Tag Archives: China

South China Sea

On Tuesday May 29th, Secretary of Defense James Mattis said that the United States intends to challenge China on the high seas and will use the naval forces to push back on Beijing’s maritime expansion. Secretary Mattis declared that China is “out of step” with international law and is failing to respect international waters.

Allowing nations to have freedom of navigation allows the worlds militaries to navigate the globe freely and conduct joint exercises together to promote strength and unity in the world.

Secretary Mattis went on to say “ But we are also going to confront what we believe is out of step with international law, out of step with international tribunals that have spoken on the issue, and part of this is we maintain a very transparent military activity out in the Pacific.”

On the weekend of May 27th. 2018, China’s military assets took “immediate action” against “unauthorized” United States warships sailing in South China Sea waters that have been claimed by Beijing.  In a statement released by the Chinese defense ministry that two U.S. warships’ entry into China’s territorial waters around the Xisha Islands in the South China Sea, is an infringement on China’s sovereignty.

The Chinese military dispatched to conduct identification and verification of the U.S. warships entering the disputed waters.

Department of Defense spokesman, Lt. Col. Christopher Logan said in a statement, “China’s continued militarization of disputed features in the South China Sea serve to raise tensions and destabilize the region.” With China laying claim to islands that are within international waters it raises vast security issues that nations must face.

China has held de facto control over the Paracel Islands since 1974. However, Taiwan and Vietnam also lay claim to the same area.

Tillerson’s Latin America visit positive, but work in progress

Last week, U.S Secretary of State Rex Tillerson visited several countries in Latin America. The main goal of his trip was to reach a consensus on a possible oil embargo against Venezuela.

The reactions to this idea were good overall. Despite some obstacles, Tillerson’s visit launched an important and unprecedented process.

In Argentina, Tillerson and his counterpart Jorge Faurie announced that they would study the possibility of imposing oil sanctions on Venezuela in order to force the regime of Nicolas Maduro to restore the constitutional order and allow for free elections. It is important to point out that the administration of Mauricio Macri already expressed support for a U.S oil embargo of Venezuela.

The Argentinean approach could be an important addition to the coalition built by the U.S. One day after his return to Washington, Secretary Tillerson announced an American dialogue with Canada and Mexico aimed at addressing concerns regarding the impact of an oil embargo on Venezuela. The idea is how to make up for the consequences of an oil embargo that might affect the people of Venezuela as well as countries that depend on Venezuelan oil.

Furthermore, Tillerson visited Jamaica, one of those countries that depend on Venezuelan oil. Jamaican Prime Minister Andrew Holness, standing alongside the U.S Secretary of State pointed out that the region is moving beyond dependence on Venezuelan oil as the country can acquire oil from other countries including the United States that “is becoming a net exporter of energy sources”.

The Jamaican PM’s statement is most crucial because it suggests that the entire group of Caribbean countries that benefit from Venezuelan oil largesse have alternatives. Last summer, Caribbean countries aborted condemnations of Venezuela at the Organization of American States (OAS), mainly because of their dependence on Venezuelan oil.

If Mexico along with Canada becomes one of the suppliers of oil to the Caribbean countries that still depend on Venezuelan oil, Mexico could play an important role in deposing a regime that has turned into a major regional threat. Mexico pledged to Tillerson that Mexico is committed to play an active role in the Venezuelan case.

Tillerson also visited Colombia and Peru. These two countries along with Mexico are on board in their opposition to the Maduro government.

It is important to point out that an oil embargo may not be enough. In reaction to Tillerson’s effort Maduro pointed out that “If the United Stated decides to sanction oil, our ships will go to other places and we will continue to sell.”

This is why it would be wise for Tillerson to also support, along with the oil embargo, a naval blockade and offer incentives for military officers to dessert Maduro. I developed this idea in a previous article.

Interestingly enough, while Tillerson was visiting the region something else no less important happened: the citizens of Ecuador voted in a referendum to approve constitutional changes that would effectively bar Rafael Correa from running for president again. Correa was a strong ally and supporter of the Venezuelan regime.

This vote was approved with an overwhelming majority of 67%. This represents a major victory for democracy in the region. The referendum was supported by the current president Lenin Moreno, who once was Correa’s vice-President. The vote in Ecuador puts an end to “Correism” and effectively deprives the regional Venezuelan-led Bolivarian Alliance (ALBA) of one of its most “valuable” allies.

In other words, the region by and large is turning against the anti-democratic forces. The U.S has a unique window of opportunity. However, the U.S should not act in ways that could make it appear hypocritical or unreliable.

President Trump’s remarks threatening to cut aid to countries where drugs are produced or trafficked contradicts Tillerson’s magnificent efforts. Friendly countries such as Peru, Colombia and Mexico are among those countries.

These countries deserve the benefit of the doubt and deserve to be treated as allies. Otherwise, how can we expect them to minimize their relations with China and Russia let alone support our efforts in Venezuela? The Monroe Doctrine-issued in 1823 and invoked not without nostalgia by Tillerson in a speech delivered previous to his departure for the region- determined that the Western Hemisphere is a natural area of American influence, originally against European intervention. Tillerson reaffirmed the Monroe Doctrine not against Europe but against Chinese and Russian influence.

However, the nature of Chinese and Russian presence in Latin America will depend a lot on what we do. We are not in a position to forbid countries in the region to strengthen relations with these world powers. We have to gain their hearts and love. They way to do it is by being kind to them. After the painful rule of the authoritarian left in various countries in the region, America is more attractive to them because there are shared values of freedom and democracy between them and us. America is the power that guarantees these values. We should be sensitive. Mishandling relations with them could be painfully harmful. The modern Monroe Doctrine should be based on common goals not on threats.

Overall, Tillerson had a good trip. He needs to continue his good work. However, the job has only begun. A steady and coherent continuity is now needed.

Russian Fighter Jet Shot Down Over Syria

On February 3rd, in northeastern Idilb province, Syria, a Russian Sukhoi Su 25 fighter jet was shot down by the Al Qaeda-linked Syrian group Hay’et Tahrir al-Sham(HTS).

HTS used a surface to air missile in order to shoot down the jet.

The Russian pilot ejected after the plane was struck by the missile. The pilot reportedly survived ejection, and reportedly was killed after Al Nusra fighters attempted to capture him, according to the Russian ministry of defense.

HTS used a weapon known as MANPADS (Man Portable Air Defense System) in order to down the jet. This of course raised the question as to where HTS acquired this sort of a weapon.

In the past HTS had pleaded with their international backers to acquire this sort of a weapons system. HTS’s backers are not well known, and the US, Russia, and Iran all publicly oppose the group.

However, HTS has worked with Turkey and Qatar in the past.

In 2017 Turkey moved through the province of Idilb and headed toward Aleppo in an effort with Russia and Iran to de-escalate certain areas within Syria. Turkish forces coordinated with HTS as they went through Idilb.

HTS commander Muhammed al Julani sought to improve relations with Turkey, at least in part in order to have a regional backer who could protect HTS from facing a terrorism designation, and to position HTS as a partner in controlling Idilb. Despite warming HTS and Turkish ties there’s no direct evidence that Turkey has supplied MANPADS to HTS.

However, HTS’ other known backers in Qatar do have a history of supplying MANPADS that have fallen into jihadist hands.

Qatar reportedly delivered Chinese FN-6 MANPADS to Syrian rebel groups, some of which have also fallen into the hands of the Islamic State. These top of the line Chinese-made MANPADS were reportedly delivered to elements within the Free Syrian Army by sympathizers in Qatar. The weapons were most likely purchased from arms dealers in Sudan, which has a large stockpile of the FN-6s, purchased from China. Sudan is a major customer for Chinese manufactured arms.

Qatar’s ties to HTS have been part of a long standing disagreement between the small nation and its Gulf neighbors, who point to the Qatari decision to provide the Al Qaeda-linked group with millions of dollars as part of a “Ransom” payment scheme.

Qatar’s record on terrorism finance continues to be problematic for the U.S. which technically considers Qatar a close ally in the fight against terrorism. In 2009 Secretary of State Hilary Clinton signed a US cable that stated Qatar’s counterterrorism cooperation is the “worst in the region.”

It would be reasonable to believe that HTS received access to MANPADS through Qatari backers, with the weapons movements possibly facilitated by Turkey.

This would put the two supposed U.S. allies at odds with the U.S. own publicly stated position opposing the proliferation of MANPADS, which U.S. officials fear may fall into the hands of terrorist groups.

On February 3rd according to The Washington Post, the State Department denied allegations of supplying MANPAD weapon systems to groups in Syria, and denied that U.S. equipment was used to shoot down the Russian jet.

Russia retaliated by launching airstrikes. The Washington Post reported that the Russian Defense Ministry said they used “Precision guided weapons” without any further detail. It has been reported that 10 civilians were killed in the Russian response, while Russian sources report killing 30 fighters.

HTS downing of the Sukhoi Su 25 fighter jet, a highly sophisticated fighter jet, is no easy feat. The last time a Russian jet was downed in Syria was 2015 when a Turkish fighter jet fired at a Russian SU 24 fighter jet which reportedly crossed into Turkish airspace.

Obviously, the successful deployment of sophisticated MANPADs by Al Qaeda affiliated groups is deeply concerning. There has been very little public cooperation between the US and Russia on the MANPADs issue, despite concerns raised by both countries, a likely result both of differences over the Syrian situation in addition to wider tensions. Despite their probable contravention of U.S. efforts to prevent MANPADs proliferation it’s unlikely this recent incident will have a substantial effect on U.S-Turkish or U.S.-Qatari relations.

North Korea Poses ‘Increasingly Mortal Peril’ to America Because ‘China Wants It to Happen’

Originally posted on Breitbart

Gaffney said North Korea’s missile launch is “shocking in the sense that when you think about an impoverished nation that literally can’t feed its people progressing as rapidly as they have with advances in both ballistic missile technology and weapons that can be tossed by those missiles, it’s stunning.”

“But it’s not inexplicable,” he continued. “There’s a very easy answer for how this could be, and that is that the North Koreans are getting help from outside North Korea. There’s a lot of talk about collaboration with the Iranians, but there are other countries that have a lot more experience than the Iranians with both missiles and nuclear technology. That list starts with communist China.”

“There is now reason to believe that the Chinese have not only provided the North Koreans with these so-called transporter-erector-launchers for their long-range ballistic missiles. The Chinese profess that these were meant to be lumber carriers. Please,” Gaffney sighed. “These are specifically designed to carry large missiles. They’ve also apparently supplied them with missile canisters, which we’ve seen these things traipsing around the streets of Pyongyang.”

“But there’s also evidence that at least components of, if not full-up missiles themselves, have been supplied to the North Koreans by the Chinese,” he charged. “And probably by others – the Russians, maybe the Pakistanis. The point is, Alex, that this threat is metastasizing and is posing an increasingly mortal peril to our country because China wants it to happen. If they didn’t, none of those sorts of transactions would be taking place. I believe they have to be held accountable for what’s happening, and there have to be real costs to them for engaging in this kind of behavior.”

“There would be no North Korea without communist China,” Gaffney declared. “Let’s just be clear. In addition to food, and fuel, and coal, and other markets for such products as the North Koreans have, the Chinese have provided them, as I mentioned, in the nuclear and missile space, but more broadly the wherewithal to maintain control, and the political cover to defend their puppet regime in Pyongyang from U.N. sanctions or pressure from the outside.”

Gaffney said the Chinese have been able to perpetuate their double game with North Korea thanks to a “general miasma” in the U.S. policy establishment that dates back to President Richard Nixon’s fabled opening to China.

“We thought that they were just basically going to be good trading partners, and if we just simply sold them enough stuff or bought enough stuff from them that they’d become a normal nation and all would be well,” he explained.

“That was never in the cards. That was never the Chinese plan, and it’s now playing out to have been completely bankrupt. But along the way, we bought into this idea that they were going to be our partners and helpmates in containing the threat from the North Koreans. Again, as I’ve said, they’ve done everything they could to enable it. It is in their interest as they perceive it to have this regime be a problem for us. It distracts us from what they’re doing in the South China Sea and elsewhere, and it is creating leverage for them on us. That’s why China has to be held directly accountable,” he urged.

“I think the bigger story here is that the Chinese are at war with us,” Gaffney proposed. “It’s an undeclared war, certainly one that most of us don’t recognize, but at the very least it’s operating in the economic sphere. My colleague Kevin Freeman has been doing great work on documenting what the Chinese are up to in a whole host of areas – notably if they can’t buy up our technology companies, simply stealing their proprietary information.”

“That’s something that must stop,” he declared. “There must be real costs to the Chinese for that. I think for starters stop allowing them to buy up sensitive companies with potentially strategic – if not actually militarily applicable – technology.”

“I think their banks have to be squeezed,” he continued. “They’ve got a real debt problem in China at the moment. There are things that we can do to make their lives miserable.”

“Not least, we ought to make it clear that this whole love affair with Xi Jinping, the Chinese communist dictator who aspires to be a new Mao for God’s sake, is at an end, and that opposition to the regime – of which there is a lot, it’s not terribly organized obviously – that ought to be something that we support. I believe that helping enable the Communist Party in China, to be stronger and more powerful and assertive, is not in America’s interest, and I don’t think it’s in the interest of the Chinese people either,” he said.

Gaffney said events have now compelled Washington to take the North Korean threat seriously.
“What the North Koreans are doing is not simply demonstrating the capacity to attack with nuclear weapons the entire United States, but they’re combining it with explicit threats to use nuclear weapons to destroy the electric grid of this country,” he warned. “That is, I think they’ve figured out, our Achilles heel. We’ve been warning about it for 15 or 16 years. It’s high time that we take steps to protect the grid against it, because if it goes down, we’re done as a nation. We should be clear about that.”

“This is not yet something that has been actually addressed by official Washington but it has to be done, as well as does the need for effective missile defenses against these sorts of threats – and oh, by the way, the satellites that North Korea is orbiting overhead as well. We don’t have the luxury of thinking that diplomacy is going to take care of this any longer, or another set of sanctions at the U.N. will do the job. This is a moment that requires concrete, specific, and necessary corrective action,” he said.

Gaffney recommended immediately taking “practical, near-term, relatively inexpensive steps” to harden America’s electric grid against electromagnetic pulse attacks, bolstering missile defense with “capabilities that have not been allowed to be brought to bear,” and developing cyber, financial, and political warfare techniques to put pressure on China comparable to what brought the Soviet Union down.

“This is a moment when we’ve got to be thinking boldly about those sorts of steps to protect our people and our country against these material and metastasizing threats,” he advised.

“We’re on borrowed time, Alex,” he replied when Marlow asked if it was time to hit the proverbial “panic button” over North Korea. “This has been going on for far too long. We keep telling ourselves, well, they haven’t actually demonstrated the ability to put a heavy warhead on the missile and get it to the full range that would attack the United States. I would simply say you don’t want to wait that long because the way that may be demonstrated is by actually delivering that warhead to the United States.”

“Kim Jong-un is at best unpredictable, shall we say,” he observed. “He is determined, I believe, to preserve his regime. But he is also determined, I believe, to destroy this country. That’s what he says. That’s what his father said. That’s what his grandfather said. He now has the means at his disposal to do it unless stopped – and it should be, by the Chinese. The Chinese should replace that guy. They could do it, I believe. They have to be induced to feel that that’s in their interest as well as ours.”

Turning to the weekend’s bloody assault on a Sufi mosque in Egypt by Islamic State extremists, Gaffney said the missing element from news coverage is that “sharia supremacists have, as their first order of business, trying to compel all Muslims to conform to their program.”

“This is a totalitarian political, legal, military program with a kind of patina, a veneer if you will, of religiosity to it,” he said. “Fundamentally it’s about power. They’re trying to make sure that every Muslim gets behind that program. If there’s any resistance to it, they will kill them. Indeed, that’s why there are more Muslims killed by these jihadis than there are anybody else.”

“It’s in the service of trying to bring about an end state that will enable not only the enslavement – the submission as it’s called, the literal meaning of the word ‘Islam’ – for Muslims but also for everybody else to this program worldwide. What they’re doing to Sufis – and by the way, there were Sunnis and others in that mosque as well – in Sinai at the moment, they have been doing to Muslims elsewhere in the Middle East and beyond, they’ve of course been doing to Christians wherever they can get their hands on them in the Middle East and beyond, and they have it in mind for the rest of us,” he said.

“The model they’re using is not just violence. It’s not just the terrifying, forceful way of getting people to submit. It’s also subversion,” Gaffney added. “That’s what worries me particularly about what’s happening in Europe, and what is happening in our own country.”

“We have got to be clued up about this, not simply periodically focus on it when something bad happens at the hands of people who do mass murder. We’ve got to be focused as well on the infrastructure that is being built here, among other places, for more jihad in the future. We’ve got to stop the Muslim Brotherhood and its fellow sharia supremacists from achieving their agenda,” he urged.

Zimbabwe’s President Mugabe Resigns After Impending Impeachment

After a 37-year rule, Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe resigned on November 21st after an impending impeachment.

President Mugabe had refused to resign despite a military takeover, protests and the beginnings of impeachment. Mugabe’s rule has been criticized for intensified repression, election rigging, and is blamed as the cause of the country’s economic collapse.

Mugabe has repressed political opposition since becoming leader of the country, launching a suppression campaign known as the “Gukurahundi”, which targeted the opposition and reportedly killed over 20,000 civilians.

On November 15th, Zimbabwe’s military put Mugabe under house arrest and seized the headquarters of the state broadcaster Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation (ZBC) and blocked off access to government offices in Harare, Zimbabwe’s capital. The military said it was seeking to target criminals around Mugabe who were leading the party astray and denied that the army was carrying out a coup against Mugabe’s government.

The Zimbabwe African National Union- Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) party replaced Mnangagwa as the new leader of the ruling party on November 19th. The party also told Mugabe that he had until midday Monday to resign or face impeachment.

On November 6th, President Mugabe fired Vice President Emmerson Mnangagwa for supposedly showing traits of disloyalty. Mnangagwa was expected to replace the ailing Mugabe as Zimbabwe’s next president but his removal cleared the way for First Lady Grace Mugabe to succeed as the next president.

The army chief denounced the dismissal of VP Mnangagwa, who was viewed an ally of the army, and a day later on November 14th, military vehicles were seen on the outskirts of Harare.

ZANU-PF has been the ruling party in Zimbabwe since independence in 1980. Mugabe has been the leader of the party first as Prime Minister with the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) and then as President from 1988 after the merger with the Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU), retaining the name ZANU–PF.

During a televised address on November 19th, many believed that Mugabe was going to resign but instead he pledged to preside over the congress scheduled in December. With Mugabe’s refusal to resign he missed the deadline put in place by ZANU-PF and this led the party to begin the plans to launch the impeachment process in parliament.

Some ZANU-PF party leaders not only wanted to change its leadership but also wants to change the constitution to reduce the power of the president, a possible sign of a desire to move towards a more inclusive political system.

For years, the U.S. has taken a leading role in condemning Mugabe’s government and its increasing assault on human rights and the rule of law, and has called for establishing democratic practices. The U.S. implemented sanctions in 2001 that targeted selected individuals. These were financial sanctions against certain individuals and entities, travel sanctions against selected individuals, a ban on transfers of defense items and services, and a suspension of non-humanitarian government assistance.

After Mugabe’s resignation, the U.S. has called for leaders to move the country towards a transition that will create a political space for the country’s opposition and its people to determine the future of Zimbabwe. The U.S. has said that in order for sanctions to be lifted, Zimbabwe needs to respect legal due process and human rights, and give the opposition a genuine opportunity to form a government.

While it wasn’t widely publicized, China played a significant role in ousting Mugabe, unlike the U.S. Prior to the military takeover, countries including the U.S. and China were informed of the military plan. China reportedly provided its tacit approval and assured that China wouldn’t stop its assistance to Zimbabwe if Mugabe was deposed, under the condition that its strategic interests in the country would not compromised. The U.S. on the other hand, played no role in the plan.

China and Zimbabwe have had a close relationship under Mugabe’s rule, but in recent years, China was unhappy with Mugabe’s mismanagement of Zimbabwe’s economy which was harming Chinese investments. It is believed that China favors Mnangagwa. China is a key supplier of weaponry to Zimbabwe’s military and has two companies with major interests in the Marange diamond fields in Zimbabwe’s east. Mugabe revoked the Chinese licenses in 2016, in a move to nationalize Zimbabwe’s diamond mines, which further alienated the Chinese.

With China’s involvement in the resignation of Mugabe, it is likely that Zimbabwe will continue to look to China for political and economic assistance as it has since the 1990s, rather than the U.S.

It is questionable whether a Mnangagwa presidency would prove a change from the Mugabe era, given their similar history of violence. Mnangagwa served as state security chief during the Gukurahundi massacres that helped to consolidate Mugabe’s power, so it is uncertain if Mnangagwa would lead change in Zimbabwe on the human rights and democracy promotion front.

Celebration broke out in the streets of Harare after the resignation of Mugabe but it is unclear whether Mnangagwa will be accepted as the successor of Mugabe in the 2018 elections.

U.S. Conducts Military Exercises, Increasing Pressure on China

As tensions between the United States and North Korea continue to run high, the United States seek Chinese action on its ally, North Korea.

On October 10th the United States flew two Air Force B-1B bombers and two F-15K fighters  from their base in Guam, over South Korean airspace. The bombers carried out air-to-ground missile drills in the Sea of Japan, before repeating the drill over the East China Sea.

The drills come as the Trump administration has continued to stress the importance of ending North Korean nuclear weapons and ballistic missile progress.

During President Trump’s address to the UN General Assembly in September, he called Kim Jong Un a “rocket man on a suicide mission” and that the U.S. would “totally destroy” North Korea in response to a North Korean attack.  North Korea responded by pledging that it will take the “highest level” action against the United States, alluding to another nuclear test to occur.

On September 3rd North Korea conducted its 6th nuclear test and earlier in August launched two missiles over Japanese air space.   North Korea has threatened to fire intermediate range ballistic missiles near Guam.

The United States has urged the Chinese government to rein in North Korea’s missile and nuclear programs, but Beijing has done little to persuade its problematic ally. As North Korea’s main trading partner, China argues that the sanctions on North Korea alone will not be effective, yet the nation has done little to assist in deterring its neighbor.

The UN recently banned four North Korean ships on October 5th from entering any ports globally for carrying coal from North Korea, including one vessel that also carried ammunition. The ships banned were the Comoros-flagged Petrel 8, St. Kitts and Nevis-flagged Hao Fan 6, North Korean-flagged Tong San 2 and Cambodia-flagged Jie Shun.

This ban was placed due to the violations of previously imposed sanctions, including sanctions on the exportation of coal, seafood, textiles, iron ore, North Korean guest workers, as well as a cap on oil imports.

While the air drills were occurring near China, simultaneously the USS Chafee (DDG 90), a guided-Missile destroyer conducted a “freedom of navigation” operation near islands claimed by China in the South China Sea while.

A “freedom of navigation” operation allows the United States to assert navigation and overflight rights,  consistent in the customary international law of the sea, in order to promote maritime stability.  The United States regularly conducts these operations in the South China Sea, undermining Chinese sovereignty claims.

China’s Defense Ministry called this particular operation a “provocation”, alleging it infringed on Chinese sovereignty, and sent a Type 054A guided missile frigate, a Z-8 helicopter likely equipped with surface search radar, and two J-11B fighter jets, which can be equipped with anti-ship missiles, to identify and confront the U.S. vessel.

The Chinese Defense Ministry in a statement said, “It is a critical stage for the development of the relationship between Chinese and American armies, and we demand the U.S. side earnestly take steps to correct its mistakes and inject positive energy into bilateral ties.”

The statement is an escalation from August, when a U.S. Navy destroyer crossed within 12 nautical miles of an Chinese-built island in the South China Sea. Chinese officials did not make a similar statement at that time.

12 nautical miles marks the internationally recognized territorial limits, sailing within these miles shows that a nation does not recognize territorial claims.

Entering in the South China Sea is not uncommon for the U.S. as it routinely navigates through the territory, however, with the U.S. putting pressure on China to act more toward North Korea this could potentially strain ties.

China claims a “nine dash line”  arranged in a half-circle near Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Malaysia; as well as all sea territory between the dashes including the Parcel and Spratly island chains.  The Paracel Islands is claimed by China, Taiwan and Vietnam, while the Spratly Islands are additionally contested by the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson visited China from September 28th to 30th laying the ground work from President Trump to discuss North Korea as well as trade relations with the U.S.

Trump will be traveling to Japan, South Korea, China, Vietnam and the Philippines from November 3rd to the 14th to discuss North Korea’s growing nuclear threat and other issues. This will be his first visit to the region as president.

North Korea’s latest nuclear test and how the U.S. can respond

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) launched its sixth nuclear test this past Sunday, September 3rd.

The test was North Korea’s largest successful nuclear detonation and caused a 6.3-magnitude earthquake near the nuclear test site in Punggye-ri. This was in turn followed by another earthquake, reportedly a result of a tunnel collapse at the site.

This latest test is claimed by North Korea to be a hydrogen bomb, or H-bomb but it’s more likely that it was boosted-fission nuclear bomb. These nuclear warheads can be attached to an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). In July, North Korea tested two ICBMs which could be capable of reaching the U.S. mainland.

Just two days after the test launch a North Korean spokesman called the test a ‘gift package’  for the U.S. and threatened that more gift packages are ready to send if the United States and the U.N. continue their provocations and attempts to pressure the DPRK.

In early August, a resolution was unanimously passed by the United Nations Security Council banning North Korean exports and limiting investments in the country. These sanctions were passed in an attempt to condemn North Korea’s missile test violations and demand North Korea give up its prohibited nuclear and ballistic missile programs. The new sanctions called for a total ban on North Korea exporting its coal, iron and iron ore, and seafood.

Although the latest sanctions are the strongest ever enacted upon North Korea, they have not yet been successful, as we can see from nuclear test. None of the sanctions the U.N. has imposed on North Korea since 2006 have been successful in part because the North Korean regime believes a nuclear arsenal is a necessary protection from regime change. As a result sanctions have a limited impact.

North Korea has proven resistant to external pressure thanks in part to its persistence in finding ways around sanctions. North Korea is able to get around sanctions because there are still countries trading with North Korea and are ignoring the existing U.N. sanctions. There is also the possibility that the North Koreans will try to find new goods to sell, goods that aren’t part of the sanctions such as the manufacture and sale of clothing.  North Korea still trades with more than 100 nations, including Russia, India and China.

After this most recent test, China, one of North Korea’s largest trade partners, agreed that the U.N. Security Council should pass more sanctions but also urged continued dialogue between the countries.

The countries who support the U.N. sanctions need to better enforce the ones already in place against North Korea but also follow the U.S. example in targeting secondary sanctions on Chinese citizens and banks for helping finance North Korean companies.

There needs to be a combination of sanctions, military defense and diplomacy between the U.N. and the DPRK because while sanctions are preferable to war, they aren’t a viable strategy on their own.

In military defense, there is currently about 23,000 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea and an additional deployment of troops, alongside the addition of the recently deployed THAAD missile defense systems, would show North Korea that they can’t go up against the U.S. militarily especially as the U.S. and South Korea continue their military exercises and overflights.

While the U.S. military believes that military action is not off the table, it is a risky path to take because even if a single U.S. strike is fired on North Korea, Kim Jong-un may believe more strikes are imminent and will strike back either through its nuclear weapons if they aren’t destroyed in the strike or its conventional artillery.

If the U.S. tried to preemptively target North Korean nuclear facilities, it may retaliate in a number of ways, such as utilizing artillery to barrage Seoul potentially killing tens of thousands of civilians. There is some skepticism about the effectiveness of North Korea’s artillery concentration but the risk of casualties may be intolerable to the U.S. and its allies.

The last component to stopping North Korea is diplomacy but this requires the U.S., China, Russia, South Korea and Japan to maintain a united front against North Korea.

Currently, these 5 countries are formally agreement that North Korea and its nuclear and missile programs need to be stopped, but there’s substantial disagreement as to available means. The primary U.S. interest is to prevent North Korea from expanding and proliferation its nuclear weapons program, while China’s preferred outcome requires the continuation of the North Korean regime. South Korea’s goal remains peaceful denuclearization and reunification after a period of liberalizing the North Korean economy. The parties’ different preferences and levels of risk tolerance creates fissures the North Koreans have so far successfully exploited.

Trump must up the ante against China on North Korea

While most experts believe North Korea’s test launch of an alleged ICBM this week marked a major technological breakthrough that significantly increased the threat of an attack by nuclear tipped North Korean missiles against the United States, a more serious problem is China’s growing support of North Korea.

This test launch of North Korea’s Hwasong-12 missile represented a significant and dangerous advance for its missile and nuclear programs since Pyongyang successfully tested a two-stage rocket capable of striking Alaska and Hawaii, possibly further.

While North Korea’s recent claims that the missile can carry a large nuclear warhead and can strike anywhere on earth are unconfirmed and have been disputed by experts, given recent rapid advances in the North’s missile and nuclear programs, it is clear that Pyongyang is racing to achieve these capabilities.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s regime may have test launched as many as 84 missiles since he assumed office in December 2011, far exceeding the 31 missiles launched by his father and grandfather’s governments.  There also have been three nuclear tests under the current North Korean leader that were believed to be increasingly more powerful and more sophisticated.  At the same time, North Korea has made repeated threats to attack the United States with nuclear weapons.

This situation cannot continue indefinitely.  Because of the growing risk of a North Korean attack or military incident due to miscalculation by Pyongyang – possibly a missile striking a neighboring state by accident — I believe military conflict with North Korea is inevitable if the United States does not take decisive action.  Such action should be directed at the driver of this crisis: China and its continuing and increased support of North Korea.

China has been North Korea’s benefactor since Moscow withdrew its support after the collapse of the Soviet Union.  About 85 percent of North Korea’s foreign trade is with China.  According to a December 2016 Cato Institute report, China supplies North Korea with about 90 percent of its oil, 80 percent of its consumer products, and 45 percent of its food through trade and aid.

While China reportedly took steps earlier this year to pressure North Korea to halt its missile and nuclear programs by suspending purchases of North Korean coal, this trade has resumed.  Instead, Beijing revealed in April that its trade with North Korea increased 37 percent in the first quarter of 2017.

Let’s be clear what this means.  China’s economic assistance and increased trade with North Korea is financing its growing missile and nuclear programs that Pyongyang is developing to attack the United States.  To stop these programs, China must halt or substantially cut back its trade and aid to North Korea.

So how can we accomplish this?

The United States should enact with an international coalition a new series of tough measures against North Korea that also pressure China to use its leverage with North Korea.

First, the U.S. should implement through an international coalition outside of the UN some of the strong sanctions against North Korea that China has been vetoing in the Security Council for the last 20 years.  One of these sanctions should include stopping North Korean ships at sea to search them for missile and nuclear-related shipments as well as narcotics trafficking and counterfeit U.S. currency.  Landing and overfly rights also should be denied to North Korean aircraft.  This initiative would deny North Korea hard currency and help combat its proliferation of missile technology.

Another step should be cutting off North Korea’s access to international financial institutions.  Any bank – including Chinese banks – that violate this sanction would be barred from doing business with the United States and coalition countries.

These steps would be strongly opposed by China not just because Beijing has tried to shield North Korea from them but also because implementing such steps outside of the UN would undermine China’s authority as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

North Korea and China could also be pressured by the United States increasing its nuclear deterrent and missile defense systems in the Asia-Pacific.  This might include returning the tactical nuclear weapons to South Korea that the U.S. withdrew in 1991.

Finally, the United States and its allies could pledge to shoot down all future North Korean ballistic missile launches.

All of the above measures would not just increase pressure on North Korea, they would drive up the costs to China for refusing to use its economic leverage against Pyongyang.  They also would make it difficult for China to continue to exploit its relationship with North Korea at America’s expense.  The United States would be sending China a clear message: the status quo with North Korea is unacceptable.  We will not stand idly by as North Korea develops nuclear weapons that it plans to use to attack the United States.

This approach has another important advantage: they fall short of a direct attack on North Korea, an option that probably would have devastating consequences for South Korea due to a massive counterattack by the North using its huge arsenal of artillery and missiles against Seoul and northern areas of South Korea.

I fear that with the current perilous trajectory of North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs, an attack by the United States and its allies on North Korea will one day be necessary.  It is my hope that by implementing steps like those outlined above to pressure North Korea and make China’s continued support of it untenable, that day will never come.

Fred Fleitz is senior vice president for policy and programs with the Center for Security Policy, a national security think tank. Follow him on Twitter@FredFleitz.

The Debate Over Taiwan in Panama

On June 13, Panama severed ties with longstanding ally Taiwan and announced its intention to switch allegiance to China. In their joint statement, Panama, “recognizes that there is only one China” and Taiwan “is an inalienable part of the Chinese territory.”

Not surprisingly, Taiwan did not take the diplomatic move well. It in turn terminated ties with Panama over what it claims is to preserve the “nation’s sovereignty and dignity.” At a press conference, Foreign Minister David Lee declared that Taiwan expresses “anger and regret” over Panama’s “unfriendly” and deceptive decision.

The withdrawal of Panama leaves Taiwan with merely 20 diplomatic allies, including the Holy See, who recognize its statehood. Most of these allies are developing countries.

Following the Xinhai Revolution, Panama and Taiwan established an alliance in 1922. Over the course of the next few decades, Panama and Taiwan remained amicable allies and established trading contracts such as the 2004 Free Trade Agreement. This in effect helped Panama extend its market into Asia and influenced its Latin American counterparts to sign FTAs with Taiwan such as Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Honduras. Among Taiwan’s allies, Panama had the third-largest economy and gave the island an edge in Central America.

While Panama ending its relationship with Taiwan seems sudden, events leading up to the announcement make this less so. Since 2009, Panama has expressed interest in establishing a relationship with Beijing. More recently, in January, Taiwan’s President visited some of its allies in Latin America but did not stop in Panama. Additionally, in April, Panama failed to announce its successor for the vacant Taiwan ambassador position. These and other similar factors alluded to the impending end to the alliance.

With China’s growing economic footprint in Latin America, it looks to compete with the United States for dominance in Latin America. To do so, it has increased its developments and presence in Panama and also backs a project that aims to build a waterway in Nicaragua that would rival the Panama Canal, the highly used channel that provides easier access to Asia and the Americas. The United States and China are its two top users.

Taiwan’s alliances are expected to only decrease with China’s continued global expansion. It is predicted that Nicaragua, Paraguay, and St. Lucia are next on the list. As Taiwan becomes more isolated from the world, it will be difficult for it to maintain its pro-independence state.

The hostility between Taiwan and China stems from their diverging viewpoints on Taiwan’s statehood: China sees Taiwan as part of its territory while Taiwan regards itself as a sovereign nation. The Asian superpower is determined to take back Taiwan and currently has ballistic missiles pointed at the island.

There is an extensive and contemptuous history between China and Taiwan. When the Chinese Civil War ended in 1949, the victorious Communist Party of China established the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The rival Nationalist Party, or Kuomintang (KMT), and its leader, Chiang Kai-shek, fled to Taiwan, also known as the Republic of China (ROC). Many nations continued to recognize the ROC as China’s legitimate government. However, in 1971 the United Nations switched diplomatic recognition to the PRC and most nations followed. The United States maintains unofficial relations with the island.

China and Taiwan’s present relationship has been particularly strained with the 2016 election of President Tsai Ing-wen. Tsai is part of the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party. Unlike her predecessor, Ma Ying-jeou, Tsai has not officially endorsed the 1992 “One China” policy which concedes that there is only one Chinese government. Under Ma, China eased off poaching Taiwan allies but as Panama illustrates, the regime has returned to the status quo.

Though Taiwan is reputable for its generous treatment of its allies, there are many advantages to an alliance with China. Most obviously, China is a global superpower that offers many economic and political benefits. Economically, China is the second largest economy in the world, following the United States. Politically, allying with China means diplomatically appeasing powerful foreign nations and avoiding the dangers of being considered an outlier in international affairs.

With Tsai’s pro-independence diplomacy and waning relations with China, China has felt the need to raise pressure and further isolate the island. By establishing ties with Panama, China not only severs Taiwan’s ties to a powerful alliance, but also gains economic benefits from the union.