North Korea envoy as next ambassador to Russia - source") Stephen Biegun, the diplomat who has been leading efforts to revive stalled U.S. denuclearization talks with North Korea, is under consideration to be President Donald Trump's next ambassador to Russia, a source familiar with the matter said on Monday. The current ambassador to Moscow, Jon Huntsman, is due to step down in October after two years in the post, the State Department said last week, amid speculation he plans to run for Utah governor. Vox news on Friday quoted two people familiar with internal White House discussions as saying that Biegun, the current U.S. special representative for North Korea, was Trump's likely choice for Moscow.
|
| Irish consumer sentiment slumps after hitting "Boris bump" Posted: 12 Aug 2019 04:01 PM PDT ![Irish consumer sentiment slumps after hitting "Boris bump"]( "Irish consumer sentiment slumps after hitting \"Boris bump\"") Irish consumer sentiment slumped to a four-and-a-half year low in July as new British Prime Minister Boris Johnson's pledge to leave the European Union no matter what on Oct. 31 rattled his nearest neighbours. While Ireland is considered the EU country with most to lose from Brexit, its economy is in very strong shape ahead of the potential disruption after growing faster than any other in the bloc every year since 2014 amid record employment.
|
| John Bolton says UK-US trade deal could be agreed ‘sector by sector’ Posted: 12 Aug 2019 03:26 PM PDT  John Bolton has said the UK and US could strike a "sector-by-sector" trade deal.The US national security advisor met with Boris Johnson and UK officials on Monday, during his trip to Britain.He claimed the UK was "first in line" for a trade deal with the US."A prior American president said that if the United Kingdom left the European Union, it would go to the back of the queue on trade deals," he said."To be clear, in the Trump administration, Britain's constantly at the front of the trade queue, or line as we say."Mr Bolton said the US had been "ready to negotiate" with Theresa May's government, and said the US could do a trade deal with the UK "in pieces" on a sector-by-sector basis.The US official said his country could strike trade deal with the UK by first concentrating on less contentious areas, like manufacturing and the car-making industry."You could do it sector by sector, you could do it in a modular fashion in other words," Mr Bolton said."You could carve out some areas where it might be possible to reach a bilateral agreement very quickly, very straight forwardly."That would then lock that in and when the other areas that might be more difficult were concluded later, you could combine it in one overall agreement."So the objective is either one document or a series of agreements that would be comprehensive."In order to expedite things and enhance the possibility for increasing the trade and investments between the two countries, doing it in a sector-by-sector approach or some other approach that the trade negotiators might agree with, we are open to that."Asked whether piecemeal trade agreements are allowed under WTO rules, Mr Bolton said: "Our trade negotiators seem to think it is.""The idea of doing it in pieces rather than waiting for the whole thing is not unprecedented."I think here we see the importance and urgency of doing as much as we can agree on as rapidly as possible because of the impending 31 October exit date."The UK is barred from opening talks with a third country before exiting the EU on 31 October, at the earliest.Mr Bolton also said the UK and US could avoid discussing contentious issues like Iran, China, and Huawei until after Brexit."The message I wanted to convey on Iran, and on some other issues in which I include China, 5G, Huawei, that cluster of issues, is that the President and the US Government fully understands that in the next few days the UK Government has a singular focus on the Brexit issue, so that we are not hoping for anything on these broad and complex questions," he said."We just ask that, as issues come up, we resolve them individually and we reserve the time to have a larger conversation on some of these important issues at a moment that is really right for the new government. We just felt we owe them that."Obviously we have views on these issues, I think that is appreciated by the new government. They said in particular that looking really from square one on the Huawei issue that they were very concerned about not having any compromise in the security of telecommunications in the 5G space."He added: "We don't want to put you under pressure on these issues. There will be time enough to talk, that is really all we ask for."In May 2019 the US published its negotiating objectives for a future trade deal with the UK.These suggest that Britain will not enjoy softer treatment compared to other US allies in any trade deal.The blueprint indicates that the nation would demand greater access to food markets, allowing it to sell the UK chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-pumped beef.The objectives also suggest "full market access for US products", which could potentially lead to spiralling NHS drug costs.Mr Bolton criticised the EU for its approach to Brexit, while talking to journalists after his meeting with the prime minister."The fashion in the European Union when the people vote the wrong way from the way that the elites want to go, is to make the peasants vote again and again until they get it right," he said.He added that it was "hard to imagine" people in the UK did not know "what was at stake" when they voted to leave the EU in 2016.Additional reporting by agencies
|
| White House Targets Foreign Aid Cash With Caps Limiting Spending Posted: 12 Aug 2019 01:26 PM PDT ![White House Targets Foreign Aid Cash With Caps Limiting Spending]( "White House Targets Foreign Aid Cash With Caps Limiting Spending") (Bloomberg) -- The White House is stepping up its efforts to block the State Department from distributing several billion dollars in foreign aid by the end of the fiscal year, imposing daily limits on spending until it can ask Congress to cancel the funds later this month, said three people familiar with the matter.After freezing about $4 billion in spending starting Aug. 3, the administration has now lifted the pause but ordered that spending be limited to what translates as about 2% of unobligated funds per day, according to the people, who asked not to be identified discussing private deliberations.The administration, in a drive spearheaded by Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and his successor at the Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought, is also leaning toward asking Congress to cancel the unspent money, a process known as rescission, as early as Aug. 20, they said.The move to cap spending is the latest development in a multi-year battle by President Donald Trump's White House to cut foreign assistance funding even over the objections of Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, one of Trump's most loyal cabinet members. The president's proposed budgets for the last two years sought to cut funding by about 30%, only to have Congress reject the request."Mulvaney has had a bee in his bonnet going back to his days in the House of Representatives about State and USAID and has been trying again and again and again to cut one of the most minuscule parts of the budget that has high impact and broad bipartisan support," said Liz Schrayer, chief executive of the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition in Washington. "He's tried it multiple times and Congress just keeps stopping him. They're really angry."National Security GoalsA bipartisan group of lawmakers and Pompeo, along with officials at the U.S. Agency for International Development, had protested strongly after the Office of Management and Budget imposed the freeze on Aug. 3, arguing that it hurt U.S. national security goals and contradicted the will of Congress. The money must be spent by the Sept. 30 end of the fiscal year or be returned.Congressional leaders were particularly incensed because the effort came just days after Congress passed a two-year debt ceiling extension and budget bill that allowed for a $1.3 trillion spending cap."Slashing crucial diplomacy and development programming would be detrimental to our national security while also undermining Congress's intended use for these funds," said a letter last week from senior congressional leaders, including Idaho Republican Jim Risch and New Jersey Democrat Robert Menendez, the chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.Peacekeeping OperationsPompeo successfully fended off a similar bid last year to limit foreign aid spending but so far has been unable to prevent the White House from targeting the money this year. The funds would go to United Nations peacekeeping operations, narcotics control and development assistance, among other things.The latest tussle began when OMB ordered the State Department and USAID to halt spending on remaining foreign-aid funding set aside for the 2018 and 2019 fiscal years to review why the money hadn't been spent yet and what it was intended for.Such money is often spent at the last minute, in part because months are required simply to move funding through the system after it's obligated and then delivered to the accounts of the agencies responsible for distributing it.Administration officials, however, have argued that the spending reflects everything that's wrong with America's foreign aid strategy, such as giving money to governments that are hostile to the U.S. or coming up with programs of limited utility just to spend money that's been appropriated.Spending FreezeCritics of the administration approach argue that the spending cap of 2% per day essentially freezes the funding because aid money is generally distributed in much larger chunks.An administration official, who asked not to be identified discussing the matter, said the administration had requested a temporary pause and the funds were now available. The official declined to discuss the 2% daily limit.While Congressional leaders oppose the White House effort and the potential rescission, Congress is on recess until early September so it's not clear lawmakers can organize a response before the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30.Public affairs officials at the State Department and USAID didn't immediately respond to requests for comment on Monday. A Senate aide, who asked not to be identified discussing the matter, said it appears the administration is still planning to try to circumvent lawmakers.(Updates with details of administration approach in 10th paragraph.)To contact the reporter on this story: Nick Wadhams in Washington at nwadhams@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Bill Faries at wfaries@bloomberg.net, Justin BlumFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| Huawei Hires Trade Lobbyists as Sales Slow in U.S.-China Fight Posted: 12 Aug 2019 12:59 PM PDT  (Bloomberg) -- Terms of Trade is a daily newsletter that untangles a world embroiled in trade wars. Sign up here. Huawei Technologies Co. hired the law firm Sidley Austin LLP to lobby on trade as the U.S. pressures allies to join it in blacklisting the Chinese telecom giant and the company finds itself increasingly mired in President Donald Trump's trade war with Beijing.The lobbying, which began in July, will focus on export controls, trade sanctions "and other national security-related topics," according to a disclosure filed with the U.S. Senate. The document shows that Huawei is deepening its ties to Sidley Austin, which is already working on the company's legal challenges in the U.S., while also ramping up its lobbying presence.Huawei, which is under an existential threat after the Trump administration blocked it from buying American technology over national-security concerns, has been drawn into the latest escalation of the trade war.Only six weeks ago, following a meeting in Japan with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Trump said he'd delay imposing some restrictions on U.S. companies' sales to Huawei. The U.S. even invited companies to apply for licenses under an exemption to the Huawei ban.But Bloomberg reported on Aug. 8 that the White House was holding off any decisions on those licenses. The delay follows a series of rapid-fire, tit-for-tat moves including Trump announcing plans to impose tariffs on $300 billion of Chinese imports in September and China halting purchases of U.S farm goods. The U.S. also declared China a currency manipulator.Deepens TiesSidley Austin is already defending Huawei and a U.S. affiliate against charges that they defrauded at least four banks by concealing business dealings in Iran in violation of U.S. sanctions.U.S. prosecutors are seeking to disqualify the company's lead lawyer in the case, James Cole, because they say his former role as the No. 2 at the Justice Department gave him access to classified information that represents an "obvious conflict of interest." A hearing has been scheduled in the matter in September.Meng Wanzhou, Huawei's chief financial officer and the daughter of its billionaire founder, Ren Zhengfei, is also charged in the case. She remains free on bail in Vancouver while she fights extradition to the U.S.Sidley is also representing Huawei in a suit against the U.S. over seizure of telecommunications equipment during an investigation into whether the gear required export licenses. Neither Cole nor the lawyers listed in that lawsuit are among the lobbyists on the disclosure.The Chinese company is one of the world's biggest purchasers of semiconductors. Continuing those sales is crucial to the fortunes of chipmakers such as Intel Corp., Qualcomm Inc. and Broadcom Inc., who sent their chief executives to meet with Trump in July.Huawei has seen a dramatic slowdown in sales growth as it deals with the U.S. campaign.Alphabet Inc.'s Google stopped providing Huawei with a version of its Android operating system, which lets apps run and provides mobile security on smartphones. That means Huawei, the world's second-biggest smartphone seller, can no longer pre-install Google's popular apps, like Gmail and YouTube, on Huawei devices.To fight back, Huawei last week unveiled an in-house operating system, called HarmonyOS, saying it can replace Android if Google's software is barred from its future smartphones. But Ren also said the company needed a lot more time to build an apps ecosystem, a requirement for any operating software to thrive in the long run.American OnslaughtHuawei, which the U.S. says poses a risk because it must cooperate with Beijing's espionage agencies under Chinese law, is kicking off a yearslong overhaul to create an "iron army" that can help it survive an American onslaught while protecting its lead in next-generation wireless, Ren warned in an internal memo seen by Bloomberg News.The U.S. says Huawei can build backdoors into its equipment and that it has stolen other companies' intellectual property. The Shenzhen-based company counters that governments and customers in 170 countries use its equipment, which poses no greater cybersecurity threat than that of any communications technology vendor. Huawei says that the campaign results from Washington's realization that the U.S. has fallen behind in developing fifth-generation mobile networks.Huawei, which had all but shut down its Washington lobbying operation at the end of 2018, has also recently hired the law firms of Steptoe & Johnson LLP and Jones Day as lobbyists. After Samir Jain, a Jones Day partner who served on President Barack Obama's National Security Council, registered to lobby for the company, Trump criticized the move in a tweet. The company says Jain will help with legal efforts and not lobby.Sidley Austin also represents the U.S. division of Chinese video surveillance company Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Co., Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. and organizations with ties to the governments of Hong Kong and Russia, according to disclosures. It also represents Bloomberg LP, the owner of Bloomberg News.\--With assistance from Ian King, Jenny Leonard, Shawn Donnan, Mark Bergen and Bill Allison.To contact the reporter on this story: Ben Brody in Washington at btenerellabr@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Sara Forden at sforden@bloomberg.net, Jillian Ward, Paula DwyerFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| Trump Undecided on When to Release Middle East Peace Plan, Envoy Says Posted: 12 Aug 2019 12:11 PM PDT  (Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump hasn't decided whether to unveil his Middle East peace plan before or after Israeli elections set for next month, and the U.S. hopes eventually to engage with the Palestinian Authority on an accord, special envoy Jason Greenblatt said.Greenblatt, who along with Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner has been drafting a Middle East peace proposal for the last two years, said the U.S. isn't looking for regime change with the Palestinian Authority, which governs in the West Bank. But he signaled the U.S. would continue to avoid any dealings with Hamas, the Islamist group that rules the Gaza Strip."We are not looking for a regime change, President Abbas is the leader of the Palestinians, so we hope that he will be able to come to the table," Greenblatt said in an interview Monday on Bloomberg Television, referring to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. "We do hope to have continued engagement or an eventual re-engagement with the Palestinian Authority."Greenblatt gave no indication of what the political plan would look like, but said Trump would have to "decide soon" whether to roll it out before the Israeli elections or after -- and whether to wait until after a new government has been formed. Those elections are set for Sept. 17 and surveys indicate a close race between blocs led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former military chief Benny Gantz. An election earlier this year ended in stalemate after Netanyahu failed to form a governing coalition."This conflict will only be resolved by direct negotiations between the parties," Greenblatt said. "It's not for the United States or the European Union or the United Nations to demand how this conflict can be resolved."Kushner promoted the economic component of his proposal in Bahrain in June, but the event was deliberately short on key political questions, and the conference didn't include Palestinian officials. Kushner called for about $50 billion in proposed investments in the Palestinian territories and neighboring countries that host refugees.(Updates with additional comments from interview starting in fourth paragraph.)To contact the reporters on this story: Kevin Cirilli in New York at kcirilli@bloomberg.net;Nick Wadhams in Washington at nwadhams@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Bill Faries at wfaries@bloomberg.net, Joshua GalluFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| U.K. Doesn’t See EU Moving on Brexit for at Least a Month Posted: 12 Aug 2019 11:59 AM PDT  (Bloomberg) -- The U.K. government doesn't expect the European Union to shift its Brexit position for at least a month while it waits to see how British politicians opposed to leaving the bloc play their hand in Parliament, according to a person familiar with the matter.Prime Minister Boris Johnson reiterated his position on Monday that to strike a divorce deal, the EU must reopen the withdrawal agreement it negotiated with his predecessor, Theresa May. In calls with Portuguese premier Antonio Costa and his Belgian counterpart Charles Michel, Johnson said any deal must abolish the so-called Irish backstop, a fall-back position designed to keep the border with Ireland -- the U.K.'s land frontier with the EU -- free of checks.That's something EU leaders have said they won't accept, and Johnson has promised to deliver Brexit "do or die," with or without a deal, by Oct. 31.But members of Parliament who oppose a no-deal Brexit are plotting ways to frustrate him, and that means Johnson's standoff with the EU is likely to continue until Parliament returns in September as the bloc waits to see if they can tie the government's hands, according to the person, who asked not to be named discussing the administration's thinking. Sept. 9 is shaping up to be the date when those rebels could act, the person said.Stopping BrexitThat's because under an amendment to legislation forced through by Tory rebels last month, the government is required to make a statement Sept. 4 about progress toward restoring the Northern Ireland Executive, and hold a debate five days later. MPs opposed to a no-deal Brexit could use that to seize control of Parliament's agenda, a necessary first step if they want to prevent the U.K. from leaving the EU without a divorce agreement.The debate, and votes around it, will be a first indication of the strength of the no-deal Brexit opposition in Parliament, and whether there is a route to tying Johnson's hands. After that, the EU will have a clearer idea of what parliamentary rebels are able to do, the person said.Some MPs are working to prevent Johnson from calling a general election before Oct. 31 to force through a no-deal Brexit, according to a strategy memo seen by Bloomberg and reported by the Times newspaper.The document by the People's Vote campaign, signed by Tory rebel Dominic Grieve and Labour MP Margaret Beckett, calls for MPs to defeat the government in a no-confidence vote. Rather than use the 14-day period that follows to try to form a government, the plan says politicians should use the time to try to legislate to compel the government to delay Brexit.Election RiskThe prospect of fighting a general election with Brexit delayed could compel more Conservative politicians -- and even Johnson himself -- to accept the need for a second referendum, Grieve and Beckett write.They also warned that too much focus on which parliamentary processes they could use to prevent a no-deal Brexit risks playing into the government's preferred narrative that politicians "are frustrating rather than protecting democracy." Rather, MPs must "reassert with clarity and conviction the democratic principles that underpin our campaign," they wrote.In the meantime, the EU standoff continues. Though the prime minister has spoken by phone with EU leaders including German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron since taking office last month, he's yet to meet them in person. He's due to meet both at the Group of Seven summit in Biarritz, France at the end of August.Johnson is prepared to meet with leaders face-to-face to lay out his position, but no negotiation is really possible until the bloc retreats from its red line on re-opening the withdrawal agreement, the person familiar with the matter said.There's no indication Johnson is preparing to back down, and there are growing signs that his government is preparing for an early general election. Johnson has announced a slew of domestic policy initiatives including hiring more police, expanding prisons and plowing more cash into the National Health Service."This is a pre-election period," Labour's home affairs spokeswoman, Diane Abbott, told BBC radio on Monday. "Even if he doesn't go ahead and have an election in the autumn, he's clearing the ground."(Updates with Remain MPs' strategy in seventh paragraph.)To contact the reporters on this story: Alex Morales in London at amorales2@bloomberg.net;Robert Hutton in London at rhutton1@bloomberg.net;Jessica Shankleman in London at jshankleman@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Tim Ross at tross54@bloomberg.net, Stuart Biggs, Robert HuttonFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| Bolton says US to 'move very quickly' on post-Brexit trade deal Posted: 12 Aug 2019 11:58 AM PDT  US National Security Advisor John Bolton said Monday that Washington wanted "to move very quickly" on a trade deal with Britain after it leaves the EU, and that the White House would wait until after Brexit to address various security concerns. The hawkish White House aide spoke in London after becoming the most senior official from Donald Trump's administration to meet Prime Minister Boris Johnson since he succeeded Theresa May as UK government leader last month.
|
| UPDATE 1-U.S. would enthusiastically support a UK choice for no-deal Brexit - Trump adviser Posted: 12 Aug 2019 10:49 AM PDT ![UPDATE 1-U.S. would enthusiastically support a UK choice for no-deal Brexit - Trump adviser]( "UPDATE 1-U.S. would enthusiastically support a UK choice for no-deal Brexit - Trump adviser") The United States would enthusiastically support a no-deal Brexit if that is what the British government decided to do, U.S. national security adviser John Bolton told reporters on Monday. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson wants the European Union to renegotiate the terms of Britain exit ahead of an Oct. 31 exit date, but the EU says it will not alter the part of the deal Johnson says must be changed. "If that is the decision of the British government we would support it enthusiastically," he said.
|
| Clashes undermine fragile truce over Jerusalem holy site Posted: 12 Aug 2019 10:32 AM PDT  It wasn't inevitable that the overlap of Jewish and Muslim holidays would lead to clashes at a Jerusalem site deeply revered by both faiths. After an outcry by right-wing Israeli leaders, the police reversed an earlier decision to bar the Jewish visitors and let them in, as stun grenades echoed and tear gas filled the air.
|
| Russian nuclear body says deadly blast was caused by nuclear power project, not powerful new missile Posted: 12 Aug 2019 10:29 AM PDT  A mysterious explosion that killed five nuclear scientists on Russia's northern frontier last week was caused by a nuclear power generator, Russia's Rosatom state nuclear concern has said following reports the blast was related to a state-of-the art nuclear missile. Monitors in nearby Severodvinsk said they detected a temporary spike in radiation levels after the incident on Thursday, something the military denied. Unconfirmed videos showed medical personnel wearing hazmat suits handling casualties. Rosatom only confirmed the death of five specialists from one of its premier research institutes on Saturday, three days later. The company statement said only that they died during the testing of an "isotopic source of power on a liquid-fuel propulsion system." The specialists worked at VNIIEF, the All-Russian Scientific Research Institute of Experimental Physics, where Soviet scientists worked to create the nation's first atomic bomb. In separate video statement on Sunday, the head of the institute, Vyacheslav Solovyov, suggested that the five specialists were working on experimental, miniaturised nuclear power sources, including radioisotope thermoelectric generators or a new type of small nuclear reactor. Neither statement suggested the specialists were working on a missile. However, the admission that the accident involved some kind of rocket engine and the lack of transparency around the event have sparked speculation that the specialists were indeed the first casualties of one of Vladimir Putin's new doomsday weapons. The weapon in question is known in Russia as Burevestnik, while Nato calls it Skyfall. It is believed to feature a radical design, in which a small nuclear reactor heats air passing through an air intake, while the expanding gas blasts out the back. Such a concept promises nearly infinite range. Such a missile would need to first be launched by a conventional rocket, since the nuclear propulsion system is a type of ramjet, which needs to hit a certain speed before activating. Details of the incident, however, continue to be scant, and other explanations are possible. An alternative theory is that the blast was caused by a disastrous test of a nuclear space engine for future missions to Mars. Rosatom announced one such project a decade ago, though little has since been heard of it.
|
| Trump administration rolls back vital protections for animals at risk of extinction Posted: 12 Aug 2019 09:49 AM PDT  The Trump administration has introduced broad changes to America's signature environmental law, in a move critics say will drive more endangered animals and plants to extinction. Interior secretary David Bernhardt unveiled a series of changes on Monday, one of which will end blanket protections for animals newly deemed threatened by extinction.Another change will allow government agencies for the first time to consider the financial cost of protecting certain species.The current form of the Endangered Species Act ensures that only science must be taken into account when deciding if animals are in danger.That prohibition has meant that industries, such as logging and mining, were unable to lobby for protections to be rolled back on economic grounds.Authorities will now consider financial implications when deciding if species need protecting.The Trump administration will also make it easier to remove species from the endangered list.The alterations will also allow authorities to disregard the impact of climate change, when designating areas as a critical habitat for threatened species.US Fish and Wildlife Service official Margaret Everson said the changes "provide the maximum degree of regulatory certainty" while protecting species. The Trump administration says the changes would make regulation more efficient and less burdensome while preserving protections for wildlife. At least 10 state attorneys general joined conservation groups, which have promised legal action, in protesting against an early draft of the changes, saying they put more wildlife at greater risk of extinction."This effort to gut protections for endangered and threatened species has the same two features of most Trump administration actions: it's a gift to industry, and it's illegal. We'll see the Trump administration in court about it," said Drew Caputo, a vice president of litigation for the conservation advocacy group Earthjustice. "These changes crash a bulldozer through the Endangered Species Act's lifesaving protections for America's most vulnerable wildlife," added Noah Greenwald, the Center for Biological Diversity's endangered species director."For animals like wolverines and monarch butterflies, this could be the beginning of the end."We'll fight the Trump administration in court to block this rewrite, which only serves the oil industry and other polluters who see endangered species as pesky inconveniences."The Endangered Species Act currently protects more than 1,600 species in the US and its territories.A United Nations report warned in May that more than a million plants and animals globally face extinction, some within decades, owing to human development, climate change and other threats. The report called the rate of species loss a record. The 1973 act is credited with helping save the bald eagle, California condor and scores of other animals and plants from extinction since President Richard Nixon signed it into law.Additional reporting by AP
|
| Turkey says US delegation begins work on Syria safe zone Posted: 12 Aug 2019 08:00 AM PDT ![Turkey says US delegation begins work on Syria safe zone]( "Turkey says US delegation begins work on Syria safe zone") Turkey says a U.S. delegation has arrived in the country to set up a coordination center for a so-called "safe zone" in Syria, part of an agreement struck last week that appeared to avert a possible new Turkish incursion into Syria. Turkey's defense ministry tweeted Monday that six Americans arrived in the southeastern Sanliurfa province and said the center would be activated soon. Ankara seeks to push out U.S.-allied Syrian Kurdish militias from border areas inside Syria, considering them terrorists aligned with a Kurdish insurgency in Turkey.
|
| Iran's Zarif blasts US arms sales to Gulf Posted: 12 Aug 2019 06:51 AM PDT  Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif accused the United States on Monday of transforming the Gulf into a "tinderbox" with its arms sales to regional allies. Some of the countries in the region with less than a third of our population spend $87 billion on military procurement," Zarif told Qatar's Al Jazeera broadcaster during a visit to the Gulf state. Washington is pursuing a "maximum pressure" campaign designed to force Iran to limit its nuclear and military activities.
|
| Germany Moves to Scratch Reunification Tax Worth $21 Billion Posted: 12 Aug 2019 06:49 AM PDT  (Bloomberg) -- Terms of Trade is a daily newsletter that untangles a world embroiled in trade wars. Sign up here. Nearly three decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Germany is moving to eliminate the so-called solidarity tax that helped finance reunification.The 5.5% tax that was levied on all but low-income earners is to be abolished from 2021 for 90% of those currently paying it, Finance Minister Olaf Scholz said in Berlin on Monday.In 2018 the levy generated total revenues of 18.9 billion euros ($21.2 billion). But actual shortfalls could amount to only half that, as the wealthiest contributors -- roughly 10% -- will continue to pay what locally is referred to as the Soli.The tax phase-out, as presented, is part of the coalition agreement drawn up after the 2017 parliamentary elections and was already budgeted for and wouldn't generate deficit spending. "It's a small stimulus for the economy," said Holger Schmieding, chief economist at Berenberg Bank. "As it's part of the coalition agreement, it's already part of growth forecasts."The announcement comes amid growing pressure for increased stimulus as Europe's largest economy slows and risks entering a recession. The parties in Chancellor Angela Merkel's coalition lost considerable support in opinion polls in recent months. In two regional elections on Sept. 1 in Saxony and Brandenburg, Merkel's Christian Democrats and Scholz's Social Democrats, could lose for the first time since reunification in 1990 – to the right-wing Alternative for Germany, or AfD, polls suggest."It's also a contribution to economic expansion in Germany, we know the economy is a bit weak," Scholz said at the finance ministry.Merkel's CDU wanted the levy scrapped for all tax payers but backs Scholz's initial plan as a first step. Some opposition parties have said they will challenge it in court as anti-constitutional."It has been a burden on everyone so the same circle of people must have that burden lifted," Linda Teuteberg, secretary general of the liberal FDP, said in an interview with ZDF TV on Monday. "Anything else would contradict the constitution."While the Soli had been intended to bridge the economic gap between East and West, regional wage and infrastructure differences continue to rile voters and challenge politicians. Even without the tax, the federal government continues to pay for a host of economic development programs in the former communist states.(Adds context throughout.)\--With assistance from Zoe Schneeweiss.To contact the reporter on this story: Birgit Jennen in Berlin at bjennen1@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Ben Sills at bsills@bloomberg.net, Raymond Colitt, Iain RogersFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| Hong Kong airport shuts down amid pro-democracy protest Posted: 12 Aug 2019 06:30 AM PDT  The extreme action by the largely leaderless movement seemed calculated to prompt a stern response from Beijing, and Communist Party leader Xi Jinping's administration responded within hours. No new violence was reported by Monday evening, although the city remained on edge after more than two months of near-daily and increasingly bloody confrontations between protesters and police. Beijing tends toward a broad definition of terrorism, including in it nonviolent protests of government policies on the environment or in minority regions such as Xinjiang and Tibet.
|
| Beijing’s Infowar and the Threats of Force Intensify as Protesters Shut Down Hong Kong’s Airport Posted: 12 Aug 2019 06:26 AM PDT  REUTERS / Tyrone SiuHONG KONG—A brutal Sunday evening left this city reeling. As protests, clashes, and disruptions become part of daily life in Hong Kong, a disinformation campaign is being waged north of the city in mainland China.Trapped within the Great Firewall, most Chinese nationals are unable to read what's really happening here, and instead are bombarded with a narrative created by the Chinese Communist Party's media organs. They have been pushing the CCP's idea that Hong Kong's blackshirt protests are the actions of "radicals," and that there are terrorist elements incubating in the coastal city. The campaign has seeded the fiction that they are "hurting" Hong Kong, and that the city's police force has been "restrained" in its responses to ten weeks of unrest.Beijing and Hong Kong's governments label the blackshirts and their supporters as "rioters," so this language has also been adopted by propaganda organizations like the Xinhua new service, People's Daily, and Global Times.Eager to paint the protests in Hong Kong as the consequence of foreign interference rather than a failure in domestic governance, the CCP's media arms, including Xinhua, have doxxed a U.S. diplomat who met with activists who were some of the young leaders in the Umbrella Movement of 2014, referring to them as "riot organizers." Chinese academics who have raised the point that there is no proof of American involvement in Hong Kong's blackshirt protests have been attacked in op-eds penned by state-backed "news" minions.Cathay Pacific, Hong Kong's flagship airline, has also come under scrutiny, with Chinese media invoking 9/11 and the mysterious MH 370 crash to fan the flames, suggesting the airline's staff could inflict terror attacks. The Civil Aviation Administration of China also demanded that the airline bar all employees who support the protests from being on flights that enter mainland Chinese airspace.In the absence of dependable news coverage, the message pushed by the CCP's scribes makes for potent Kool-Aid. The Party could be preparing for harsher crackdowns, a nightmare scenario that may involve Chinese troops or militarized police sent south. Videos of constant mobilization of armored vehicles near the border with Shenzhen, which the Chinese government and People's Liberation Army calls drills or exercises, only bolster the paranoia.In Hong Kong on Sunday, here's what happened in just one day and night: A young woman was shot in her face, blinding her right eye permanently and giving her nerve damage that may impact motor functions in various parts of her body. Ready to offer its fabrications and explain away the life-changing injury, Chinese state-run television broadcaster CCTV posted on Weibo—the Chinese equivalent of Twitter—that the woman who was blinded was beaten up by other blackshirts, and that "allegations" of the Hong Kong Police Force having any part in her disfiguration were false.First aid responders were also attacked by the police. A stick—a "weapon"—was placed into the backpack of an arrested protester by a police officer, likely as a plant to make additional criminal charges stick. Tear gas was released in a subway station, endangering all who were present—not only the blackshirts—in an enclosed space. Self-proclaimed Chinese patriots ganged up to assault journalists and protesters seemingly with impunity, at one point striking a local camera assistant with a pole that had the Chinese national flag fastened to it. Police impersonated "front line" protestors, dressed in black, wearing gas masks, and coordinated for mass arrests within the crowd. Pools of blood were left on the streets and in subway stations.The Hong Kong Police Force is no longer bothering to pretend to disperse crowds. Their methods over the weekend were intended to inflict bodily harm and punishment.The escalation in police violence, as well as the use of subversive tactics and infiltration, follows the appointment of a retired deputy police chief, Alan Lau, as deputy commissioner on special duty for six months. Lau is known for overseeing the operations that cleared the Umbrella Movement from the streets of Hong Kong five years ago. He was also in charge of coordinating security for Chinese President Xi Jinping during the leader's visit to Hong Kong in 2017.Though Chinese media often invoke a "silent majority" in Hong Kong that toes the Party's line, the truth is that massive support exists behind the blackshirts. Hongkongers who do not participate in the street actions find other means to ensure those who risk prison sentences or personal danger are able to keep the fight going. Neutral colored t-shirts–non-black ones–are left at subway ticketing machines, as are bags of spare change and pre-purchased tickets. Notes indicating where police are conducting bag and ID checks are pasted by subway exits. Food and food vouchers are distributed, as are—to a lesser extent—hardhats, gas masks, and goggles. Across Hong Kong, and in several major cities around the world, Lennon walls have been assembled—they are surfaces where anyone can leave a note of encouragement, usually scribbled on a Post-It note, and paste up printed matter that shares information about the latest developments. The format is like a decentralized newsletter—managed by no single person or group but consumed by all.And in a key move of solidarity, residents in most districts will hit the streets whenever they see riot police deployed in their neighborhoods, heckling and at times even blocking them, stalling so that the blackshirts are able to flee and regroup, minimizing arrests. At its core, the blackshirt's movement is about the needs of others over personal subsistence. It's a message that resonates with many in the city. Beneath the angst and rage felt today, or every day, is the hope for well-being in the future.Multiple unions and professional organizations—formed by engineers, artists, psychologists, educators, medical workers, social workers, tech workers, legal professionals, civil servants, and more—have held their own press conferences, rallies, or marches in response to the police brutality and governmental bankruptcy that is unfolding at alarming regularity.After a savage Sunday evening, "front line" blackshirt protestors are reevaluating their tactics. They acknowledge that the police have been able to catch them off guard by posing as part of their group. After all, where anonymity is not only encouraged, but required, it was an inevitable consequence. While they figure out how to formulate new actions, on Monday afternoon, thousands of people dressed in black packed the arrivals and departures halls of Hong Kong's airport, some of them arriving by foot after crossing a bridge that doesn't have a pedestrian lane. All incoming and outgoing flights until 6 a.m. Tuesday were canceled. It's one of the world's busiest airports. The people flooding the airport were mobilized in a matter of hours.Many protestors were weary. They held up signs that reiterated their demands—a complete withdrawal of an extradition bill that would have provided cover to move anyone who disagrees with the CCP's policies to detention facilities in the mainland, a retraction of the government's label of protests as "riots," the release of those who have been arrested, an inquiry into recent police conduct, and universal suffrage. But one white banner unfurled from a footbridge was new—it read "an eye for an eye." It was a more solemn affair than previous demonstrations at the airport. Several people told me they spent most of the night weeping. Collectively, the city must have lost millions of hours of sleep throughout the past two and a half months.Before sundown, and after airline staff were ordered to evacuate from the premises, many of those who participated in the sit-in walked out of the building and made their way home.The blackshirts and their supporters have been described by the city's chief executive, Carrie Lam, as people "with no stake" in the city. The casual use of the phrase was designed to dehumanize the blackshirts, to paint them as outcasts who don't deserve to be heard.Last week, about 500 people from Hong Kong traveled to Shenzhen for a briefing with officials attached to Beijing's top office that governs Hong Kong affairs. These included business tycoons and pro-Beijing officials, and they were instructed to inject "positive energy" into the city and "safeguard" its prosperity. Several days later, they placed an ad on the front page of a pro-Beijing newspaper in Hong Kong in support of Carrie Lam, after they became the targets themselves of questions about why they weren't speaking out against the unrest in Hong Kong.The blackshirts and their supporters can do the same. A crowdfunding campaign for ads in major newspapers around the world—their third—hit $1 million within an hour, nearly doubling another hour later. They'll be published on August 17.Yet the CCP's media machine is well-oiled. The blackshirts have been described as mobs, then criminals, then separatists, and now terrorists. Pro-CCP groups, including criminal organizations, have been called upon to "defend" the city. With proclamations that Hong Kong is a haven for terrorism, the way to an extremely violent crackdown has just been paved. Read more at The Daily Beast.Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.
|
| No deal announced as US, Taliban wrap up latest talks Posted: 12 Aug 2019 06:05 AM PDT  The latest round of talks between the Taliban and the United States ended early Monday without any sign a peace deal had been reached for Afghanistan, as both sides said they would consult with their leaderships on the next steps. A Taliban spokesman had said last week that this eighth round of talks would conclude with a deal to end the nearly 18-year war, America's longest. The two sides have been discussing an agreement under which U.S. forces would withdraw from Afghanistan and the Taliban would guarantee the country would not revert to being a launch pad for global terrorist attacks.
|
| Hong Kong flights cancelled as thousands protest at airport after night of violence Posted: 12 Aug 2019 05:34 AM PDT  All flights out of Hong Kong airport were cancelled on Monday after thousands of demonstrators occupied one of the world's busiest travel hubs, as Beijing denounced the protests as "terrorism". The sudden airport shutdown came as mass demonstrations spilled into a third month, despite rising threats from the authorities. On Monday, Beijing officials gave their third press conference in as many weeks, a rarity for authorities in normal times. "Radical protesters have been frequently using extremely dangerous tools to attack the police in recent days, constituting serious criminal acts with sprouts of terrorism emerging," said Yang Guang, a spokesperson for the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office in Beijing, which reports to China's cabinet. Violence escalated significantly between protesters and police over the weekend, as officers shot tear gas into underground subway stations for the first time after mass demonstrations began early June. Police have made more than 600 arrests in recent days. Hong Kong police said 5,000 people were at the airport protest Credit: Vincent Thian /AP Protesters had already occupied the airport for days when more flooded in Monday. Some wore black eye patches, waving signs that read "Hong Kong is not safe," "Shame on the police," and "An eye for an eye," turning out to express their anger after one person thought to have been shot by a beanbag round in her right eye was hospitalised. Stations on the city's airport express line were filled with confused passengers unable to get to the airport, many of whom were on the phone with family, friends and colleagues to sort backup travel plans, while other visitors disembarked from the train after being turned away at the airport. Hong Kong airport is the world's 8th busiest, with frequent departures to more than 180 cities, and a hub for travel to much of Asia. Police have ramped up the use of force against protesters in recent weeks Credit: Manan Vatsyayana/AFP Roads leading to the airport were gridlocked yesterday afternoon, and a nearby hotel was flooded with people looking for a last-minute stay. Shocking footage of HongKong riot police charging into a subway station pursuing pro-democracy activists and firing into them at point blank range. I've seen police being provoked here but I'm speechless. Carrie Lam says no police inquiry needed they're investigating themselves. pic.twitter.com/R61BytE6ft— Stephen McDonell (@StephenMcDonell) August 11, 2019 Many of those whose travel was interrupted expressed support for the protestes. "I think China is facing a difficult time. I am glad they haven't put out tanks yet," said James Campbell, a 26-year-old civil engineer from Sydney en route to Taipei. "I can see where these protesters are coming from." The protests have brought millions into the streets, plunging the former British colony into its most serious political crisis since being returned to Chinese rule and representing the biggest challenge ever to Xi Jinping's power as the leader of the Chinese Communist Party. A pro-democracy protester is held by police outside Tsim Sha Tsui Police station during a demonstration Credit: AFP Demonstrations first began in opposition to a now-suspended extradition bill that would have sent people to face trial in mainland China, where Communist Party control of the courts contributes to a 99.9 per cent conviction rate. Protesters - increasingly angry as police continue to use escalating violence to disperse crowds - have now expanded their demands, calling for wider political reforms including direct leadership elections. Let us admin HK is a police state. Riot police push down peaceful protestor on the escalator of railway station. pic.twitter.com/gycHF8E8Zo— Joshua Wong 黃之鋒 (@joshuawongcf) August 11, 2019 Despite many mass rallies now ending in violence as night falls with police shooting tear gas, rubber bullets, and foam rounds, broad support has continued to swell and show no signs of splintering. After all flights were cancelled, protesters and pro-democracy lawmakers began encouraging the crowds to leave out of concern that police might fire tear gas into the airport as dozens of police vans had been spotted en route. Protesters use steels barricades to form a defensive line inside the Quarry bay MTR station Credit: AP But many continued to stay on, peacefully chanting in the arrivals hall, "Liberate Hong Kong!" and approaching arriving visitors with flyers that listed their demands and explaining the political situation.
|
| UPDATE 3-Russia pays tribute to dead nuclear workers, vows to develop new weapons Posted: 12 Aug 2019 05:03 AM PDT ![UPDATE 3-Russia pays tribute to dead nuclear workers, vows to develop new weapons]( "UPDATE 3-Russia pays tribute to dead nuclear workers, vows to develop new weapons") Russia's top nuclear official promised on Monday to succeed in developing new weapons as he paid tribute to five scientists killed in what U.S. experts suspect was the botched test of a new missile vaunted by President Vladimir Putin. The five scientists were buried in the closed city of Sarov on Monday. The defence ministry initially said background radiation had remained normal, but a spike in radiation levels recorded in a nearby city prompted U.S.-based nuclear experts to suspect the failed test involved a nuclear-powered cruise missile.
|
| Russia Has Failed Another Nuclear Test Posted: 12 Aug 2019 04:41 AM PDT ![Russia Has Failed Another Nuclear Test]( "Russia Has Failed Another Nuclear Test") (Bloomberg Opinion) -- Moscow isn't the only place where you can see signs that all is not well in Vladimir Putin's Russia. A Russian missile test gone wrong on Aug. 8 took at least five lives. The confused partial explanations that followed confirmed that the Russian authorities can't be trusted to tell the world or their own people the truth about nuclear accidents. Soon after an explosion at the Nyonoksa testing ground in the Arkhangelsk region in northern Russia, the city authorities in Severodvinsk, a nearby city with a population of about 190,000, reported that radiation levels had jumped for about an hour, though remaining within safe limits. The report, however, was pulled from the city's official website (only screenshots exist today). The Defense Ministry, however, issued a press release saying a "liquid fuel missile engine" had blown up, which would leave the radiation leap unexplained. It didn't help that the military closed the part of the White Sea surrounding the testing ground for civilian shipping.Rumors proliferated and locals throughout the region rushed to pharmacies to buy up iodine, used to mitigate radiation's effect on the thyroid gland. On Aug. 10, Rosatom, the state-owned corporation in charge of Russia's nuclear program, put out its own statement saying five of its employees died in the accident and three more were injured; according to the statement, they had been "involved in servicing isotope power sources on a liquid fuel engine."Thus, it admitted that the accident had been nuclear in nature. Yet Norway's Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, which would be among the first to notice any significant radiation release in northern Russia, has not noted any increase. Rosatom's vague explanation appears to hint at a device known as a radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG); unlike a reactor, it doesn't use a chain reaction but rather converts heat from the natural decay of radioactive materials into electricity. Such generators are used, for example, on spaceships and satellites to power them when solar batteries are of no use. It's conceivable that such alternative power sources could be installed on a missile – for example, to change its course during flight. That an RTG was involved would be consistent with a low, non-threatening radiation discharge. On Aug. 11, the Russian nuclear center at Sarov put out a video saying the dead and injured were employees. In the video, three representatives of the center's management skirted the issue of what exactly blew up, but an important hint came from Vyacheslav Solovyuov, Sarov's head scientist. He talked about the center's radioisotope power source program and mentioned, by way of an example, a similar U.S. program – NASA's Kilopower project, which resulted in a successful test of a small nuclear reactor last year. It's possible, then, that last week's accident involved a compact nuclear reactor, not an RTG. Some Western experts, notably Jeffrey Lewis from the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, have suggested as much, speculating that the missile that blew up was a 9M730 Burevestnik, which the North Atlantic Treaty Organization calls SSC-X-9-Skyfall. That's one of the miracle weapons Russian President Vladimir Putin teased in his 2018 state of the nation address as part of a new generation of missiles that would render U.S. missile defenses useless. Powered by a lightweight nuclear reactor, Burevestnik is supposed to be able to cover extremely long distances, flying at a low altitude to avoid detection. The Russian defense ministry claimed earlier this year that the nuclear engine had been successfully tested. The Burevestnik theory contradicts earlier leaks about the new missile; according to those leaks, it would use solid, not liquid, rocket fuel to launch. But, since a reactor-powered missile is expected to leave a radioactive trace as it flies, it would be consistent with a brief leap in radiation levels if the missile took off and then fell into the sea. The Serebryanka, a nuclear fuel carrier ship, was recorded as present in the area; it was used last year to search for another Burevestnik, which reportedly crashed into the sea after its reactor failed to start up. All of this, of course, requires a lot of guesswork. That's exactly the point. Various Russian entities involved in the failed test and affected by it have dropped hints and dangled imprecise, but scientific-sounding descriptions. On the basis of the publicly available information, all one can do is theorize, as Lewis has done. That shouldn't be the case with even the smallest, least threatening of nuclear accidents. Nor is it OK to take days to admit that a radiation accident has taken place.What happened in the Arkhangelsk region was no second Chernobyl. The reactor or nuclear generator will probably be recovered without further damage to people's health or the environment. But the authorities should have provided a clear explanation to locals and to neighboring countries. After all, everyone knows, thanks to Putin, that Russia is testing nuclear-powered missiles; it's reasonable to expect that some of the tests will fail.It's unreasonable, however, to expect people to trust a government that keeps its cards so close to the chest – not for the first time. The sight of people snapping up iodine tablets despite calming statements from officials is more of a comment on the Putin regime than a missile test failure. Russians don't trust their authorities, and no one else should trust Putin's government, either, even in matters of life and death.To contact the author of this story: Leonid Bershidsky at lbershidsky@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Therese Raphael at traphael4@bloomberg.netThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Leonid Bershidsky is Bloomberg Opinion's Europe columnist. He was the founding editor of the Russian business daily Vedomosti and founded the opinion website Slon.ru.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| Mohammed bin Salman backs Yemeni government as Saudi-led coalition descends into infighting Posted: 12 Aug 2019 04:05 AM PDT  Mohammed bin Salman, the Saudi crown prince, has thrown his weight behind the Yemeni government as it battles against a separatist group backed by Saudi Arabia's allies in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The prince's military coalition in Yemen fractured dramatically over the weekend as the Yemeni government and the southern separatists turned their guns on each other after years of fight side-by-side under Saudi leadership. The intense fighting in the port city of Aden left 40 people dead as separatist forces, who seek an independent state in south Yemen, seized control of government buildings and fought against presidential guards. Saudi jets carried out an airstrike in Aden in support of government troops and Prince Mohammed met with the Yemeni president, Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, on Sunday night in a show of support. Mr Hadi's office said the two men discussed the separatist "coup" against the government and "various other crimes against the sons of Aden". By Monday morning a tense calm appeared to have settled over Aden with no reports of fresh fighting between the two sides. Humanitarian groups warned that thousands of civilians were trapped in the firing line. Mohammed bin Salman is supporting the Yemeni government. Credit: REUTERS/Jorge Silva/File Photo But it was unclear how the standoff would be resolved and whether separatist forces, known as the Southern Transitional Council (STC), would withdraw from seized government buildings. Aidarus al-Zubaidi, the head of the STC, said he was committed to a ceasefire and was prepared to travel to Saudi Arabia to negotiate a long-term truce. He said his forces had moved against the Yemeni government because he had intelligence that government troops were preparing to launch an attack of their own. Even if the immediate crisis in Aden can be resolved, the violence highlights the deep fractures in Prince Mohammed's coalition, which has been struggling for more than four years against Houthi rebels aligned with Iran. Saudi Arabia led an Arab military coalition into an air campaign against Houthi forces in 2015 in an effort to restore Mr Hadi's control over Yemen. The fighting has plunged the country into famine and the UN now considers Yemen the world's worst humanitarian crisis. Thousands of civilians have been killed by the Saudi-led coalition's airstrikes. The separatists are armed by the UAE Credit: REUTERS/Fawaz Salman The UAE, which has one of the region's most effective militaries, played a major role in helping government forces push the Houthis back towards their stronghold in the country's northwest. It also provided weapons and support to the STC, arguing that the separatists were key partners in fighting both the Houthis and jihadists groups in Yemen. However, the UAE withdrew most of its forces from Yemen in recent months, hampering the coalition's ability to continue fighting the Houthis. With their patrons withdrawing from Yemen, the STC decided to move against the Yemeni government. In an statement over the weekend, the Yemeni embassy in Washington said it held "the United Arab Emirates fully responsible for the coup perpetrated against the state in Aden".
|
| Kashmir in Lockdown, But India Says Restrictions Will Ease Soon Posted: 12 Aug 2019 03:33 AM PDT  (Bloomberg) -- Large parts of Kashmir remained cut off from the rest of the world as a communications blackout entered its eighth day, although India said it would soon begin gradually easing restrictions.Television footage showed barbed wire barricades set up on the streets of Srinagar -- the summer capital of Indian-administered Kashmir -- where gun-toting security forces were guarding the streets. Some of the restrictions, including one that prohibits the assembly of people, were eased at the weekend, according to local officials and some media reports, ahead of the Muslim festival of Eid.The restrictions were put on place to stop the spread of misinformation, Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale said at a briefing in New Delhi on Monday, noting the curbs were precautionary and would be lifted."This is obviously a sensitive week, we have a major festival today, we have our independence day on Aug. 15," Gokhale told reporters. Restrictions will be gradually eased "when we feel the law and order situation improves," he said, without giving a timeline.Indian authorities imposed the lock down fearing massive protests after Prime Minister Narendra Modi ended Kashmir's seven decades of autonomy in a surprise move last week. In one swoop, the government pushed through a legislation which brought the region under central administration and allowed Indian citizens living outside the state to own land in Kashmir. The decision was taken within days of U.S. President Donald Trump's offer to mediate between India and Pakistan. India rejected the offer that came after Trump met Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan to seek his help to pressure the Taliban into signing a permanent ceasefire in Afghanistan.On Monday, large numbers of people congregated for Eid prayers across the Kashmir valley, Imtiyaz Hussain, a Jammu and Kashmir police officer, posted on his personal Twitter handle.Authorities established 300 public telephone booths for communication, the government said in a statement, while banks started reopening on Saturday, according to Shahid Choudhary, the administration's head in Srinagar.Still, the situation remained tense, with footage from the BBC showing protesters marching on the streets and clashing with security forces.Addressing nation on Thursday, Modi hailed a "new era" in Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh and said the move would bring prosperity to the region, while his Pakistani counterpart Imran Khan warned of "genocide" once the curfew is lifted.On Sunday, Amit Shah, India's home minister said the move will bring an "end to terrorism" in the state.Kashmir has been the main flash point between India and Pakistan since the British left the subcontinent in 1947. Both countries claim Kashmir as theirs and have fought two of their three wars over the territory.Responding to the development, Pakistan announced a series of measures to oppose what it called "unilateral and illegal actions" by India. Islamabad downgraded diplomatic relations and suspended bilateral trade with India and said it will take the matter to the United Nations Security Council and ensure its army remains vigilant. India urged Pakistan to review its decision.Pakistan also imposed altitude restrictions on foreign aircraft flying over Lahore on the weekend. Relations between the two South Asian rivals are already under strain following a suicide bombing in Kashmir that killed 40 paramilitary troops in February. India responded with airstrikes and Pakistan retaliated by shooting down an Indian jet.India accuses Pakistan of supporting armed extremists in Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan denies the charges and says it offers only moral support to separatists.(Updates with foreign secretary quote in fourth paragraph.)\--With assistance from Bibhudatta Pradhan.To contact the reporters on this story: Anirban Nag in Mumbai at anag8@bloomberg.net;Archana Chaudhary in New Delhi at achaudhary2@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Ruth Pollard at rpollard2@bloomberg.net, Subramaniam SharmaFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| India warns China to stay out of Kashmir dispute as crisis intensifies Posted: 12 Aug 2019 03:15 AM PDT  India has issued a warning to China to stay out of the dispute over Kashmir's status, after Pakistan said it would take the issue to the United Nations Security Council with the support of Beijing. The remarks by the Indian foreign minister, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, came after his Pakistani counterpart visited China in a bid to seek allies for a UN resolution against New Delhi for revoking Kashmir's autonomy. Mr Jaishankar flew to Beijing himself to meet China's top diplomat, Wang Yi, saying at the talks that "the two nations should ensure that it was important that differences between us, if any, should not become disputes". China's foreign ministry said in a statement later that it had taken a "principled" stand on "unilateral" actions by India, and had urged New Delhi to play a constructive role in regional peace and stability. But India's Ministry of External Affairs bluntly said decisions on Kashmir were "an internal matter concerning the territory of India". "India does not comment on the internal affairs of other countries and similarly expects other countries to do likewise," the ministry added. Kashmir China has described India's revocation of Jammu and Kashmir's special status, in place since Partition in 1947, as "unacceptable" and a threat to its territorial sovereignty. As well as the dispute between India and Pakistan, China also claims a strip of Kashmir, Aksai Chin. Following Friday's meeting between Mr Wang and the Pakistani foreign minister, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, the Chinese diplomat expressed grave concern about the situation in Kashmir, the cause of two wars between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan. Mr Wang had assured Mr Qureshi that Beijing would continue to support Pakistan to safeguard its legitimate rights and interests, his ministry said in a statement. Kashmir itself on Monday remained under a communications blackout and a police curfew, with information still difficult to come by or verify. The Indian government said it was easing restrictions yesterday, and that the Muslim festival of Eid al-Adha had been observed largely peacefully. It also condemned as "irresponsible" a series of tweets by Pakistani officials, including Prime Minister Imran Khan, which likened the Indian government to "Nazis" and "fascists". The row spilled over into a Los Angeles beauty event, where former Bollywood actress Priyanka Chopra was accused of "encouraging nuclear war" over an Instagram caption in which she wrote "Jai Hind", meaning "victory to India" and included the hashtag IndianArmedForces. Referring to the post from February, an audience member at a beauty panel told Chopra: "You are a Unicef ambassador for peace and you're encouraging nuclear war against Pakistan. There's no winner in this." Chopra said: "War is not something that I'm really fond of, but I am patriotic." The woman, who named herself on Twitter as Ayesha Malik, was handed the microphone during the Q&A; portion of a BeautyCon panel featuring Chopra. The exchange was caught on camera. Ms Malik said: "It was kind of hard hearing you talk about humanity, because as your neighbour, a Pakistani, I know you're a bit of a hypocrite." The actress, a Unicef ambassador, was accused of fuelling tensions with a tweet backing Indian armed forces and exclaiming "Jai Hind" (Victory to India) Credit: John Sciulli/Getty Ms Malik added: "As a Pakistani, millions of people like me have supported you in your business of Bollywood." Staff then grabbed the microphone away. Chopra, who is married to US pop star Nick Jonas, replied: "I hear you. Whenever you're done venting. Got it? Done? Okay, cool." The 37-year-old said "war is not something that I'm really fond of, but I am patriotic", adding "but I think that all of us have a sort of middle ground that we all have to walk". She added: "The way you came at me right now, girl, don't yell. We're all here for love. Don't yell. Don't embarrass yourself."
|
| Argentina Can’t Shake Its Turmoil Without End Posted: 12 Aug 2019 03:03 AM PDT  (Bloomberg) -- Want to receive this post in your inbox every day? Sign up for the Balance of Power newsletter, and follow Bloomberg Politics on Twitter and Facebook for more.Mauricio Macri is waking up with an almighty political hangover.The scale of the Argentine leader's defeat in yesterday's primary vote took pollsters and investors by surprise: Markets rose on Friday in expectation that he'd emerge with enough momentum to have a good shot at winning a second term in October's presidential election.Now a market sell-off looms, and Macri's presidential ambitions are hanging by a thread.The result is testament to Argentina's near-permanent state of economic crisis and a revolving door of political fixes.Macri came to office in 2015 pledging a turnaround from the years of Cristina Kirchner, who presided over default and capital controls that made Argentina an international pariah.Four years on, Argentina is still in recession and saddled with rampant inflation, with bolted-on austerity following a record International Monetary Fund bailout Macri was forced to request last year.Voters used the primary — essentially a poll of national sentiment — to signal their dissatisfaction with Macri's course. What is most worrying for investors is that the electorate instead opted for Alberto Fernandez, who has Kirchner as his running mate. Fernandez tried to reassure markets yesterday. But it's unlikely to stop the rout today.Investors are clear they want Macri in power. Argentina's voters seem to have other ideas.Global HeadlinesJust in: Five scientists killed in an explosion last week during a missile test on Russia's White Sea had been working on developing a small-scale nuclear reactor, a top official said.Airport shutdown | Hong Kong airport authorities canceled remaining flights today after thousands of black-clad protesters swarmed the main terminal building for a fourth day — the biggest disruption yet to the city's economy since demonstrations against Beijing's increasing grip over the financial hub began in early June. Shares of Cathay Pacific, Hong Kong's main airline, tumbled to a 10-year low. The unrest is the strongest challenge to Chinese control since the U.K. relinquished its former colony in 1997.Narrowing the field | The Iowa State Fair is a rite of passage for presidential contenders. But for the lowest polling candidates in the record-size Democratic field, the event took on an extra level of urgency this weekend. It was perhaps their final attempt to break through as they seek to qualify for the September debate in Houston. Those who fail to make the cut — and only nine have so far — might start bowing out.One top-tier candidate — Kamala Harris — portrayed herself as a pragmatist in an interview yesterday with Tyler Pager. Democratic candidates aren't necessarily all on board with the tactics being used to oppose Trump and other Republicans. Billy House outlines the political risks inherent in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's strategy of slow-walking moves to impeach Trump. Cash promises | U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has rolled out spending pledges of about 2 billion pounds ($2.4 billion) a week since coming to power last month promising to deliver Brexit on Oct. 31. That's fueled speculation he's preparing for a general election to change the balance in Parliament, where his Conservatives hold a wafer-thin majority of one.Crime fighter | A former director of prisons handily won Guatemala's presidential election yesterday after pledging to crack down on crime and pursue market-friendly policies. A 63-year-old surgeon, Alejandro Giammattei has been critical of his nation's safe-third country agreement with the U.S. to stem the flow of migrants.What to Watch This WeekParliament leaders in Rome meet today to set a date for the no-confidence vote that will most likely set Italy on track for a snap election in the fall. Political fallout from Jeffrey Epstein's ties to Trump, former president Bill Clinton and others could continue following the indicted financier's apparent suicide. Former White House counsel Gregory Craig — a rare Democrat caught up in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian election meddling — faces a jury today over criminal charges that could send him to prison for five years. The National Rifle Association is set to square off against the city of Los Angeles as the gun-rights group seeks to overturn a law requiring contractors to disclose all business ties to the organization. Large parts of Kashmir remain cut off from the rest of the world as a communications blackout entered its eighth day, although India said it would soon begin easing restrictions.And finally ... Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini has taken his campaign for fresh elections to the beaches where millions of Italians are trying to escape a summer heat wave. In a bid to counter opposition to a new vote that could hand his League party an outright parliamentary majority, Salvini posed for bare-chested selfies, chatted with holidaymakers in Sicily and even enjoyed a short dip in front of the cameras. \--With assistance from Kathleen Hunter, Karen Leigh, Alex Morales, Ben Sills and Michael Winfrey.To contact the author of this story: Alan Crawford in Berlin at acrawford6@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Karl Maier at kmaier2@bloomberg.netFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| How to Avert a New War in Gaza Posted: 12 Aug 2019 02:52 AM PDT ![How to Avert a New War in Gaza]( "How to Avert a New War in Gaza") (Bloomberg Opinion) -- Tensions between Israel and Hamas reignited this spring in the worst fighting since their 2014 war, sparking fears that another full-scale conflict could break out this summer. Certainly the incentives for escalation continue. There have been Gazan injuries during the riots along Israel-Gaza border; the murder of an Israeli student in the West Bank last week, decried as a terrorist event, is another.Up to now, both sides have repeatedly used diplomatic back channels to restore calm, at least temporarily. This pattern cannot hold endlessly. Gaza needs long-term strategic changes to address the underlying instability.For Hamas, serious escalation remains undesirable. It already faces a strategic crisis trying to rule Gaza day to day, and it has no reliable strategic patron that can ensure a continuous flow of economic aid. It also remembers well the 2014 war, which led to massive damage throughout Gaza without any tangible achievements for itself.Israel's decision making is more complicated. Terrorism and other military threats emanating from Gaza are intolerable in their own right, and can encourage terror in the West Bank. On the other hand, Israel does not want further humanitarian deterioration in Gaza, which can influence the election process in Israel, as well as harm the chance of success for the U.S. peace plan. Moreover, Israel doesn't want a distraction from its highest national security threat, namely Iranian and Hezbollah entrenchment in Israel's northern arena. There are things both sides can do, in their own best interests, to keep this steady, if uneasy, deterrence working.First, Israel should maintain its military superiority and deterrence over extremist factions in Gaza – primarily Hamas, but also Palestinian Islamic Jihad – which makes these extremist factions reluctant to conduct significant terror activity against Israel. Second, both sides should maintain communication channels, mostly through Egyptian (and if needed Qatari) mediators. That mechanism has been deepened in recent years, and can help clarify intentions, mitigate miscalculations and open the door for negotiation efforts and ceasefire talks.Third, both sides must also build upon recent initiatives to improve Gaza's dire economic situation. Qatar provides humanitarian aid that has helped improve Gaza's electrical infrastructure. Israel has also expanded fishing zones, promoted an initiative to build an industrial zone near the Israel-Gaza border and increased the number of Gazans allowed to work in Israel.Israel should go further though: It should also consider a wider worker transfer program into Israel and continue the electrical, water and sewage infrastructure improvement projects for Gaza. These efforts can coincide with the United Nations and donor countries establishing more industrial areas along the Israel-Gaza border. There is also a need to provide incentives to promote international and Israeli private investment in a high-tech sector inside Gaza. For Gaza's economy to flourish, its internet speed will need to double and become much cheaper.Assistance for providing basic services to Gaza, such as health and education, also requires rethinking. U.S. funding cuts to the Palestinian Authority and United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) – a problematic organization to be sure, but also a major food and education supplier to Gaza – could worsen the situation. Instead of completely cutting off financial support for Palestinian services, the United States should gradually push the international community away from funding UNRWA, and toward other support agencies less connected to Gaza's current failures, such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).Finally, the Gaza strip's political structure and its dependence on the Palestinian Authority (PA) for economic support and management - although Hamas has effectively controlled Gaza since a coup d'etat in June 2007 - hinders its development. Without PA support, Gaza's economy and infrastructure will deteriorate further under Hamas' mismanagement.Since Gaza is becoming increasingly ungovernable, Hamas is looking to offload some of its responsibilities. This creates an opportunity to overcome the current political stalemate through a different form of governance in Gaza. Reconciliation between Hamas and the PA looks impossible, but a government led by technocrats, individuals with expertise in the service and infrastructure areas where Gaza is deficient, could put more capable managers in charge of Gaza. That would provide an opportunity for the PA to return to Gaza and for greater aid from Israel, Egypt and the international community.With neither Israel nor Hamas wanting another war, the fragile situation between them might seem the best that can be achieved. However, it doesn't take much for low-grade conflict to escalate. Gaza's deterioration requires more comprehensive economic and political steps if war is to be averted.To contact the authors of this story: Ram Yavne at ramyvane1@gmail.comAri Cicurel atTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Therese Raphael at traphael4@bloomberg.netThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Ram Yavne is a brigadier general (retired) and former head of strategic planning in the Israel Defense Forces. He is a distinguished fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America.Ari Cicurel is a policy analyst at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America. For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| Have Britain’s Remainers Blown Their Last Chance? Posted: 12 Aug 2019 01:59 AM PDT ![Have Britain's Remainers Blown Their Last Chance?]( "Have Britain's Remainers Blown Their Last Chance?") (Bloomberg Opinion) -- Opponents of a no-deal Brexit in the U.K. parliament continue to insist they can stop Prime Minister Boris Johnson from taking Britain out of the European Union without a deal. There is "no parliamentary majority for no deal" gets repeated like a mantra.Brexiters say: So what? Parliament voted overwhelmingly in 2017 to trigger Article 50, which set the Brexit countdown clock in motion. Now supporters of a no-deal exit claim both the clock and the constitution are on their side.They have a point. A look at the options being offered (I count seven) to delay or stop the no-deal train shows why Johnson's threat has much greater credibility than Theresa May's ever did.Parliament could pass a law requiring the government to seek an extension. Back in April, the Labour MP Yvette Cooper sponsored a bill that placed a legal obligation on the government to, once Parliament approves, seek an extension of the Brexit deadline to avoid a no-deal exit. However, repeating that trick will be difficult, as Maddy Thimont Jack, a senior researcher at the Institute for Government, explains.To pass that kind of law again (the Cooper Act no longer applies), those opposed to a no-deal Brexit would likely have to take over the "order paper," which controls the parliamentary schedule, as they did earlier this year with the help of House Speaker John Bercow. Opponents of leaving without a deal will have to try to manufacture those opportunities, perhaps by amending an emergency debate motion. But it will be up to the speaker to decide whether to allow it. Even if such legislation were to pass the House of Commons, it could get held up in the House of Lords, where filibusters and other procedural obstacles could get in the way.The bigger problem with this route is determining what comes afterward. EU leaders made clear that they would be willing to grant another extension, but that must be approved unanimously by the 27 other members and one or more (French President Emmanuel Macron, for example) could decide they want to attach conditions.Parliament could pass a vote of no-confidence in the government. This is the scenario everyone has been talking about, but it's far from an automatic brake. A no-confidence vote (which Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has signaled he'll call when Parliament returns) can be held only after a motion is put forward, which means a vote would realistically be held only Sept. 4, the day after parliament returns. Given the law requires 25 working days before an election can be held, it would just be possible to fit in an election before exit day on Oct. 31.Only what happens if Johnson refuses to go? If a no-confidence vote passes, the majority party would have 14 days to try to assemble a new government, which means he could simply declare a new election for the day after Brexit.QuicktakeNo Confidence VoteSome have advocated for a "national unity" government to be formed across party lines following a no-confidence vote. There are political obstacles there: Corbyn has ruled out any alternative government he doesn't lead, and his leadership is a deal-breaker for the Liberal Democrats, who now have the ambition to at least replace Labour as the main opposition party if they can't win an election. At any rate a national unity government in time to stop no-deal would still require the current prime minister to step down once he lost a confidence vote.Even if a general election is somehow engineered to take place before Oct. 31, that is a roll of the dice at this point since a combination of the Brexit Party's strength, Labour's weakness, a resurgence of the Liberal Democrats and tactical voting could produce a hung parliament or other outcome that would delay the formation of a government and make it difficult to stop the clock.Parliament could cancel the September recess. Lawmakers return in early September but leave again shortly after that for the party conferences season – a period in which the parties hold their annual meetings and rally behind the leader. There has been talk of Parliament suspending that recess in order to give MPs more time to come up with an anti-no-deal plan. Of course, buying a little time isn't much of a plan unless any of the other scenarios work.Parliament could repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act. This crucial bit of legislation, passed in 2011 to shore up the then-coalition government between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, makes it harder to trigger new elections, something that helped drag out May's doomed prime ministership, and which is helping her successor now. By repealing that act, Parliament could get a snap election triggered merely with a vote of no confidence, though that would eliminate the chance of forming a national unity government. Lawmakers may instead seek to shrink the campaign period down from 25 days (already an eye-blink compared to American presidential campaigns) in the hopes of getting an election in before the Brexit deadline, but there is nothing certain about how this gambit would play out. The courts could intervene. Now we get deeper into the constitutional fog. Gina Miller, the campaigner whose court challenge gave Parliament a bigger role in the Brexit process, has said she would challenge any attempt by Johnson to stay in place after a vote of no confidence or to try to set the date of the next election after Oct. 31. Her argument would be that a government that has just lost the confidence of Parliament cannot bind the hand of its successors in such a definitive way on such a historically momentous issue. The government would presumably counter that leaving the EU won a referendum and is already on the statute books. Constitutional experts differ on who is right and how this would play out.The Queen could step in. This is the most unlikely of options from a monarch who remains strictly outside politics, apart from the occasional oblique appeal for "common sense." Constitutional experts are divided on whether Queen Elizabeth II might force Johnson to resign if he lost a confidence vote but refused to leave. Labour Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell suggested last week his boss might demand it. Of course, it would be harder for her to remain neutral if it were clear that Parliament had an alternative government to put forward. Parliament could revoke. Many of those opposed to a no-deal Brexit are indeed committed Remainers who would happily cancel Brexit by revoking the decision to trigger Article 50. But many others – including Labour lawmakers from Leave-voting constituencies and many Conservatives who also pledged to follow through on the referendum result – are not. Revoking Article 50 would be electoral suicide for many of them. It's hard to see anything short of a severe market reaction that would yield a majority for that option.With a governing majority of one, an election fairly soon seems inevitable. If parliament somehow manages to block a no-deal Brexit or force another extension, Nigel Farage's Brexit Party are still in the game and can divide the Conservative vote, forcing Johnson into an alliance it is trying to avoid. The Remain-leaning parties will either stay fragmented or, as they did recently in the Brecon and Radnorshire by-election, find a way to cooperate. Either way, the outcome is unpredictable. Johnson's message (already being delivered relentlessly by ministers) will be that parliament thwarted the will of the people and so the only way to finish the job will be to give Johnson a governing majority.If parliament is unable to stop the no-deal train, an election just after Brexit happens (but before the real pain of new trade frictions sets in) would enable Johnson to blame the EU for any havoc, claim he alone was able to deliver on the people's wish and argue he should now be given a mandate to focus on crystallizing the promised opportunities of Brexit, including his big-spending pledges. Johnson will like his chances: The remain-supporting Liberal Democrats will be on the back foot since it's not clear what the party wants apart from staying in the EU, the Brexit Party will be left without a raison d'etre and Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party will share all the blame but none of the credit. Will history later show that Remainers and those who wanted a deal blew their last chances to stop a no-deal Brexit while May was still in office? Lawmakers have a lot to think about during their summer recess.(Corrects identification of Gina Miller in 14th paragraph.)To contact the author of this story: Therese Raphael at traphael4@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Philip Gray at philipgray@bloomberg.netThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Therese Raphael writes editorials on European politics and economics for Bloomberg Opinion. She was editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal Europe.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| Have Britain’s Remainers Blown Their Last Chance? Posted: 12 Aug 2019 01:59 AM PDT ![Have Britain's Remainers Blown Their Last Chance?]( "Have Britain's Remainers Blown Their Last Chance?") (Bloomberg Opinion) -- Opponents of a no-deal Brexit in the U.K. parliament continue to insist they can stop Prime Minister Boris Johnson from taking Britain out of the European Union without a deal. There is "no parliamentary majority for no deal" gets repeated like a mantra.Brexiters say: So what? Parliament voted overwhelmingly in 2017 to trigger Article 50, which set the Brexit countdown clock in motion. Now supporters of a no-deal exit claim both the clock and the constitution are on their side.They have a point. A look at the options being offered (I count seven) to delay or stop the no-deal train shows why Johnson's threat has much greater credibility than Theresa May's ever did.Parliament could pass a law requiring the government to seek an extension. Back in April, the Labour MP Yvette Cooper sponsored a bill that placed a legal obligation on the government to, once Parliament approves, seek an extension of the Brexit deadline to avoid a no-deal exit. However, repeating that trick will be difficult, as Maddy Thimont Jack, a senior researcher at the Institute for Government, explains.To pass that kind of law again (the Cooper Act no longer applies), those opposed to a no-deal Brexit would likely have to take over the "order paper," which controls the parliamentary schedule, as they did earlier this year with the help of House Speaker John Bercow. Opponents of leaving without a deal will have to try to manufacture those opportunities, perhaps by amending an emergency debate motion. But it will be up to the speaker to decide whether to allow it. Even if such legislation were to pass the House of Commons, it could get held up in the House of Lords, where filibusters and other procedural obstacles could get in the way.The bigger problem with this route is determining what comes afterward. EU leaders made clear that they would be willing to grant another extension, but that must be approved unanimously by the 27 other members and one or more (French President Emmanuel Macron, for example) could decide they want to attach conditions.Parliament could pass a vote of no-confidence in the government. This is the scenario everyone has been talking about, but it's far from an automatic brake. A no-confidence vote (which Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has signaled he'll call when Parliament returns) can be held only after a motion is put forward, which means a vote would realistically be held only Sept. 4, the day after parliament returns. Given the law requires 25 working days before an election can be held, it would just be possible to fit in an election before exit day on Oct. 31.Only what happens if Johnson refuses to go? If a no-confidence vote passes, the majority party would have 14 days to try to assemble a new government, which means he could simply declare a new election for the day after Brexit.QuicktakeNo Confidence VoteSome have advocated for a "national unity" government to be formed across party lines following a no-confidence vote. There are political obstacles there: Corbyn has ruled out any alternative government he doesn't lead, and his leadership is a deal-breaker for the Liberal Democrats, who now have the ambition to at least replace Labour as the main opposition party if they can't win an election. At any rate a national unity government in time to stop no-deal would still require the current prime minister to step down once he lost a confidence vote.Even if a general election is somehow engineered to take place before Oct. 31, that is a roll of the dice at this point since a combination of the Brexit Party's strength, Labour's weakness, a resurgence of the Liberal Democrats and tactical voting could produce a hung parliament or other outcome that would delay the formation of a government and make it difficult to stop the clock.Parliament could cancel the September recess. Lawmakers return in early September but leave again shortly after that for the party conferences season – a period in which the parties hold their annual meetings and rally behind the leader. There has been talk of Parliament suspending that recess in order to give MPs more time to come up with an anti-no-deal plan. Of course, buying a little time isn't much of a plan unless any of the other scenarios work.Parliament could repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act. This crucial bit of legislation, passed in 2011 to shore up the then-coalition government between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, makes it harder to trigger new elections, something that helped drag out May's doomed prime ministership, and which is helping her successor now. By repealing that act, Parliament could get a snap election triggered merely with a vote of no confidence, though that would eliminate the chance of forming a national unity government. Lawmakers may instead seek to shrink the campaign period down from 25 days (already an eye-blink compared to American presidential campaigns) in the hopes of getting an election in before the Brexit deadline, but there is nothing certain about how this gambit would play out. The courts could intervene. Now we get deeper into the constitutional fog. Gina Miller, the campaigner whose court challenge gave Parliament a bigger role in the Brexit process, has said she would challenge any attempt by Johnson to stay in place after a vote of no confidence or to try to set the date of the next election after Oct. 31. Her argument would be that a government that has just lost the confidence of Parliament cannot bind the hand of its successors in such a definitive way on such a historically momentous issue. The government would presumably counter that leaving the EU won a referendum and is already on the statute books. Constitutional experts differ on who is right and how this would play out.The Queen could step in. This is the most unlikely of options from a monarch who remains strictly outside politics, apart from the occasional oblique appeal for "common sense." Constitutional experts are divided on whether Queen Elizabeth II might force Johnson to resign if he lost a confidence vote but refused to leave. Labour Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell suggested last week his boss might demand it. Of course, it would be harder for her to remain neutral if it were clear that Parliament had an alternative government to put forward. Parliament could revoke. Many of those opposed to a no-deal Brexit are indeed committed Remainers who would happily cancel Brexit by revoking the decision to trigger Article 50. But many others – including Labour lawmakers from Leave-voting constituencies and many Conservatives who also pledged to follow through on the referendum result – are not. Revoking Article 50 would be electoral suicide for many of them. It's hard to see anything short of a severe market reaction that would yield a majority for that option.With a governing majority of one, an election fairly soon seems inevitable. If parliament somehow manages to block a no-deal Brexit or force another extension, Nigel Farage's Brexit Party are still in the game and can divide the Conservative vote, forcing Johnson into an alliance it is trying to avoid. The Remain-leaning parties will either stay fragmented or, as they did recently in the Brecon and Radnorshire by-election, find a way to cooperate. Either way, the outcome is unpredictable. Johnson's message (already being delivered relentlessly by ministers) will be that parliament thwarted the will of the people and so the only way to finish the job will be to give Johnson a governing majority.If parliament is unable to stop the no-deal train, an election just after Brexit happens (but before the real pain of new trade frictions sets in) would enable Johnson to blame the EU for any havoc, claim he alone was able to deliver on the people's wish and argue he should now be given a mandate to focus on crystallizing the promised opportunities of Brexit, including his big-spending pledges. Johnson will like his chances: The remain-supporting Liberal Democrats will be on the back foot since it's not clear what the party wants apart from staying in the EU, the Brexit Party will be left without a raison d'etre and Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party will share all the blame but none of the credit. Will history later show that Remainers and those who wanted a deal blew their last chances to stop a no-deal Brexit while May was still in office? Lawmakers have a lot to think about during their summer recess.(Corrects identification of Gina Miller in 14th paragraph.)To contact the author of this story: Therese Raphael at traphael4@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Philip Gray at philipgray@bloomberg.netThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Therese Raphael writes editorials on European politics and economics for Bloomberg Opinion. She was editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal Europe.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| Russia's Su-35 Fighter: Can It Kill American F-15s, F-22s and Even F-35s? Posted: 12 Aug 2019 01:15 AM PDT  The Su-35 has twelve to fourteen weapons hardpoints, giving it an excellent loadout compared to the eight hardpoints on the F-15C and F-22, or the four internally stowed missiles on the F-35.The Sukhoi Su-35 Flanker-E is the top Russian air-superiority fighter in service today, and represents the pinnacle of fourth-generation jet fighter design. It will remain so until Russia succeeds in bringing its fifth-generation PAK-FA stealth fighter into production.Distinguished by its unrivaled maneuverability, most of the Su-35's electronics and weapons capabilities have caught up with those of Western equivalents, like the F-15 Eagle. But while it may be a deadly adversary to F-15s, Eurofighters and Rafales, the big question mark remains how effectively it can contend with fifth-generation stealth fighters such as the F-22 and F-35.(This first appeared several years ago.)HistoryThe Su-35 is an evolution of the Su-27 Flanker, a late Cold War design intended to match the F-15 in concept: a heavy twin-engine multirole fighter combining excellent speed and weapons loadout with dogfighting agility.An Su-27 stunned the audience of the Paris Air Show in 1989 when it demonstrated Pugachev's Cobra, a maneuver in which the fighter rears its nose up to 120-degree vertical—but continues to soar forward along the plane's original attitude.Widely exported, the Flanker has yet to clash with Western fighters, but did see air-to-air combat in Ethiopian service during a border war with Eritrea, scoring four kills against MiG-29s for no loss. It has also been employed on ground attack missions.Recommended: We Went Aboard the Most Powerful Aircraft Carrier Ever BuiltRecommended: This Is How China Would Invade Taiwan (And How to Stop It)Recommended: North Korea's Most Lethal Weapon Isn't NukesThe development history of the Su-35 is a bit complicated. An upgraded Flanker with canards (additional small wings on the forward fuselage) called the Su-35 first appeared way back in 1989, but is not the same plane as the current model; only fifteen were produced. Another upgraded Flanker, the two-seat Su-30, has been produced in significant quantities, and its variants exported to nearly a dozen countries.The current model in question, without canards, is properly called the Su-35S and is the most advanced type of the Flanker family. It began development in 2003 under the Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aircraft Production Association (KnAAPO), a subcontractor of Sukhoi. The first prototypes rolled out in 2007 and production began in 2009.Airframe and EnginesThe Flanker family of aircraft is supermaneuverable—meaning it is engineered to perform controlled maneuvers that are impossible through regular aerodynamic mechanisms. In the Su-35, this is in part achieved through use of thrust-vectoring engines: the nozzles of its Saturn AL-41F1S turbofans can independently point in different directions in flight to assist the aircraft in rolling and yawing. Only one operational Western fighter, the F-22 Raptor, has similar technology.This also allows the Su-35 to achieve very high angles-of-attack—in other words, the plane can be moving in one direction while its nose is pointed in another. A high angle of attack allows an aircraft to more easily train its weapons on an evading target and execute tight maneuvers.Such maneuvers may be useful for evading missiles or dogfighting at close ranges—though they leave any aircraft in a low-energy state.The Flanker-E can achieve a maximum speed of Mach 2.25 at high altitude (equal to the F-22 and faster than the F-35 or F-16) and has excellent acceleration. However, contrary to initial reports, it appears it may not be able to supercruise—perform sustained supersonic flight without using afterburners—while loaded for combat. Its service ceiling is sixty thousand feet, on par with F-15s and F-22s, and ten thousand feet higher than Super Hornets, Rafales and F-35s.The Su-35 has expanded fuel capacity, giving it a range of 2,200 miles on internal fuel, or 2,800 miles with two external fuel tanks. Both the lighter titanium airframe and the engines have significantly longer life expectancies than their predecessors, at six thousand and 4,500 flight hours, respectively. (For comparison, the F-22 and F-35 are rated at eight thousand hours).The Flanker airframe is not particularly stealthy. However, adjustments to the engine inlets and canopy, and the use of radar-absorbent material, supposedly halve the Su-35's radar cross-section; one article claims it may be down to between one and three meters. This could reduce the range it can be detected and targeted, but the Su-35 is still not a "stealth fighter."WeaponryThe Su-35 has twelve to fourteen weapons hardpoints, giving it an excellent loadout compared to the eight hardpoints on the F-15C and F-22, or the four internally stowed missiles on the F-35.At long range, the Su-35 can use K-77M radar-guided missiles (known by NATO as the AA-12 Adder), which are claimed to have range of over 120 miles.For shorter-range engagements, the R-74 (NATO designation: AA-11 Archer) infrared-guided missile is capable of targeting "off boresight"—simply by looking through a helmet-mounted optical sight, the pilot can target an enemy plane up sixty degrees away from where his plane is pointed. The R-74 has a range of over twenty-five miles, and also uses thrust-vectoring technology.The medium-range R-27 missile and the extra long-range R-37 (aka the AA-13 Arrow, for use against AWACs, EW and tanker aircraft) complete the Su-35's air-to-air missile selection.Additionally, the Su-35 is armed with a thirty-millimeter cannon with 150 rounds for strafing or dogfighting.The Flanker-E can also carry up to seventeen thousand pounds of air-to-ground munitions. Historically, Russia has made only limited use of precision-guided munitions (PGMs) compared to Western air forces. However, the capability for large-scale use of such weapons is there, if doctrine and munition stocks accommodate it.Sensors and AvionicsThe Su-35's most critical improvements over its predecessors may be in hardware. It is equipped with a powerful L175M Khibiny electronic countermeasure system intended to distort radar waves and misdirect hostile missiles. This could significantly degrade attempts to target and hit the Flanker-E.The Su-35's IRBIS-E passive electronically scanned array (PESA) radar is hoped to provide better performance against stealth aircraft. It is claimed to able to track up to thirty airborne targets with a Radar-cross section of three meters up to 250 miles away—and targets with cross-sections as small 0.1 meters over fifty miles away. However, PESA radars are easier to detect and to jam than the Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radars now used by Western fighters. The IRBIS also has an air-to ground mode that can designate up to four surface targets at time for PGMs.Supplementing the radar is an OLS-35 targeting system that includes an Infra-Red Search and Track (IRST) system said to have a fifty-mile range—potentially a significant threat to stealth fighters.More mundane but vital systems—such as pilot multi-function displays and fly-by-wire avionics—have also been significantly updated.Operational Units and Future CustomersCurrently, the Russian Air Force operates only forty-eight Su-35s. Another fifty were ordered in January 2016, and will be produced at a rate of ten per year. Four Su-35s were deployed to Syria this January after a Russian Su-24 was shot down by a Turkish F-16. Prominently armed with air-to-air missiles, the Su-35s were intended to send a message that the Russians could pose an aerial threat if attacked.China has ordered twenty-four Su-35s at a cost of $2 billion, but is thought unlikely to purchase more. Beijing's interest is believed to lie mostly in copying the Su-35's thrust-vector engines for use in its own designs. The Chinese PLAAF already operates the Shenyang J-11, a copy of the Su-27.Attempts to market the Su-35 abroad, especially to India and Brazil, have mostly foundered. Recently, however, Indonesia has indicated it wishes to purchase eight this year, though the contract signing has been repeatedly delayed. Algeria is reportedly considering acquiring ten for $900 million. Egypt, Venezuela and Vietnam are also potential customers.Cost estimates for the Su-35 have run between $40 million and $65 million; however, the exports contracts have been at prices above $80 million per unit.Against the Fifth GenerationThe Su-35 is at least equal—if not superior—to the very best Western fourth-generation fighters. The big question, is how well can it perform against a fifth-generation stealth plane such as the F-22 or F-35?The maneuverability of the Su-35 makes it an unsurpassed dogfighter. However, future aerial clashes using the latest missiles (R-77s, Meteors, AIM-120s) could potentially take place over enormous ranges, while even short-range combat may involve all-aspect missiles like the AIM-9X and R-74 that don't require pointing the aircraft at the target. Nonetheless, the Su-35's speed (which contributes to a missile's velocity) and large load-carrying abilities mean it can hold its own in beyond-visual-range combat. Meanwhile, the Flanker-E's agility and electronic countermeasures may help it evade opposing missiles.The more serious issue, though, is that we don't know how effective stealth technology will be against a high-tech opponent. An F-35 stealth fighter that gets in a short-range duel with a Flanker-E will be in big trouble—but how good a chance does the faster, more-maneuverable Russian fighter have of detecting that F-35 and getting close to it in the first place?As the U.S. Air Force would have it, stealth fighters will be able to unleash a hail of missiles up to one hundred miles away without the enemy having any way to return fire until they close to a (short) distance, where visual and IR scanning come into play. Proponents of the Russian fighter argue that it will be able to rely upon ground-based low-bandwidth radars, and on-board IRST sensors and PESA radar, to detect stealth planes. Keep in mind, however, that the former two technologies are imprecise and can't be used to target weapons in most cases.Both parties obviously have huge economic and political incentives to advance their claims. While it is worthwhile examining the technical merits of these schools of thought in detail, the question will likely only be resolved by testing under combat conditions. Furthermore, other factors such as supporting assets, mission profile, pilot training and numbers play a large a role in determining the outcomes of aerial engagements.The Su-35 may be the best jet-age dogfighter ever made and a capable missile delivery platform—but whether that will suffice for an air-superiority fighter in the era of stealth technology remains to be seen.Sébastien Roblin holds a Master's Degree in Conflict Resolution from Georgetown University and served as a university instructor for the Peace Corps in China. He has also worked in education, editing, and refugee resettlement in France and the United States. He currently writes on security and military history for War Is Boring.This article originally ran in 2016.
|
| Israeli F-35s over Iran? Don't Be Shocked, But It's Possible. Here's Why. Posted: 11 Aug 2019 09:00 PM PDT  Israel is the first country outside the U.S. to acquire the F-35 fifth-generation fighter, of which it could take up to 75.Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force (IRIAF) commander Brigadier General Farzad Ismaili, who had been in office since 2010, has been fired by Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei after he kept secret that Israeli Air Force (IAF) F-35 stealth fighters had violated Iran's airspace, the Kuwaiti daily Al Jarida reported on Saturday.(This first appeared several weeks ago.)The newspaper emphasized that it was the original media source that exposed the Israeli raids, which had taken place in March 2018. Al Jarida cited senior Iranian military who said that only following its March report did the intelligence services of the Revolutionary Guards and the Iranian intelligence ministry begin to investigate the case, under Khamenei's direct orders.According to the newspaper's investigation, "the IAF F-35 "Adir" planes penetrated Iran's airspace, circled high above Tehran, Karajrak, Isfahan, Shiraz and Bandar Abbas – and photographed Iran's air defense system."One of the sources reported that Iran's air defense system, including its Russian radar, did not detect the entry and exit of the fighter planes, and that Ismaili hid this information from the supreme leader to cover his service failure. However Iranian intelligence discovered that the Israeli fighter jets had carried out this sortie as a test of the possibility of an undetected attack on Iranian outposts and bases, during which they photographed those sensitive bases, evading the Russian S-300 missile system's radar.According to Al Jarida, Iranian intelligence received top secret information that the Israeli fighter planes even managed to photograph Iran's underground bases. Khamenei, who received this information, now suspects a cooperation between Russia and Israel, and that the Russians gave Israel the secret code of the Russian radar in Iran – according to the Kuwaiti newspaper.Khamenei fired the commander of Iran's air defense system on May 29, replacing him with his deputy, General Alireza Sabahi-Fard.Israel is the first country outside the U.S. to acquire the F-35 fifth-generation fighter, of which it could take up to 75.Noteworthy Israeli F-35 deals have been severely criticized because the aircraft are more expensive than those purchased by the U.S. Air Force (USAF) since they feature several unique (and indigenous) systems to satisfy Israeli Air Force (IAF) operational requirements.However former Minister of Defense Avigdor Lieberman explained that "The F-35 squadrons are the pinnacle of technology, and will assist the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and air force in meeting the many security challenges Israel faces head-on. They are a central aspect in protecting the safety of the people of Israel along the country's borders and even away from them."The U.S. in fact has given Israel more military aid than any other country in the world – currently around $4bn a year – and its laws on arms sales require that Israel always maintains military superiority in the Middle East.Israel has praised the Lockheed Martin F-35 as a "game-changer".All planes ordered by IAF belong to the F-35A variant named F-35I Adir (Mighty) in Israel and are operated by the IAF's Golden Eagle Squadron, based in the Nevatim Air Base in the center of the country.As we have already explained, in May 2018 the IAF revealed that it has used its stealth fighters in combat operations, making Israel the first country in the world to carry out an "operational attack" using the F-35.This article by Dario Leone originally appeared on The Aviation Geek Club in 2019.
|
| Russia vs. Stealth F-35s: Is Moscow Jamming F-35 GPS Systems Near Iran? Posted: 11 Aug 2019 06:00 PM PDT  Bakke-Jensen implied the jamming was intentional. "They were exercising very close to the border and they knew this will affect areas on the other side," Bakke-Jensen said of the Russians.Russian forces have been jamming GPS systems in the Middle East. The electronic-warfare campaign could affect U.S. forces gathering in the region in advance of potential strikes on Iran."Since last spring, pilots flying through the Middle East, specifically around Syria, have noted that their GPS systems have displayed the wrong location or stopped working entirely," The Times of Israel reported in late June 2019.> The signal that has been disrupting satellite navigation for planes flying through Israeli airspace in recent weeks originates inside a Russian air base inside Syria, according to data collected by a U.S.-based researcher.> > This interference to the Global Positioning System reception does not appear to be specifically directed at Israel, but rather the Jewish state is likely collateral damage in an effort by Moscow both to protect its troops from drone attacks and to assert its dominance in the field of electronic warfare, Todd Humphreys, a professor at the University of Texas, told The Times of Israel.Israeli sources "are increasingly convinced" that three weeks of GPS disruptions for civilian flights are a side effect of Russian jamming and spoofing in Syria, Breaking Defense reported. "Moscow is trying to interfere with both Western airplanes — including cutting-edge stealthy F-22s and F-35s — and improvised terrorist drones."(This first appeared in July 2019.)The U.S. Air Force starting in April 2019 has deployed F-22 and F-35 stealth fighters to Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, respectively, as part of a wider build-up of forces as Washington clashes with Tehran following U.S. president Donald Trump's decision unilaterally to withdraw the United States from the agreement limiting Iran's nuclear program.> Now, the situation is rife with rumor, with the Israeli government avoiding any official statement and still investigating other sources. But if Russia is indeed disrupting a friendly nation's GPS by accident, why haven't they stopped?> > The answer may lie in the limits of Russian electronic warfare, which — while far more potent than U.S. military [electronic warfare] — still relies on raw power more than precise targeting.The International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations and Israeli Airports Authority in late June 2019 announced that many flights lost the GPS satellite signal while flying into or out of Ben Gurion International in Israel, Breaking Defense reported. There has been no risk to passengers, according to the IAA. The affected aircraft simply switched to backup systems."Intriguingly, ground-based GPS systems are unaffected," Breaking Defense noted. "That makes the jamming of aviation GPS suspiciously specific — another sign that it's not a simple glitch but some kind of electronic weapon. And the Russians have invested heavily in high-powered spoofing systems that send out false GPS signals up to 500 times stronger than the real ones, leading civilian navigators miles astray."Russia also has disrupted GPS in Europe."Scrambled GPS signals were first detected during NATO's large-scale Trident Juncture exercises in Norway at the end of October [2018]," Defense News reported."Norway's defense intelligence agency said it tracked the source of the signal-jamming to a Russian military base on the nearby, heavily fortified Kola Peninsula. Finland's military intelligence said Norway's analysis mirrors its own investigations and evaluations."In late 2018 Finland and Norway both lodged complaints with Russia over the disruptions. "Defense and civil aviation chiefs in Finland and Norway warned that the GPS jamming posed a serious risk to both military and commercial aircraft using the affected airspace in the High North," Defense News noted."Russia asked (us) to give proof. We gave them the proof," Norwegian defense minister Frank Bakke-Jensen told Arctic Today. The proof consisted of measurements showing signals had been jammed."Russia said, 'Thank you, we will come back when our experts review that,'" Bakke-Jensen said. "To have such an answer from Russia is a positive thing," he said.Bakke-Jensen implied the jamming was intentional. "They were exercising very close to the border and they knew this will affect areas on the other side," Bakke-Jensen said of the Russians.The U.S Army is planning to test jam-resistant GPS systems in Europe as a potential step toward countering Russian electronic warfare.The Army's 2nd Cavalry Regiment in Germany should get the new jam-resistant GPS by the end of 2019.David Axe serves as Defense Editor of the National Interest. He is the author of the graphic novels War Fix, War Is Boring and Machete Squad.
|
| The Rise of Afghanistan's Taliban Posted: 11 Aug 2019 12:20 PM PDT  The latest round of U.S.-Taliban talks appears to be heading to a framework for peace. In exchange for a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. forces, the Taliban have agreed to a guarantee that Afghan territory will not be used to sponsor terrorist groups or stage attacks against the United States or its allies. This would be followed by a nationwide ceasefire and the start of an intra-Afghan dialogue, leading to the release of prisoners from both sides.For all the progress, the peace talks face criticism for excluding the Afghan government. The Taliban have consistently refused to recognize Afghanistan's elected government—calling it a U.S. puppet—and demanded to negotiate solely with the United States. But intra-Afghan negotiations between the Taliban and Afghan leadership will only begin once a deal with the United States is agreed upon.The ugly truth is that the Taliban have a legitimate claim of representing a part of Afghan society. The southern provinces of Helmand, Oruzgan, Zabul and Kandahar—part of the Pashtun heartland—does not fully reject the Taliban and provides 80 percent of its fighters. It has also become a fertile recruiting ground for Al Qaeda as well as Daesh.It is widely accepted that anger and resentment throughout the south was the catalyst for the 2005 resurgence of the Taliban. Capitalizing on mistakes made by both the Afghan government and the Americans, the Taliban have waged a formidable military comeback, which has given the terror group considerable leverage at the negotiating table. Central to its argument is a compelling claim that the Taliban, not the elected Afghan government, speak for the south.Southern grievances stem from persistent underrepresentation in successive administrations. After the ouster of the Taliban in 2001, Kandahar-born former President Hamid Karzai, perhaps in the interest of national unity, often neglected the south in order to win over other parts of the country. Successive governments followed suit.In Kabul, decision-making bodies are still mostly staffed with Afghan returnees from abroad. While the returnees may be highly educated and qualified, they lack the nuanced understanding of the country's ground realities especially along the so-called Pashtun belt in the south. Southerners have rarely held any of the key ministries, and only the Ministry of Border and Tribal Affairs since 2017. President Ashraf Ghani, although ethnically Pashtun, is widely criticized for failing to understand the social fabric of southern Afghanistan and as a result has been unable to fully address its concerns. Even the leadership of the High Peace Council established in 2010 to separately negotiate with the Taliban is led by non-Pashtuns. Without advocates in Kabul, the south has suffered from election rigging, lack of investment, and inadequate reconstruction efforts, leaving the region impoverished and southerners festering in anger, susceptible for recruitment by the Taliban and other armed groups. Inevitably, this lack of a "southern voice" in the Afghan government will have consequences in the ongoing U.S.-Taliban negotiations. While the government might ignore the south, the Taliban does not.The United States and its Afghan partners, to their credit, have recognized the danger of marginalization. In 2008, there were strong recommendations from Kabul for a "ground-up approach" to fighting terror by recruiting southern Afghan tribesmen but a lack of understanding of the political realities led to problems in implementation which continue to this day. In one example, a high-ranking Afghan military official declared to parliament in 2016 that it was vital to address the southern Achakzai tribal insurgency, but it was some Ishaqzai tribesmen who were fighting against Afghan National Forces. Confusing these two tribes is comparable to confusing a Californian with a Virginian. Dangerously, the "southern voice" is up for grabs. The dire conditions in the region have stoked opposition to Taliban domination. The area, when aggrieved, has historically been a center of revolt, ranging from resistance to the 2001 U.S.-led occupation, anti-Soviet mobilization occupation in the 1980s and the Anglo-Afghan wars of the nineteenth century. Since 2005, the Taliban have leveraged the post–2001 grievances to recruit cadres of southerners to join its ranks and control of the south is the result. Unless the United States and its local partners offer southerners an alternative, the Taliban or other armed groups will leverage that control at the negotiating table.To sustain long-term peace in Afghanistan, the south must be heard, and its interests reflected in peace negotiations. It is too important to neglect. It contains the key provinces of Kandahar, Zabul, Helmand, and Oruzgan, is rich in resources and a crossroads for trade with Pakistan and Iran. It is also a center of both Taliban strength and anti-Taliban resistance. Peace negotiations are a chance—perhaps the final chance—for the government to demonstrate support for a region that has suffered both from Taliban repression and government neglect. As U.S.-Taliban negotiations transition to intra-Afghan talks, the need for southern representation only becomes more urgent. At present, the south has no seat at the table, but the region is crucial for even a semblance of peace and reconciliation. Without a seat, or voice, violence will persist. Southern grievances are at a tipping point, and if Kabul or Washington won't address them, the Taliban—or other armed groups—certainly will.Masood Ahmad Azizi is an experienced and effective strategic security leader committed to working in partnership across tribal, ethnic and national borders to realize the full potential of Afghanistan and the Afghan people. He was the youngest and longest-serving deputy minister in the Interior Ministry, holding the rank of major general. In that role, he acted as a proponent of strong reform within Afghan Security Institutions. Follow him on Twitter @masoodaazizi.Image: Reuters
|
| The Trump Administration Is Tackling One of the World's Most Dangerous Border Disputes Posted: 11 Aug 2019 12:20 PM PDT  AS THE Trump administration presses Arab countries to sign off on President Donald Trump's Israeli-Palestinian "deal of the century" amid growing Arab polarization and vocal pessimism, little attention has been given to another sensitive regional matter that the administration has been aptly and quietly tackling. This matter revolves around the demarcation of the Lebanon-Israel maritime and land borders, which have been the focal point of skirmishes, a devastating war in 2006, and rising regional tension involving Iran and Israel.Since last year, the Trump administration has been pursuing quiet shuttle diplomacy between Beirut and Jerusalem to demarcate their borders, while at the same time pursuing a policy of "maximum pressure" on Iran and Hezbollah. The accomplishments achieved thus far because of the administration's efforts, led by acting Assistant Secretary of State David Satterfield, have been quite impressive. Even if their success is incomplete, these efforts could help the economies of both Lebanon and Israel. More importantly, it could decrease the risk of a devastating war with regional repercussions.Satterfield has extracted some essential concessions from both sides. The negotiations over Israel-Lebanon's borders are highly sensitive because they involve the exploration of energy in disputed maritime Mediterranean waters and a dispute over land borders, the latter of which has been the focus of armed conflicts and a focal point of national and regional conflicts.THE DISCOVERY of enormous oil and gas reserves in the Mediterranean has been auspicious for the economies of both Israel and Lebanon. The former is already producing gas from several gas fields, including Tamar and Dalit, and is preparing to produce gas from the Leviathan gas field, operated by the energy giant Noble Energy. Additionally, Israel is expanding its offshore exploration efforts via a second bid round, hoping to attract investment via exploration licenses in the country's waters in the Mediterranean. Moreover, Israel and Cyprus have signed agreements delineating their maritime borders and are embracing further economic cooperation with assistance from Noble Energy.The eagerness with which Israel would like to produce gas from these fields, especially Leviathan, and press ahead with its economic cooperation with Cyprus (with Greece to follow), is hedged by concerns about possible armed conflicts with Lebanon's Hezbollah, due to disputes over the boundaries of these two countries' exclusive economic zones. Lebanon and Israel both claim an area that is approximately 860 square kilometers in size. In fact, in 2011, the Obama administration's special Middle East envoy, Frederic Hof, proposed what came to be known as the "Hof Line," whereby Lebanon would have 550 square kilometers of the disputed area and Israel would take the rest. Lebanon rejected the proposal. In fact, last year Lebanon notably signed off on contracts with giants Total, Eni and Novatek to explore energy in its exclusive economic zone—including in a block disputed by Israel. Total expressed its awareness of the dispute and stated it will drill away from the disputed area, which consists of less than 8 percent of the block under its contract.While the maritime border dispute may sound convoluted, it pales before the dispute over land borders. At the heart of this land border dispute are three areas: Shebaa Farms, Kfar Shouba Hills and Ghajar. The situation is complex and multi-faceted: there are disputes over the Lebanon-Israel border, the Israel-Syria border and Lebanon-Syria border. Additionally, there are inconsistencies in the Lebanon-Israel-Syria tri-border, which can be traced to the old British and French mandates over Lebanon, Syria and Palestine. Finally, the gradual evolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the changes in de facto territorial ownership as a result of the conflict, adds an additional dimension of complexity to the situation.Following twenty-two years of occupying a swath of southern Lebanon, Israel decided in 2000 to withdraw from Lebanon in accordance with un Security Council Resolutions 425 and 426. Yet the withdrawal created a problem over the exact location of the border, since Israel withdrew from contiguous Lebanese-Syrian and Israeli-Lebanese territories.The Lebanon-Syria border was mapped by the French in 1920, but the exact boundary has not been delineated by Lebanon or Syria since their independence. The mapping of the Israel-Lebanon border followed the 1949 armistice agreement that corresponded with the British mandatory border. As for the border between Lebanon and Syria, there was no international boundary agreement between the two of them. As such, the un mapped the border relying on the separation lines of its troops in the Golan Heights and Southern Lebanon. In his report to the un Security Council, Secretary-General Kofi Annan, recognizing the lack of an international boundary agreement, recommended "to proceed on the basis of the line separating the areas of operation of unifil and undof [the un Forces in South Lebanon and the Golan Heights, respectively] along the relevant portions of the Lebanese-Syrian boundary…"In short, following its own surveys of the region's borders, the un simply drew the border demarcation, known as the Blue Line, and subsequently recognized the complete withdrawal of Israel from Lebanon as corresponding to the Blue Line. The Lebanese government and Hezbollah, with Syria's consent, challenged the un position and declared that Israel's withdrawal remains incomplete, since it still occupies the Lebanese Shebaa Farms. The un, adopting Israel's position, emphasized that Shebaa Farms—located south of the Lebanese village of Shebaa, and comprising an area of 14 km in length and 2 km in width—are part of the Syrian Golan Heights.Conversely, Lebanese authorities asserted sovereignty over the Farms by producing land deeds, official documents that place the Farms within Lebanon and pre-1967 tax receipts related to the Farms. These receipts indicated that taxes were paid by residents of Shebaa village (and adjacent town Nukheila) to the Lebanese government. Meanwhile, in response to Lebanon's claim that Israel's withdrawal is incomplete, Hezbollah asserted its right to continue its muqawama (resistance) against Israel.THE DISPUTE over the village of Ghajar, meanwhile, is the product of both the Arab-Israeli conflict and a vagueness as to where the exact border between Lebanon and Syria lies. Essentially, there are no definite maps placing the village either in Lebanon or Syria. However, most of the Ghajar's residents are Alawis and have been in close contact with their coreligionists in the Golan Heights, though many of them acquired Lebanese citizenship. When Israel occupied the Golan Heights in 1967, Ghajar residents found themselves in a political no man's land. They petitioned Israel to recognize them as residents of the Golan. Israel subsequently offered them citizenship when it formally annexed the Golan Heights in 1981. Interestingly, Ghajar residents, unlike many residents of the Golan Heights, accepted Israel's offer. During Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon, Ghajar's residents were able to travel unimpeded between Lebanon and Israel due to their dual citizenships.When Israel withdrew from Southern Lebanon in 2000, Ghajar was split between Lebanon and Israel in accordance with the Blue Line, which cut across the village. As a result, the village was divided, with a majority of it formally located in Lebanon to the north, while the southern portion remained in Israel. Besides its militarily strategic position along the Israel-Lebanon-Syria tri-border, Ghajar's boundaries scrape the Wazzani River, which is the main spring of the Hasbani River. This has led to tumultuous instances of water politics: Lebanese authorities have consistently accused Israel of trying to steal the water of the Hasbani, while Israeli authorities have been constantly worried about Lebanon diverting the waters of the Hasbani River.During the 2006 conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, Israel took control of the whole village. unsc Resolution 1701, which ended the war, called on Israel to withdraw from the northern section of Ghajar. Israel, however, has not obliged, citing security considerations: in 2005, Hezbollah tried to kidnap Israeli soldiers stationed in the southern section of the village, and in the 2006 war, Ghajar was a fiercely contested area. The occupation of the northern section of Ghajar by Israel has thus reinforced both Lebanon's claim that Israel's withdrawal is not complete and Hezbollah's right of muqawamah.LAST BUT not least, the village of Kfar Shouba and its hills are another point of contention between Israel and Lebanon. Located in Lebanon, next to the Shebaa Farms and the Golan Heights, the village commands a military strategic position due to its location overlooking northern Israel and the Bekaa Valley. In the late 1960s and 1970s, the Palestinian Liberation Organization used the village as a steppingstone to conduct sabotage activities in Israel. In response, Israel heavily shelled the village and its hills and carried out punitive military missions there. In 1972, Israel occupied the village for a short period of time. Then, during Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon (1978–2000), the Israel Defense Forces and their proxy militia, the South Lebanon Army, used the village as an important observation post. Subsequently, Israel withdrew from the village but kept occupying the hills and the lands of Kfar Shouba in proximity to Israel's border for security reasons. In the 2006 war, most of the village's homes were either destroyed or damaged. As was the case with Shebaa and Ghajar, Lebanon and Hezbollah have insisted on their right to resist Israel's occupation until the hills of Kfar Shouba are retrieved.Taking all of this under consideration, it is clear that the Trump administration's mission of mediating between Israel and Lebanon so as to demarcate their maritime and land borders and pacify their tinderbox border is no small feat. Yet, in a painstaking and persistent manner, the administration, led by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Satterfield, has used the right dose of diplomacy, statecraft, and at times, pressure to bring the two antagonists to agree on an initial set of measures to address their longstanding grievances.Satterfield, in a space of two weeks in May, was able to bring the two countries to tentatively agree to meet and hold negotiations at the unifil headquarters in Naqoura in south Lebanon. Reportedly, Lebanon and Israel are close to establishing a framework for negotiations under un auspices. Lebanon's demands and Israel's objections to hold the negotiations under the auspices of the un were met by having the United States act as an overseer. So as to avoid the public appearance of speaking to the enemy, the two sides are sending military officers to hold the negotiations. Similarly, Israel apparently sent a "positive" message with Satterfield to Lebanon: it will reconsider the demand that negotiations should be limited to six months instead of there being no limit at all.Satterfield was apparently able to ensure from Lebanese president Michel Aoun, a political ally of Hezbollah, a promise of his country's "unified position" regarding linking the demarcation of both the maritime and land borders. In contrast to Hezbollah's loud and bellicose rhetoric, President Aoun has reportedly stressed to Satterfield that, although Hezbollah is viewed as a legitimate resistance movement with popular support and representation in the government, demarcation of both the land and maritime borders with Israel is imperative to peace in the region. American and Israeli authorities have been concerned about Hezbollah taking a divergent stance regarding the talks. To be sure, reports from the president's office indicate that Hezbollah's view of maintaining the peace along the borders with Israel is at the heart of its tacit endorsement of the president's "unified position." Hezbollah's main concern has been about Washington using its mediation of the border disputes as a condition to degrade the deterrence of Hezbollah's missiles.Evidently, Satterfield, along with members of his team, showed President Aoun, Speaker of the House Nabih Berri, Prime Minister Saad Hariri and Army Commander General Joseph Aoun pictures of the missiles and their respective locations. But the U.S. delegation did not make a link between the issue of the missiles and that of border demarcation. Hezbollah's leader Hassan Nasrallah, in a recent fiery speech on Jerusalem Day (Also known as Quds Day, an event inaugurated by Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979 to express solidarity with Palestinians and opposition to Zionism), admitted that Hezbollah does not have factories to develop precision missiles, but asserted that the "Americans have no business with this. It is our right to have weapons to defend our countries."Notwithstanding Hezbollah's rhetoric, Lebanon would like to resolve its maritime border dispute with Israel in order to access nearby oil and gas resources. Beirut is already set to start drilling in December, with a later date in the disputed block with Israel. The country could certainly use the economic boost: Lebanon's government is burdened with a heavy international debt estimated at more than $85 billion, comprising over 150 percent of its gdp. And its income from the tourism sector, a major component of the economy, is virtually in doubt, given the ongoing crisis in Syria and the heightening tensions between the United States and Saudi Arabia on one side and Iran and Hezbollah on the other. Meanwhile, many Lebanese across the communal divide have been deeply affected by the country's weak economy and severe power shortages. No less significant is Hezbollah and its Shia partisans' need for this potential new energy revenue. After all, the Hezbollah's military wing has been fighting a costly war in Syria, while at home, U.S. sanctions have significantly reduced the organization's revenue stream. Conversely, Israeli energy minister Yuval Steinitz's office released a statement emphasizing that the talks could be "for the good of both countries' interests in developing natural gas reserves and oil."IT BEHOOVES the Trump administration to separate this current Lebanon-Israel negotiation from the separate but also ongoing Israeli-Palestinian "deal of the century." Lebanese parties and groups across the political divide are worried that the Trump administration is seeking to put pressure on Lebanon to bring it on board with its proposed Israeli-Palestinian deal, namely via the suggestion that Palestinian refugees in Lebanon should be granted Lebanese citizenship. This central concern is intensified by the presence of approximately one million Syrian refugees and thousands of their Lebanese-born children whose repatriation to their homeland is not certain. The Shia, Christian and Druze communities will refuse any attempt to formally settle and/or nationalize Palestinian or Syrian refugees, since most of them are Sunnis. Doing so would result in the collapse of Lebanon's delicate religious balance, and with it, its communal peace.The United States has deftly capitalized on the rising tension in the region, the threat of war, and the delicate existing economic and political dynamics to pursue quietly a channel of diplomacy with Israel and Lebanon. During Satterfield's recent July shuttle diplomacy though, a couple of problems have surfaced that have left both sides frustrated over the delay in launching the talks. According to Lebanese and Israeli reports, whereas Lebanon would like to have parallel land and maritime border talks, Israel will not sign off on a written commitment to simultaneously pursue these. Israel, for its part, would like the talks to focus solely on the maritime border. This is partly because Jerusalem worries that, since the un regards them as part of the Golan Heights tri-border dispute, including the Shebaa Farms in the negotiations would add a complicating Syrian dimension to the talks. Moreover, whereas Beirut insists that the un should sponsor the talks with U.S. mediation, Jerusalem has asserted the preeminent role of the United States in mediating the talks, partly because Israel is not a signatory of the un Convention for the Law of the Sea. Nevertheless, despite this frustration and these impediments, both capitals believe that it is in their interest to reach a compromise and launch the talks.If the two countries were to reach an agreement on the demarcation of their borders, that would by itself be a significant foreign policy achievement, reducing the threat of a devastating war to a minimum. Pending the final framework and unfolding of the negotiations, an agreement over the disputed maritime borders could either promote a parallel agreement over the more complicated land borders or provide a critical incentive to keep the border quiet. This is extremely important for a region that is, according to an Arabic saying, "standing on the palm of Afrit (a malevolent supernatural being)."Robert G. Rabil is professor of political science at Florida Atlantic University (FAU). He is the author of numerous books, most recently White Heart (2018). The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of FAU.Image: Reuters.
|
| A Strong Military Everyday Keeps China Away Posted: 11 Aug 2019 12:19 PM PDT  Washington's greatest problem in-great power competition isn't Tehran, Beijing, or Moscow. It's Washington. Nourishing America's competitive strengths should get as much attention as pushing back against competitors looking to diminish America's place in the world.Great and Not-So-Great PowersNot all the powers in the great-power competition are all that great. Iran and Russia are regional powers. China has achieved global influence and reach with astonishing speed. Yet, by super-power standards, Beijing is not yet the global force that the old Soviet Union was.Still, it makes sense to frame America's challenge as a great-power competition. While China, Russia, and Iran can't measure up to the Soviet Union individually, taken together (and throwing in a dollop of North Korea and transnational terrorism) they present a formidable threat at least as challenging as the task of winning the Cold War.It's a complex challenge, testing America on multiple fronts, in multiple ways. Threats from China and Russia range from aberrant economic behavior, to aggressive diplomacy, to military expansion, and more.Trump's team deserves credit for framing the problem mostly right and crafting a strategy to push back on bad actors. While push backing is fine, it's not enough to assure success in the long run. For that, America has to build the strength needed to win in a championship fight.Protracted ProtectionOne of the defining attributes of this emerging great-power competition is that it will be another long-term endeavor. Best case scenario: Kim does a deal, denuclearizes and normalizes relations with the rest of the world; Iran blinks and follows the DPRK lead; Al Qaeda, ISIS and their ilk never get their game back. Unlikely as that best-case is, it still leaves Russia and China to worry about—and that's a handful.So, what's the happy ending U.S. strategy aims to achieve? We want the competition to end, not with a bang, but a whimper—or better yet, a handshake. The United States isn't out to be the world's policeman or a live-in babysitter. Nor is Washington interested in regime change, let alone direct armed conflict. Rather, the United States looks to demonstrate its capacity to defend its vital interests and force its competitors to respect them—and keep doing that until the competitors wither away or decided it is time to stop competing. That could take a very long time—as in a decade, or decades.So, while sustaining pressure on America's competitors is important, so is sustaining American power so that America has the capacity to project power.There are three fundamental strengths that have made and keep America a successful hyper-competitive power: the ability to defend itself; the capability to grow American prosperity; and determination to protect American freedom and sovereignty. As long as the United States has the right combination of foreign and domestic policies to keep America safe, prosperous and free, America can outlast any foe out there for the foreseeable future.Keep America Free, Safe and ProsperousFreedom first. Make no mistake: freedom is a huge competitive advantage. Free societies are more innovative creative, and resourceful. They are also more resilient. In Democracy in America (1835), Alexis de Tocqueville had lots of nice things to say about the new nation, but he really wondered if a representative republic could fight wars and deal with protracted security challenges without collapsing over internal squabbling while the barbarians stormed the gates. Well over two hundred years of history, multiple wars and incessant domestic policy debates have answered that question.There is too much talk in America about conserving American freedoms by curbing them. Some want to push back on Russian and Chinese meddling. Others worry about the long reach of social media tech giants or the fake news generated by fringe extremists groups. All valid concerns. Democracy is not a suicide pact. Malicious actors shouldn't get a free ride. On the other hand, any solution—whatever the problem—needs to be proportional and need to safeguard individual freedoms.There is also too much hyperventilating that America is being torn asunder by divisions at home and hatred from abroad. Americans aren't nearly as divided and angry as they were in 1968 when social unrest, civil rights issues and the anti-war movement burned in the streets, seemingly every day. Similarly, while Trump is unpopular in many places abroad, particularly in Europe, so too was Reagan during his first term. The world turned out fine.There is a danger of giving in too much to doom-and-gloom partisan rhetoric. It would be great if Washington could put partisan finger-pointing aside and focus on a freedom-first agenda. Americans should demand more in both the discourse and actions of their politicians.Nor can America avoid the importance of freedom abroad. The administration needs to drive convergence among: the government's efforts; strong congressional support for U.S. institutions undertaking democracy promotion-related activities; and the capabilities, expertise, and capacity of government and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)—providing insights for an enduring national strategy that effectively harnesses these institutions in support of U.S. interests. The administration has tried to do that with its program on the global empowerment of women. It needs to do a lot more. Prosperity as a PriorityFundamental to American power is an American economy that allows its citizens to flourish and invests in protecting America's interests at home and abroad. The administration has done much to jump start growth by reducing taxes excessive regulation and establishing sensible energy policies. But in the end, Washington still has to tackle the big problem: the mounting debt created by unrestrained government spending and mounting debt.In addition, the United States has to get its place in the global economy right. Sure there are bad economic actors out there that need to be battled. But in the end, the U.S. objective ought to be to make global markets as free as possible.Free markets are a home game for the United States. That is the field we should be playing on. The administration's aggressive approach to opening foreign markets is welcome, but the tools it has employed—in particular tariffs and quotas—are costly for Americans and create harmful uncertainty for American businesses, potential investors, and allies.The global network of like-minded states broadly committed to the principles of economic freedom is an enormous asset. Far better approach to advance our economic interests by strengthening the partnership with those states. This would include pursuing joint actions (including restrictions on trade in extreme cases) in order to encourage greater openness and respect for the rule of law in countries still lagging in those areas.Peace through StrengthSoft power is great, but worthless if America can't demonstrate the capability and will to protect its interests. Conversely, when America can lead from a position of strength, its soft-power tools are more effective. The administration deserves great credit for reinvesting in America's armed forces. There is, however, more to be done to ensure the U.S. military is capable of protecting U.S. interests over the long term. America is more than capable of delivering the defense it needs. The United States isn't facing the conundrum of guns versus butter. When measured either as a percentage of GDP or as portion of overall federal spending, investments in defense are at historic modest levels.There are debates to be had over the character and composition of the future force needed to outmatch the threats we will face. What is not in question is the need for sustained adequate investment in defense over time. Together with friends, allies, and strategic partners, a strong America is more than ready to preserve in an era of great-power competition. The administration deserves credit for getting foreign and security policy more right than wrong. What we need now is leaders on all sides who will stop being more wrong than right—and start prioritizing the freedom, security and prosperity of the American people over their partisan bickering. That's now America gets the strength for the fight.A Heritage Foundation vice president, James Jay Carafano directs the think tank's research on matters of national security and foreign affairs.Image: Flickr / U.S. Department of Defense
|
| In 1988, Military Experts 'Fought' a Simulated World War III in Asia. Millions Died. Posted: 11 Aug 2019 05:30 AM PDT  The United States took a more aggressive stance in the 1988 wargame. Instead of waiting for a Soviet attack, Washington immediately began air and unconventional offensives against installations in the Soviet Far East, designed to decimate Soviet air defenses and threaten the survival of military-industrial installations. For their part, the Soviets hoped that a reticent military stance and a diplomatic offensive could keep Japan out of the war. This gambit succeeded to a point, as the Japanese suspended active military cooperation with the United States. American pressure eventually forced Tokyo to yield, and the Soviet opened offensive operations against the archipelago. By this time, however, the U.S. Navy had devastated Soviet naval forces, confining the Pacific fleet to its bastion in the Sea of Okhotsk.Nearly every analyst during the Cold War agreed that, if Moscow and Washington could keep the nukes from flying, the Central Front in Europe would prove decisive in war between the United States and the Soviet Union. The NATO alliance protected the Western European allies of the United States from Soviet aggression, while the Warsaw Pact provided the USSR with its own buffer against Germany.(This first appeared several years ago.)But when the Cold War really went hot, the fighting took place in Asia. In Korea and Vietnam, the Soviet Union waged proxy struggles against the United States, and both sides used every tool available to control the destiny of China. However, while few believed that the Pacific theater would determine the victor of World War III, both the United States and Soviet Union needed to prepare for the eventuality of war there.Scholars have devoted far less attention to the planning of World War III in East Asia than to the European theater. The two classic novels of the Third World War (Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising and John Hackett's The Third World War) rarely touched on developments in Asia. However, in the 1970s and 1980s, the Naval War College traced the potential course of war in East Asia as part of a series of global war games. These games lend a great deal of insight into the key actors in the conflict, and how the decisive battles of a Second Pacific War might have played out.The Players:ChinaHow would China have reacted to the onset of a war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact? Beijing certainly regarded the survival of NATO as critical to its security from the 1970s on. The existence of NATO prevented the USSR from concentrating the bulk of the Red Army and of Soviet strategic aviation against China; a Soviet victory in the West would have put China in great peril. By the 1980s, China stood at a massive technological disadvantage against the USSR. Moreover, Beijing worried (perhaps rightly) that even if the USSR held its nuclear fire against NATO, it would view a strategic exchange with China as less risky. Thus, there was no guarantee that China would open a second front against the USSR.JapanJapan combined extraordinary economic strength with significant military power and a crucial geographic position. A Japan committed to the United States could effectively prevent the sortie of the Soviet Pacific Fleet, while enabling attacks against the Soviet Far East. A neutral Japan limited these options, but still provided the NATO alliance with a strong economic foundation in case of a protracted war. Washington had the advantage; it only depended on how and how much.KoreaWould North Korea have joined a general Soviet war against NATO by invading South Korea? Such a move would have put extraordinary pressure on U.S. forces, although by the 1980s South Korea could probably survive with only measured U.S. assistance. However, Pyongyang answered to two masters; it required the support of both Beijing and Moscow. Given the unlikelihood that China would support a Soviet war against NATO, the prospect of Beijing's acquiescence in a second Korean War would have been extremely sketchy.Southeast AsiaThe Soviets had an ally in Hanoi, but no means to support that ally against either China or the United States. Moreover, the Vietnamese had little to gain from joining a conflict; they were substantially controlled by Laos and Cambodia, and could do little more than harass shipping lanes in the South China Sea. However, given the bloody nose that Vietnam had inflicted on both countries in 1975 and 1980, neither Washington nor Beijing would have had much interest in reopening the conflict, especially with far more pressing issues at hand. That said, Vietnam could still make some mischief with U.S. allies in the region, and the PRC still had scores to settle.The Chess Pieces:Soviet Pacific FleetThe Soviets took the Pacific seriously. By the 1980s, the fleet included two Kiev class aircraft carriers, and one Kirov class battlecruiser. In peacetime, the ships of the fleet sailed widely, regularly visiting Southeast Asia and even the Indian Ocean. Wartime, however, would have tightly constrained their operations. The Sea of Okhotsk served as a bastion for the SSBNs of the fleet, and naturally as a target for U.S. attack. Soviet objectives would have included the neutralization or defeat of Japan, the defense of the Russian Far East and potentially the penetration of the Pacific in order to attack maritime supply networks and distract U.S. attention from Europe.U.S. Pacific FleetThe United States Pacific Fleet commanded the balance of power in the region. With several carrier battlegroups supported by a variety of amphibious assault ships, battleships, nuclear attack submarines and a large array of land-based aircraft, the U.S. Navy could have undertaken both offensive and defensive operations to control the pace and course of the war. Moreover, the Japanese Maritime Self Defense force and the Royal Australian Navy could have both offered extensive support to the Americans. The central objectives for Allied naval forces would first have been to detect and defeat any Soviet efforts to penetrate attack submarines into the Pacific or Southeast Asian shipping lanes. Second, the U.S. Navy had taken upon itself a mission of attacking the periphery of the USSR directly, in order to distract the Red Army from the Central Front in Europe. At a minimum, this would have involved missile and airstrikes against Soviet installations throughout the Far East. At a maximum, it could have involved amphibious assaults against lightly defended Soviet targets. The War GamesThe Naval War College examined the potential for World War III in Asia as part of its global war game exercises in the 1970s and 1980s. Played annually between 1979 and 1988, each of the games explored alternative strategic and technological aspects of a confrontation between the superpowers. Although generally focused on Europe, the games always included an East Asian component. While the early wargames saw some variance (informed to some degree by the Sino-Vietnamese War), they held to a basic pattern; the Soviets hunkered down, while U.S. and allied naval forces chipped away at the bastions and tried to distract the Russians from Europe.The 1984 wargame played out much differently. Instead of sitting on its hands, the Soviets opened the war with a massive air and missile assault against Japan. This assault destroyed most Japanese air assets on the ground, along with those of the US. special operators delivered by submarine and by clandestine civilian ship-launched unconventional attacks against U.S. bases across the Pacific, including Guam and Pearl Harbor.The Soviets unleashed Pyongyang early in the conflict, redirecting U.S. attention towards the Korean Peninsula. Washington had effective answers; it quickly undertook offensive anti-submarine operations in the Sea of Japan, decimating Soviet SSN and SSBN forces. Soviet surface ships also came under attack. Nevertheless, in a daring move the Soviets launched a successful amphibious assault against Hokkaido. Although the operation suffered heavy losses, it succeeded in establishing a beachhead in Japan (though this was later withdrawn under fire).The United States took a more aggressive stance in the 1988 wargame. Instead of waiting for a Soviet attack, Washington immediately began air and unconventional offensives against installations in the Soviet Far East, designed to decimate Soviet air defenses and threaten the survival of military-industrial installations. For their part, the Soviets hoped that a reticent military stance and a diplomatic offensive could keep Japan out of the war. This gambit succeeded to a point, as the Japanese suspended active military cooperation with the United States. American pressure eventually forced Tokyo to yield, and the Soviet opened offensive operations against the archipelago. By this time, however, the U.S. Navy had devastated Soviet naval forces, confining the Pacific fleet to its bastion in the Sea of Okhotsk.Late in the war, the Soviets gave Pyongyang the green light to invade South Korea. However, this operation backfired, as the North Koreans failed to make substantial progress against combined U.S. and South Korean forces. Moreover, the Soviet move confirmed the U.S.-Japanese alliance, and helped drive Beijing into a much more hostile disposition towards the Soviets.Both the Soviets and the Americans had options in Asia. The strategic environment was far more fluid than in Europe, allowing a variety of different choices to disrupt and destabilize the opponent. This made the course of war far less predictable. At its (nonnuclear) worst, war could have raged across Asia on multiple fronts, from Korea to Japan to the Sino-Soviet border. At its best, the combatants might have observed an uneasy quiet, at least until it became necessary to outflank a stalemate in the West. But as was the case in Europe, everyone concerned is fortunate that tensions never led to open combat.Robert Farley, a frequent contributor to the National Interest, is author of The Battleship Book. He serves as a senior lecturer at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce at the University of Kentucky. His work includes military doctrine, national security and maritime affairs. He blogs at Lawyers, Guns and Money, Information Dissemination and the Diplomat.
|
