What the Falk?! Is Argentina Going Rogue?

Argentinian President Cristina Kirchner 

Although Argentina may not be the first country that comes to mind when making a list of pariah states, its recent policy choices seem to support this classification. The cutting of international ties escalated in the first week of April, when during a speech commemorating the 30^th anniversary of the Falklands War, Argentine president Cristina Kirchner openly criticized the United Kingdom for its ongoing practice of “colonialism”, through its continued control of the islands. This statement was merely the culmination of months of negative sentiments toward the U.K. voiced by Kirchner, including calls for a nationwide boycott of British goods and accusations that the U.K. is exploiting the Falklands for their natural resources at the expense of Argentine interests. The Argentine president’s rhetoric also reaches beyond the British, noting that Kirchner has condemned international bodies, such as the United Nations, as being biased against Argentina’s rights of sovereignty. Specifically, Kirchner claims that the issue of the Falklands has being largely ignored because it is the best interest of “…those who are seated in chairs on the Security Council” to do so.

At first, such fiery rhetoric seemed to be little more than frustrated posturing, but it now appears that it provided momentum for Kirchner to pursue controversial policy choices. With strong domestic support, Kirchner has sent a bill to Congress that would result in the nationalization of its largest oil and gas company, YPF. This move is the culmination of a drawn-out political battle between YPF and the Kirchner government, in which each side blamed one another for the decline in Argentina’s energy production. What makes this action additionally problematic is the fact that YPF is a Spanish-owned company, which means that international investors are set to lose substantial funds as a result of nationalization. Because Spain is a large investor and trading partner with Argentina, burning this bridge has caused such an uproar that the Spanish government has threatened to use “clear and forceful measures” to rectify the situation. Moreover, a policy of nationalization further strains Argentina’s relationship with the European Union and the international market in general, by demonstrating continued instability and volatility of its domestic marketplace over a decade after its default on foreign debt in 2001.

Although the nationalization of YPF may create a short-term boost in domestic support for Kirchner, there is no guarantee of long-term economic benefits from this policy. In fact, a number of analysts suggest that this move is merely part of a vicious cycle in which political leaders develop irresponsible policies and then attempt to counteract undesirable consequences with and equally extreme counter-policy. Yet, the nationalization of YPF is not only short-sighted domestically, but will likely serve to further isolate Argentina from the international community, both economically and politically. In recent weeks, President Kirchner’s has developed a desire to “stick it” to European states, but burning these bridges may result in a loss of capital and technical expertise necessary to stabilize its economy and expand its ability to extract domestic sources of energy. Therefore, even though Argentina is beginning to act like it belongs to President Bush’s “Axis of Evil”, it should deeply consider the consequences of going rogue before it cuts any more international ties.

Why won't the DPRK learn?

Now, this post isn’t about the Eternal Kingdom learning not to anger the international community, nor about how they can’t seem to square what they do with what their treaties enable them to do, but why they can’t seem to get those darn missiles up in the air.

Looking at the previous rocket launches in 1998 and 2006, there has been a marked lack of improvement or even mild success. In 1998, the Paekdusan (read: Taepodong-1 IRBM) rocket supposedly launched a satellite into space, while this has been disputed by everybody else in the world, to include Russian Space Command. However, with 2 stages of the rocket working, this is the closest the DPRK missile program can call a win.
In 2006, the Unha-2 (read: Taepodong-2 ICBM) missile failed after 42 seconds of flight, and crash-landed in the Sea of Japan after 2 minutes of flight. Reports of the mass detention of trombone players to prevent the playing of ‘wah waaaah’ have not been confirmed.

In 2009, another Unha-2 launch went more smoothly, but failed to separate at the third stage, much as the Paekdusan in 1998, sending another DPRK satellite to a watery grave.

And, of course, very recently the Unha-3 (Taepodong-2, again) had a smashing launch, as it smashed into the ocean. This caused a rare admission of failure by the KCNA, as they had invited a large number of foreign journalists to the launch, and foreign journalists are notorious for reporting what they actually see.

Looking back at the history of disappointing the DPRK leadership can give us clues as to why they seem to not be improving in their designs as expected. Many of the DPRK space launches take place around important dates. The recent Unha-3 launch was in commemoration of Kim Il-Sung’s 100th birthday, the 2009 launch was around the 4th of July and immediately prior to a space shuttle launch, the 2006 nuclear test was the day before Party Foundation Day, etc. If a scientist is working on a big project that has all the world watching, and it fizzles or it fails, given the nature of the regime it is likely that the scientist would be exiled from the DPRK scientific community and/or come down with a terminal case of high-velocity lead poisoning.

In this environment where failure, a key component of the scientific method, is not tolerated, progress will be at a snail’s pace. Iranian scientists, using North Korean technology, were able to put a satellite into orbit successfully, and part of the reason is that they were not working under the same restraints as the DPRK. While our allies in the region might want to keep their eyes on the sky for falling debris, we in the US have precious little to fear from the North Korean ICBM program.

Taliban Launches Spring Offensive

Fighting has continued is Kabul, Afghanistan for the past two days now; the Taliban is starting what is being called a "spring offensive".  This increase in violence is the first attack in the Afghan capital is over six months.  The targets within the capital included the NATO Headquarters, Afghan parliament, and various foreign embassies. The Taliban has claimed that yesterday's attacks were the beginning of a "spring offensive" by their forces.

In an article from BBC it was stated that the Taliban's, " 'fighting season' tends to begin when the warmer weather melts snow in mountain passes along the border with Pakistan, allowing fighters to cross into Afghanistan."  Additionally as a on-the-ground perspective, a friend of mine who is currently deployed in Afghanistan with the U.S. Army stated about a month ago that his group was anticipating a spring offensive to begin soon by the Taliban and that the U.S. Army were preparing accordingly.

Right now it is Monday morning in Afghanistan and the fighting has continued.  Recently NATO claimed that the Taliban was weak and the Taliban claims these series of attacks to be their response to such claims.  Unfortunately these attacks have weakened the level of confidence of many Afghans.

With these recent attacks, it again appears that Afghanistan is not ready for U.S. troop withdrawal any time soon, however with an upcoming election and a war-weary population, President Obama might be pressured to begin showing some signs of U.S. troop draw-down.  This will prove to be a challenge as November gets closer and the President must choose between fulfilling what he pledged to do (withdrawal the troops from Iraq and Afghanistan) and the Afghan need for continued U.S. support.  

US - Philippines - China: An uneasy triangle in the South China Sea

Late last week, a Philippine naval vessel - the largest in its fleet - intercepted Chinese fishing boats in a disputed area of the South China Sea, only to be confronted by two Chinese surveillance ships.  A tense standoff emerged, but diplomacy seems to be working - the Philippine foreign secretary Albert del Rosario and Chinese ambassador to the Philippines Ma Keqing have been discussing an agreement for both sides to stand down.  The situation remains tense however; although the Philippine vessel has left the area, coast guard vessels have taken its place and a third Chinese surveillance ship has arrived.  

Although the Philippines and China seem to be working towards an agreement, the situation may soon be exacerbated by joint naval exercises between the Philippines and the United States planned to start this week. The location of the exercises is not far from the Spratly Islands, a small string of islands claimed by China, the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia.  The exercises with the Philippines underscore the US's refocusing military attention in Asia, offering a chance to strengthen its position and presence.

The Philippines is placed in the most precarious position of all in this situation.  Of course it wants to retain close ties with the US, since it gets most of its military assistance from us (including its largest vessel involved in the standoff last week).  However, it also must remain acutely aware of the image it is projecting to China, obviously the largest power in the region and one the Philippines does not want to irritate.  Economic ties to China have improved, and military relations had as well recently, as Chinese incursions into the disputed territory had decreased.

China does not want the United States involved in what it deems a regional dispute.  This explains the recent decrease in Chinese presence around the Spratly's, as China realizes such moves may appear aggressive, causing the smaller powers in the region to look to the US for back-up.  Apparently the Chinese fishing boats did not get the memo.

The United States' position in this matter is convoluted, as usual.  On the one hand, it wants to increase its power projection in the area and ensure shipping lanes remain open and secure.  On the other hand, it does not want to ratchet up the tension unduly.  The planned naval exercises with the Philippines would normally appear routine, but with the standoff still in place, they now take on a more aggressive appearance.  Although it may be tempting for the US to offer to assist in the diplomatic resolution of the standoff, this is an issue that must be resolved by China and the Philippines themselves.

China's reaction to these exercises bears watching, as it will indicate its overall stance toward the US's presence in these troubled waters.  Perhaps the three countries should try a version of the "fun games" arranged by the Philippines and Vietnam navies - basketball and football games held on one of the Spratly Islands as a novel trust building measure.  

Military-civilian relations in West Africa

In the last few weeks, military coups have taken place in Mali and Guinea-Bissau, illustrating yet again the importance of a military under the control of civilians for maintaining order and rule of law.  

In Mali, a captain and a small group of soldiers deposed the out-going president, a few weeks prior to the end of his term, citing his mishandling of a Tuareg rebellion in northern Mali.  In the power vacuum that followed, Tuareg rebels took advantage of the situation and declared a new state.  Now the interim administration has to deal with break-away rebels and a contentious military.  Not a pleasant endeavor and one that will take some serious negotiation.

In Guinea-Bissau, the coup occurred as campaigning for a second presidential run-off election began.  The "Military Command" that took into custody the former prime minister and front runner candidate Carlos Gomes Junior and interim president Raimundo Pereira, has claimed a dispute with Angola as the primary cause.  The coup leaders stated that there was a secret agreement between the leaders of Guinea-Bissau and Angola allowing Angola to take action against Guinea-Bissau's military.  Perhaps flaming the fires, recently Angola decided to withdraw a $30 million program for security reform in Guinea-Bissau, and there have been allegations of Carlos Gomes Junior using Angolan troops for personal security detail.  Other reports state that the military was unhappy with Gomes who would allow Angolan troops to interfere with cocaine trafficking, with which the military is involved.  However, it appears that the military is stepping back to allow a transitional administration to coalesce under the supervision of ECOWAS.

These cases clearly illustrate the negative consequences of a military that is not under the control of the civilian government.  Unfortunately, this is so often the case in weak states, where the military retains power and influence both over political elites and the common citizenry.  In such states, joining the military is often the best available career choice, providing a somewhat stable income, whether through legitimate means or bribery and other coercive tactics.  As long as a military retains guns, and sees no need to obey the civilian government in question, democracy will remain fragile.

Escape from Alcatr...Pakistan

Bad news from Pakistan this weekend. A prison in Bannu in northwest Pakistan, an area known for having a heavy militant presence, was attacked by "hundreds of Taliban fighters", resulting in the escape of 384 of a possible 944 prisoners. Among those escapees are 21 high profile militants including several awaiting execution. The apparent target of the raid was a high level Taliban commander, but it is uncertain whether he escaped or not since prisoner records were burned in the attack. Four prison officials were wounded. The Pakistani Taliban has claimed responsibility for the attack.

This raid is unfortunate news for several reasons. First, there are now 384 criminals, terrorists, and future terrorists walking free in northern Pakistan. These all have to be recaptured. This is a substantial influx of manpower to terrorist groups in the area and will no doubt add to the instability in the region and in Afghanistan. Secondly, it reflects very poorly on the Pakistani prison system and on Pakistan itself. This type of prison break is almost unheard of. Hopefully Pakistan will learn from the event and address lax security at other prisons holding high profile targets. This leads us to the obvious question; how did the Taliban orchestrate this massive operation on their own? An official speaking about the situation said "A soul-searching investigation is underway to answer some big questions. "How were the militants allowed to block routes to the jail before the attack? Why didn't the reinforcements arrive?" It sounds like this confirms rumors that Pakistani government employees are working with terrorist groups in the region. It may not be the ISI or Army as previously accused, however, for such an operation to take place, with only four prison officials wounded and none killed, it sounds like the Taliban had help on the inside to break these prisoners out.

This incident reduces any confidence the U.S. had left in Pakistan as staunch allies in the war on terror. This is just one of several incidents in recent memory implicating Pakistan in aiding terrorist groups and individuals. The U.S. will not be pleased with the break out and are going to need to work with Pakistani officials to get a handle on exactly who escaped and assess the possible threat to U.S./Afghan interests.

Sudan Oil Disputes to Intensified “Limited War”

As many expect, armed conflict has intensified over the petroleum industry between Sudan and South Sudan. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), completed in 2005, was supposed to end hostilities, develop a way to share profits from the oil industry, and establish democratic institutions throughout the country. The agreement was signed by the Sudanese government and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement. Nevertheless, it did not take long for conflict to ensure within the newly founded government of national unity. In 2007, for a couple of months, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) removed itself from the established government due to failure of the government to implement aspects of the CPA. While the SPLM reintegrated itself into the government, it was clear that tensions between the national government and SPLM remained. South Sudan held a referendum on declaring South Sudan as an independent state. The referendum passed almost unanimously and the new nation began July 9, 2011.

The split of the state brought to light one of the most important questions. How would the separation of resource wealth and the exploitation of oil resources be divided between the two states? Geographically the majority of the oil fields exist within the territory of South Sudan. However, the north has factors crucial to the petroleum industry as well. The territory’s refineries, export port on the Red Sea, and the pipeline exist in the territory of Sudan. Even at the time of South Sudan’s independence, it had not been agreed upon how the petroleum industry would be divided or how the profits would be handled.

The map details the disputed territorial areas in gray and purple as well as the geographic locations of two of the major aspects of the oil industry (the fields and pipeline).

This map highlights more in depth the territorial division of the oil industry between the two states. The area of conflict can be located on this map and a comparison of the two maps will allow for a comprehensive outlook on the oil industry and the disputed territories.

South Sudanese forces focused on the issue of division of petroleum revenues and the conflicts over attempts to delineate clear borders with their actions in regard to the Heglig oil fields. Earlier this week, the army seized the area and what resulted has been called limited war which is projected to persist sporadically indefinitely. The armed conflict between the two states’ armies began as troops from Sudan’s army moved to retake the occupied area. There have been two days of direct armed conflict, including bombing from Sudanese aircraft.

Some have called this fighting “limited”, but there are others who believe that this may be the spark to yet another war. The latter is most probable, unless there are exemplary negotiations that occur the conflict is sure to escalate. The escalation of this conflict will not only mean rises in the already high death toll, but also disruption in the states’ petroleum industry hampering the economic, social, and political development.

North Korea & Iran: Playing With Things that go Boom!

With the failed launch of the Unha-3 rocket by North Korea yesterday, the international community now has one additional state that is violating UN restrictions; the North Koreans are now once again gaining attention for their missile program and the Iranians are gaining attention for their nuclear program.

One has to give the Obama administration credit for the manner in which both these issues are being handled, previous administrations might have already decided that the threat of either of these rogue states possibly possessing weapons of mass destruction (or working to develop them) required a full-scale invasion.  It appears that the Obama administration is looking to avoid acting unilaterally and will truly keep invasion as a last-resort-option, this will help improve U.S. international ties and prevent the U.S. from entering another costly armed conflict unless absolutely necessary.

At this point the U.S. reaction to North Korea's missile launch has been only condemnation and to cancel its deal with North Korea to provide food aid; a deal that was reached just weeks ago in which North Korea agreed to not launch any long range rockets or undertake any nuclear tests in exchange the U.S. would provide much-needed food aid.

Meanwhile, about a quarter of the way across the world, Iran continues its development of a nuclear program.  Despite repeated warning from the U.S. and the UN, as well as offers to provide material enriched to reactor-grade levels, Iran remains determined to continue development.  In response the U.S. has placed ever-increasing sanctions on Iran and has recently accomplished getting the international financial clearinghouse, SWIFT, to reject transactions attempting to enter or leave Iran; this accomplishment will increase the effect of sanctions placed on Iran and we could possibly soon positive results out of Iran.

An Army guy's take on the Navy in Asia

A friend of mine is an Army lieutenant stationed at Joint Base Lewis McChord in Tacoma, Washington. He told me about a year ago that they were primarily focused on Pacific affairs. After reading Dr. Farley's article on Foreign Policy yesterday about the US's Navy-centric pivot to Asia, I was curious to get a soldier's take. He wrote back a email with some great insights, so I thought I would share:

I think ultimately it is a multi-pronged, complex approach to the
region (unlike what we've been doing in the Middle East for the past
forty years).

The Navy has traditionally been the vessel through which the US can
most effectively implement its economic policies. The AF is more
diplomatically- and strategically-oriented with a focus on platforms
and realpolitik while the Army pretty much prepares for and engages in
everything from low-level conflicts to all-out invasions. The Navy is
the furthest service from actual combat but the closest to affecting
economic policy.

The Navy, more than any of the other services, keeps global trade
fluid and smooth. Their approach to China has been hot-cold...enough
to keep them somewhat docile but never really knowing what we're going
to do next. A perfect example of this was placing of 2,000+ Marines
in a permanent position in northern Australia a few months back
(caught the Chinese completely by surprise).

I think the administration realizes that Europe is economically
degrading, and we need to strengthen our relationships with Australia,
Indonesia, Japan, Thailand, India, etc. The Navy allows us to do
that.

I Corps (all of the Fort Lewis units) do not fall under Pacific
Command (PACOM)...we fall under Force Command (FORSCOM). However, we
do have a very strong relationship with PACOM and pretty much act as
their reserve and conduct all sorts of joint exercises under the PACOM
umbrella. The 25th Infantry Division ("Tropic Lightning"...two
brigades at Hawaii and two at Alaska) actually falls under PACOM's
command, but they cannot do it all, so we conduct a lot of their
missions as well. 1st Special Forces Group is also stationed at
Lewis; their strategic area of command is PACOM (3rd Group is AFRICOM;
5th Group is CENTCOM; 7th Group is SOUTHCOM; and 10th Group is EUCOM),
but they actually fall under Special Operations Command (SOCOM...like
the video game). 2nd Ranger Battalion, based here at Lewis, is the
only Ranger unit west of Georgia and has somewhat of a
Pacific-oriented outlook.

Other than my time in Iraq, my entire time as an officer in a
front-line infantry battalion has been focused on PACOM
missions...joint staff exercise with the Japanese here at Fort
Lewis...joint live-fire exercise with the 7th Royal Australian
Regiment in Australia with the ADF...joint live-fire exercise with the
5th Infantry Regiment of the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force at
Yakima Training Center in central Washington...my brigade has sent
infantry companies to Thailand, Singapore, India, and Korea in the
past year (on top of my battalion doing both the Australian and
Japanese exercises).

The Navy has traditionally dominated PACOM...the PACOM Commander has
almost always been a four-star admiral whereas the other six strategic
commands have almost always been Army or AF four-star generals
(although the Navy has held the SOUTHCOM and SOCOM commands on
occasion). The Navy assets (carrier groups, ports, etc) dedicated to
PACOM dwarf those of any other command. Just think back to our
history in the Pacific Rim...admirals and naval officers in tropical
white uniforms with wide-brim hats sipping drinks in Hawaii or the
Philippines or Thailand or Australia...the Marines in the Filipino
Insurrection, island hopping in WW2, Korea, Vietnam (General Mattis,
the new USMC Commandant has been described as an Oriental
Commander)... The Pacific is in so many ways the Navy's lake.

It's a smart, common sense move to have the Navy take the lead in our
policy in the region. They know it best, have formed the
relationships, and (sometimes) know the languages and cultures. Most
importantly, the very structure of the Navy is most conducive to
influencing the Pacific Rim.

There are some excellent things in here. First, he articulated what we have learned about the different roles of the branches. The Air Force's strategic prerogative, the Army's on-the-ground tactical role, and the Navy's place as the protector of economic stability. He gives a nice breakdown of interservice operations, as well as some insight into the combatant command structure. While one branch may have the lead, the jointness of the military is still integral. He gave some nice specifics on how the Army actually inserts itself into the Pacific arena via joint exercises with foreign units. Finally, it's good to see after last week's class on interservice rivalry that each branch recognizes the other's strengths and how those fit into the US's broader foreign policy objectives. This friend is a pretty staunch conservative, but I think even he would concede that Hillary Clinton making the right calls at the helm of American foreign affairs.

A Big Week for Things that Fly (or Don't)

This just in!!!  All or the debate over what to do about the North Korean "missile" launch has fallen to pieces. . .or rather, the missile has fallen to pieces. .

According to ABC news, the first stage of the three stage rocket worked as planned, but the second -and therefore third- stages did not fire.

This comes at the end of what has been a tragic week for military aviation.  Last Friday, a Navy F/A-18 crashed into an apartment building in Virginia, thankfully no one was killed.  To add to this, yesterday two marines were killed when an MV-22 Osprey crashed during a training mission in Morocco.

Amidst this background, headway is being made toward parsing the DOD's 30 year aviation plan.  It calls for replacement craft for the F-22 (and potentially the F-35) and the F/A-18, as well as a huge number of drones and optionally manned aircraft.  It is not surprising that the DOD is looking this far ahead, as one commenter points out, given that it took the F-22 nearly 35 years to go from paper service.

Turkey's Catch-22 with Syria

Despite talks of a cease fire that is supposed to start Thursday, the Assad regime ratcheted up the violence Monday by attacking refugee camps across the Syrian border into Turkey. This is the first such attack on a camp on the Turkish border since Turkey started sheltering Syrian refugees last summer. It also represents a high point for Turkish-Syrian animosity since the late 90's.

In 1998 Turkey threatened to go to war with Syria, because Bashar al-Assad's father, the previous Syrian leader, had been aiding Turkey's Kurdish Workers' Party (PKK) rebels. The threat of force in '98 led to a peace between Turkey and Syrian and the expulsion of the PKK leader from Syria. However, tensions between the neighbors are on the rise, and Monday's border shooting may only be the tip of the problem.

Since the start of the uprising in Syria last fall, Mr. Assad has started courting Syria's own Kurdish minority for two main reasons. One, Assad is playing divide and conquer in his own borders and trying to pit as many different groups against each other as possible. Two, Turkey has already publicly declared its loss of faith with the Assad regime, and by courting the Kurds, Assad is signaling to Turkey that once he deals with his problems at home, support for the PKK will likely resume.

The International Herald Tribune claims that Assad's renewed ties with the PKK puts Turkey in a awkward situation when it comes to the Kurds. If Assad wins, he will likely not forget which side Turkey was own, paying them back in kind with vigorous support to the separatist Turkish group. However, even if Assad losses, Syrian Kurds are likely to get a say in a new democratic government. How will the PKK react if Syrian Kurds get a level of autonomy that they do not? Does resolution in Syrian mean future problems in Turkey no matter which side wins?

Causus Belli for R2P?

from guardian.co.uk

Currently, the state of the Syrian ceasefire is in shambles. al-Assad talks a good game when Kofi Annan is in town, but as soon as the world leans back with a slight sigh of relief the shelling starts again. Russia and China have been no help, determined to make this intervention a lesson for what happens when mission creep goes beyond the UN Security Council resolution with regards to Libya. In order to protect their stated mission of non-intervention and antipathy towards regime change, Russia and China have taken a principled stand against doing anything towards the Syrian regime.

However, it still remains obvious that what is happening in Syria is a gross violation of human rights and against everything for which the western world purports to stand. But how can the world help when the main tool of international legitimacy is at loggerheads? Well, it looks like our friends from Anatolia have given us a present.

Turkey sheltering Syrian refugees has angered Damascus, and their security forces are becoming less and less restrained at the border. A few more incidents like these, or a possible cross-border raid, and suddenly Syria has forced Ankara to invoke Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty. Defending an ally grants legitimacy in the same manner as the UN Security Council, and suddenly the western powers are given leave to protect the Syrian people.

This raises an interesting paradox: R2P leads to military actions, but with the paralysis of the UNSC, a military action can lead to a R2P situation.

Walking a Tightrope: the Defense Budget

Image: olly/Shutterstock

In contrast to vague and ambiguous phrases typically found in legal documents, the American Constitution explicitly notes the need for the government to provide a national defense for its citizens. This becomes obvious in Article Four, Section Four which declares that the “United States shall guarantee to every State a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion.” In response to this clause, the U.S. has gradually increased the definition of “defense” beyond protection of foreign invasion to include safeguarding trade routes, preventing cyber-attacks, and upholding international law. This expansion of ideals has pushed the U.S. to engage in numerous international military actions, such as campaigns in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s, which had little to do with its national interests, let alone endangered the prospect of American sovereignty. Moreover, worries over trade routes and cyber-security have intensified strained relationships with Iran (Straits of Hormuz) and China (hacking of Google) respectively, which has contributed to a decline in popular perceptions of national security. Although each of these areas may represent a cause worth defending, heightened responsibility requires increased resources and personnel to maintain efficient action.

Recognizing that whatever is deemed “defense” is constitutionally required of the state, the U.S. now finds itself struggling to allocate efficient funds to these sectors without impinging on other areas of American society. In terms of national budget, it is difficult to follow popular sentiments and drawback defense spending without compromising national security. Facing domestic pressure, proposed cuts to the defense apparatus include reducing the number of American troops around the globe, restricting the growth of defense bureaucracy, and limiting the arsenal of weaponry. Beyond this, there are some experts calling for the reduction in benefits for veterans, noting that current levels are “wildly out of step” with the growing healthcare cost for the rest of the American public. Though these reductions may have a positive impact on the budgetary bottom line, each of these policies have the potential to drastically hamper the ability of the U.S. to project global power, efficiently implement the use of force , and adequately provide for veterans after their tours of service.   

Underlying this numbers game is the political reality that a finite national budget creates a zero-sum game in which dedication of funds to one sector inherently means taking from another. In an era in which entitlement spending exponentially increasing its share of GDP, it appears as though the priority of defense will have to take a back seat to domestic concerns. President Obama has illustrated his willingness to reduce defense allocations with his budget proposal for 2013 [which did not pass], which called for a one percent, or roughly $500 billion reduction of growth, in defense spending. Despite the fact that Democrats tend to have a reputation of being more dove-like than their Republican counterparts, if Obama were to achieve substantial cuts in defense spending, he would be the first Democratic president to do so in the since the end of World War II. Although the decision to cut defense budgets to improve the state’s bottom line may be appealing, one must not forget the constitutional obligation to defend the country’s borders and protect whatever the nation considers worth defending. 

Stirrings in the North

In a recent article, South Korea claims that evidence has surfaced over the last two years of enormous piles of earth appearing at former underground nuclear testing sites in North Korea. They take this as a sign that a third underground nuclear test since 2000 may be in the works. The others were in 2006 and 2009. Normally this would be seen as quite alarming. However, there are some theories that this information was released by South Korean intelligence in order to bolster support for the conservative party in elections just three days away. The National Intelligence Service is denying any political motivations behind this, but the timing is interesting.

North Korea is already on the hot seat for planning a missile launch in direct violation of an agreement for food aid from the U.S. If this evidence of additional nuclear testing pans out, it will stretch even more thin the relationship N. Korea has with the international community. However, this is a familiar pattern of behavior from N. Korea. They build up their nuclear program or test missiles, and then agree to stop in exchange for much needed food aid, only to break their promise and repeat the cycle. The new leader in N. Korea, Kim Jong-Un, is likely doing this to make his mark early as a strong figure at the top of the garrison state that is N. Korea. A relatively strong military is all that N. Korea has to go with, and leadership needs to maintain the image as such. With continued support from China, it is unlikely that we will see a shift in N. Korea's behavior any time soon.

South Korea and Japan have both stated that if the missile or any fragments of the missile approach their territory, they will shoot them down. North Korea has responded officially by saying that this would be interpreted as an act of war. However, it seems unlikely that Pyongyang would be willing to go to war over a single shot down satellite missile, especially if it malfunctions and veers off course towards Japan or South Korea. This type of belligerent rhetoric is typical of the Koreas. China has stated its displeasure with the planned missile test but has not issued any further statements regarding actions to be taken if the test goes ahead. China is unlikely to take official steps to reprimand or sanction North Korea.

EDIT: Thursday 4/12. North Korea launched their missile on Thursday and it was a resounding failure. This is not the first time their missile testing has had such an outcome. The rocket broke up just 81 seconds into flight and landed in the ocean. It is an international embarrassment for Pyongyang and the DPRK leadership. The UN Security Council met to condemn the test on Friday.

For the Love of Drones

As time has passed, drones have eclipsed their use for solely military means, and their usage in the civilian world become more widespread. They have the capability to fulfill several purposes for a variety of actors; by environmental activists to hunt down whaling boats, by police forces for monitoring and surveillance, by farmers to spread pesticides over crops, by hobbyists for enjoyment… the list goes on and on.

Free reign obviously does not exist for civilian usage of the technologies. The American Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) allows the usage for drones for recreational purposes, but bans the use for commercial purposes (like real estate agents desiring to take aerial photos.) The loosening of restrictions, however, is well underway. The European Commission has conducted a series of meetings to create a regulatory framework in which civilians can increasingly use drones, and the American Senate passed a bill that requires the FAA to create new rules allowing open skies for drone flights starting in 2015.

This obviously poses many problems: what to do in the case of UAVs losing communication with its operators, how UAVs would detect other aircraft, and the available technology enabling their use for increasingly destructive intent. Efforts have been made to remedy these glitches, like the FAA issuing temporary permits to examine how drones operate in airspace used by commercial and private air traffic, efforts to develop lightweight probes to “sense and avoid,” . However, these technologies might be too extravagant for the size of the devices desired to use by most civilians. Most devices, like those used by several police forces, would inflict the damage of a bird strike if it was to come in contact with an aircraft, thus a requirement for elaborate technologies to accompany their use seems ill advised.

The expansion of drones outside of military use also opens up several privacy issues. Since it is not constitutionally prohibited for civilians to use surveillance drones, consequently there are no regulations on whom and for what purposes their surveillance capabilities are utilized. Additionally, the expansion of drone knowledge will inevitably land on the steps (or computer screen) of the “bad guys,” and thus could potentially pose an increased threat to societies. However, where there is a will, there is a way- and if a criminal/terrorist/etc seeks to learn about and use drone technology, they undoubtedly use illegal ways to obtain this technology, thus this worry could be rendered obsolete.

While drones would serve a legitimate purpose in law enforcement, construction, security, agriculture and countless other fields, they pose several security challenges as well. However, since societies typically have failed at stopping the dissemination of technological information, hopefully the benefits drones offer civilians can be utilized without inflicting major dangers upon society.

Sources:

“Unblinking eyes in the sky,” The Economist, 2012.

W.J. Hennigan, “Idea of civilians using drone aircraft may soon fly with FAA,” The Los Angeles Times, November 27, 2011.

Iran: So far away?

“Know they enemy and know yourself, never in one hundred battles will you be in peril.” –Sun Tzu

Part of negotiating is understanding your opponent’s aims. In doing so, we are able to adapt our style and demands to address their issues in order to further our own aims. One of the problems with recent American nuclear negotiations with Iran is that we have not really attempted to understand Iran’s position or why it conducts itself in the way it does. This lack of understanding hinders our negotiations, and hopefully in the forthcoming negotiations the US will keep in mind the point of view of Iran, and use that to further our aims. Hopefully using this knowledge we will be able to bridge the trust gap.

This is not to excuse their past behavior. We cannot simply explain away their IAEA violations (mostly in the occultation of nuclear enrichment) by attempting to understand them. Much like a regular criminal, understanding the Circumstances does not excuse the crime, but it is more helpful to attack the root of these problems rather than punitive action after punitive action.

So why would Iran want nuclear weapons, even in the face of such international condemnation?

Defense: this is the big one. Iran saw how the US behaved with regards to Iraq declaring their lack of nuclear ambitions and opening up their sites. Even when DG Blix noted that the IAEA inspectors did not find any evidence of nuclear skullduggery, the US effected regime change at the end of a rope. Not to mention we have been enemies of Iran longer than we were enemies of Saddam. The lesson from North Korea is that once you have obtained the Bomb, the kid gloves come on, because heaven forefend that we would give a reason to use it. Local defense is not as much of a concern, now that the aforementioned Hashemite Kingdom of Iraq is no longer in any position to threaten the Islamic Republic.

Regional Hegemony: Ah, here we go. Much to the chagrin of broad-brush painters, Iran is not an Arabic country. Being full of Persians, but also a part of the Middle East gives them a standoffish relationship with the Kingdom of Saud and points eastward. Were they to obtain a bomb, Iran would suddenly rocket to the top of influential and powerful countries in the region. The return to the glory days of empire would be a powerful incentive for wistful power brokers in Teheran. Nuclear weapons would also help balance out the multinuclear region of Israel, Russia, China, Pakistan, and India.

Religious Hegemony: In addition to being an ethnic minority compared to its westward neighbors, Iran is also one of only three Sh’ia-majority countries (Azerbaijan and Bahrain join it). While A.Q. Khan and Pakistan gave the world “The Muslim Bomb,” Iran could be the country to give the world “The Sh’ia Bomb.” While this would further set them apart from most of the Muslim world (and as Ayatollah Khomeini has declared nuclear weapons “un-Islamic”), it would also grant them a measure of respect from its coreligionists. This might be more of the respect one must give a loaded gun, but respect nonetheless.

Bonus answer: It’s not: Surprise! It is also possible that Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons (Leon Panetta seems to think they aren’t), but merely keeping their cards close to the vest. Repeatedly, the IAEA technocrats (Blix, ElBaradei, Amano, et al.) have found that Iran had been keeping within the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) guidelines, while the bureaucrats (The IAEA Board of Governors who have frequently brought Iran before the UNSC). Were we to take the past feelings that might be clouding our (American) judgment from the equation, enrichment is allowed under the NPT and peaceful nuclear energy is allowed under the NPT. However, the previous reasons for why they might seek a weapon also work as answers as to why they want to remain ambiguous about their nuclear program.

So in negotiating with Iran about the future of their nuclear program, we need to keep the Iranian point-of-view in mind in order to talk them down off the ledge, or at least have them show us that they were never going to jump in the first place.

Syria Timeline Draws Near

Although the Syrian government has agreed to a cease-fire, there have been multiple reports that the conflict has intensified. The conflict that has been ongoing for over a year and has costs the lives of thousands of citizens. Some estimates report civilian death tolls at over 9,000. These figures include the deaths of approximately 500 children. There are also large numbers of internally displaced peoples, refugees that have fled the country, and approximately a million Syrians which need humanitarian aid. After extensive debates within the UN Security Council over the issue, the United Nations and the Arab League were appointed to negotiate for the settlement of the conflict.

According to the United Nations-League of Arab States Joint Special Envoy, all violence should end by April 12^th. The Syrian government already agreed to a cease-fire, but many question how committed the government is to complying with the Special Envoy’s plan. There were multiple reports on Thursday of increased violence in cities throughout the country. Meanwhile, the Turkish government reported that there has been a vast increase in the number of Syrian refugees fleeing across the border.

The Syrian government has agreed to withdrawal military forces from predominate cities across the country. The government reported that a “partial pullback” is already underway for the cities of Deraa, Idlib, and Zabadani. A full withdrawal of Syrian troops from the major cities has been scheduled for April 10^th. Directly after the removal of troops, there is to be 48 hours when all forces engaged in the conflict are to stop fighting (government troops and opposition forces). This period of halting fighting will transition into an official cease-fire on April 12^th.

The UN is attempting to maintain pressure on the government to fulfill its promises. There is a UN team in Damascus so that they can deploy personnel to monitor the cease-fire. Moreover, Mr. Annan is scheduled to arrive in Iran on the 11^th. The pressure on Syria is not only to enact the cease-fire, but also to implement the peace plan fully. The peace plan includes halting the violence, allowing humanitarian organizations access, beginning political dialogue that is inclusive, and releasing jailed protestors.

Both Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Nassir Abdulaziz al-Nasser have stated the importance of the global community to support the United Nations-League of Arab States Joint Special Envoy to Syria. It is clear that the probability of success for the peace process and a resulting inclusive political system are dependent on continued support from the international community. However there are multiple obstacles to this support. Nations have come together due to the violence exhibited by the Syrian government against their citizens. As the peace process moves forward, there could be division in the coalition of nations supporting the current initiative, especially on the topic of democracy.

A Bounty for a Man Whose Whereabouts are Known

Recently the United States has publicly offered a bounty of $10 million for Hafiz Mohammed Saeeed. Saeed is the founder of the militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba and now one of the leaders of the Defense of Pakistan council, a very conservative group that deplores American involvement in Pakistan and holds public rallies urging Pakistani government to continue the closing of the NATO supply routes and the discontinuance of the drone program. In response to the bounty, Saeed stated "I am not hiding in caves and mountains, I am here in Rawalpindi", following up that the U.S. government should give him the $10 million dollars for welfare programs within Balochistan since he has informed the U.S. of his own whereabouts. How this plays out will be interesting.

The timing and purpose of this bounty seems odd. Saeed is a well-known militant who is respected amongst many Pakistani people. For the U.S. to put pressure on Pakistan with this bounty, in a time when the general Pakistani populace is against the U.S., is not beneficial to the Pakistan government. There is no way that the Pakistan government will arrest Saeed. First, because the government would be seen by the populous as a puppet acting on the U.S.' will. Secondly, because Pakistan would be implicitly admitting that a Pakistan cell had perpetrated the attack on Mumbai, perhaps with ISI support. If the U.S. wants to reopen NATO lines, use Pakistan for drone operations and have a cooperative relationship in rebuilding Afghanistan, this pressure does not help to reach those goals.

Moreover, the United States has been operating drones within Pakistan for the past few years. If we saw fit to render Saeed ineffective, we could have. Now though, that option is off the table. If we decide to unilaterally kill Saeed, perhaps by unamnned vehicle, we will create more extremist enemies. And although Saeed is believed to have helped in the orchestration of the Mumbai attacks, this was a terrorist group who was not targeting the United States. Is it beneficial to the United States to catch the gaze of another extremist group? Overall, it may have made sense to kill Saeed, but why does the United States have to make this desire public?

Alas, does this recreate tension between India and Pakistan, igniting problems of the past? Obviously the Mumbai attack is not one that will be forgotten, and political clamor in the U.S. for answers also exists because five Americans passed away in those attacks. Justice should be paid, but the question is how. Retroactive justice is important, but this type of publicity for it is questionable.

If the United States and India believed that Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) was involved in the bombing, at the behest of Saeed, they should HAVE continued their efforts to garner intelligence on LeT and target Saeed without publicly announcing their intent to do so. This approach may have proved more useful if done more quietly and Pakistan may have been more likely to help. Instead, Pakistan cannot help the U.S. as much as we may hope, because the political consequences could be great for them. All one knows is that the U.S. and Saeed would make horrible participants in a hide and seek game, the U.S. offering and exorbitant amount of money to find someone who chooses not to hide.