Tag Archives: China

U.S. Must Recover Its Sphere Of Influence In The Western Hemisphere

In the early 1990’s, the idea that the Cold War was over was widespread.

The Soviet Union was no longer communist. The Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe followed suite and joined the European Union. Furthermore, the Soviet Union broke up reversing even the imperial path established by the Russian Empire well before the communist revolution.

So, since then the tension between capitalism and communism was no longer an issue as the latter collapsed.

But now another type of tension has emerged: a competition between powers that seek to expand their political spheres of influence.

Russia reemerged trying to recover the power and spheres of influence lost after the collapse of communism. China is becoming an economic powerhouse. Although, it is in great part motivated by profit, it also seeks to increase its political influence, particularly in geographical areas it considers to be naturally theirs such as Asia. Hence its aggressive activities in the South China Sea, the enlargement of its Navy, and its protection of North Korea.

Russia, on the other hand, it is less motivated than China by economic profit but remains politically highly aggressive. Russia not only reacted militarily to pro-NATO tendencies in Georgia and the Ukraine but it also interferes in Western European affairs by supporting illiberal candidates that back the dismantlement of the European Union. The Russian plan is to divide the West by weakening alliances such as NATO and the European Union.

Thus, this power competition brings a new type of tension between liberal democracy on the one hand, and illiberal democracy and authoritarianism on the other hand

Russia and China are interested in weakening the power of liberal democracies precisely because non-democratic regimes are more likely to reject Western democracies. Indeed, fewer and fewer authoritarian regimes remain pro-Western.

Non-democratic actors are fearful of liberal democracies. By the same token, since non-democratic states are Russia’s allies, Russia’s support for illiberal and authoritarian elements becomes a tool to increase its sphere of influence.

For the United States, having a strong sphere of influence is crucial for economic, military, political and moral reasons.

Since the Monroe Doctrine (1823), the United States has considered Latin America part of its sphere of influence, given the region’s geographical proximity.

As the United States was being challenged by events in Asia and the Middle East, it withdrew its interest in Latin America even as radical ideological authoritarian regimes with ties to Iran, Russia, and China began to consolidate in the region.

Thus, an important sphere of influence was being further abandoned.

Under President Obama, the entire concept of sphere of influence was dismissed.

By the same token, the U.S failed to identify the co-relation between democracy and sphere of influence.

Meanwhile, events continue to occur in front of our eyes. As an example, last June the illiberal Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega signed a military agreement with Russia where Russia agreed to provide 50 T-72 tanks to Nicaragua and a satellite station in the outskirts of Managua that will enable Russia to spy on the United States. The agreement was signed on the same day that three American diplomats were expelled from the country.

Last December, Russia signed an agreement with Cuba where Russia would provide advice to modernize Cuba’s armed forces and provide technological and logistical assistance. Cuba continues to be an oppressive regime that exports repressive techniques to other countries in Latin America, particularly Venezuela.

Most recently, CITGO, the American-based oil company whose parent company is the Venezuelan oil giant PDVSA, mortgaged almost 50% of its holdings to ROSNEFT, a company controlled by the Russian government. This enabled PDVSA to pay its bonds. If Venezuela fails to pay its bond payments, Russia could end up owning U.S based refineries, pipelines, and distribution terminals. However, most importantly, they are likely to exercise control of a large part of the Venezuelan economy. The relation between Venezuela and Russia is not new. Russia provided billions of dollars to Venezuela in weapons. Venezuelan anti-democratic character made Russia a natural ally to the Caribbean nation. Now, Russia not only increased its sphere of influence in Latin America but they are at the verge of ownership of American-based companies. This shows the importance of maintaining stable spheres of American influence.

In the last two decades, the U.S refused to fight for democracy in Latin America and displayed indifference over the loss of influence in the region while competing powers increased their economic, political, and military presence.

A new U.S strategy and policy in Latin America is badly needed. We urgently need good planning and movement before it is too late.

Why North Korea’s Nuclear and Missile Programs Are Far More Dangerous Than They Look

Originally published at National Review

On Friday, the news media were so sure North Korea would conduct a nuclear test over the weekend to celebrate the 105th birthday of Kim Il-Sung that they almost started a countdown clock. The test never happened. Some experts said this was because President Trump caused North Korean leader Kim Jong-un to “blink.”

On Saturday, North Korea did attempt a celebratory ballistic-missile test, which failed seconds after launch. There has been speculation in the media that this failure was due to U.S. sabotage, possibly a cyberattack.

While I believe the above explanations of both events are unlikely, North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs still pose serious and growing threats because they represent an unstable regime developing and testing increasingly advanced WMDs based on poor engineering and badly inadequate R&D. This is why a new U.S. approach to the threat from North Korea is long overdue.

I did not believe a nuclear test would occur as part of North Korea’s weekend celebration. I was not convinced by commercial-satellite imagery cited by some experts as evidence of an imminent nuclear test, since there is constant activity at North Korea’s nuclear test site that often leads to predictions of nuclear tests that do not occur. On the other hand, when North Korea actually conducts nuclear tests, these same experts are usually caught off guard.

Predicting North Korean nuclear tests is difficult, because Pyongyang is aware it is being watched by U.S. spy satellites. North Korea probably engages in subterfuge at its test site to make the world think nuclear tests are imminent when they are not, and to conceal preparations for actual tests.

North Korean nuclear tests during major celebrations like the 105th birthday of Kim Il-Sung are unlikely because, as North Korea’s nuclear program becomes more sophisticated, the chances of failed tests increase. North Korean leaders probably wanted to avoid the humiliation of a failed nuclear test on an important holiday when the eyes of the world were fixed on the Hermit Kingdom.

There also is a more likely and simpler explanation for North Korea’s April 15 missile test and its subsequent failure. North Korean officials probably decided to conduct a missile test as a demonstration of their nation’s military might that had a higher likelihood of success than a nuclear test.

While some experts are speculating the missile test failed because of U.S. sabotage or cyber warfare, the more likely explanation is that the failure was due to the poor state of North Korean science and engineering. Arms-control expert Jeffrey Lewis is “deeply skeptical” that the U.S. was responsible for the failed missile test, and he said in a recent Axios.com interview, “The failures we’ve seen are better explained by the pains of the R&D process. There is a reason that ‘rocket science’ is a metaphor for something that is hard to do.”

About 50 percent of North Korean missile tests — and 88 percent of its intermediate Musudan missile tests — have failed. This is what happens when a brutal totalitarian regime tries to pursue a complex weapons program using borrowed and stolen technology and relies on third-rate scientists.

It goes without saying that the world’s leading experts in rocketry and physics are not flocking to North Korea to work on the WMD programs of an evil totalitarian regime with a serious job-security problem — Leader Kim may have you executed if your project encounters failures or setbacks.

North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs prove the old adage “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.” The research-and-engineering deficiencies of these weapon programs make them more dangerous and unpredictable, since this unstable rogue nation is rapidly developing increasingly advanced WMD technologies that its scientists may not fully understand and have been poorly designed. This increases the chances of a catastrophic accident, possibly when an ICBM test goes off course and strikes a neighboring country.

Moreover, more powerful North Korean underground nuclear tests could accidentally release large amounts of radioactive gases that could threaten neighboring states. According to former director of Los Alamos National Laboratory Siegfried Hecker, “one of the risks Pyongyang takes in trying to demonstrate a [nuclear] test at a higher level is that they may produce fissures that allow radioactive seepage or possibly cause a major blowout from the tunnel.”

Only North Korea’s leaders know exactly how advanced their nuclear-weapons program is. It does appear, based on seismic data after previous North Korean nuclear tests, that its nuclear devices are increasing in yield. The world must assume the worst: that North Korea’s nuclear-weapons program is making rapid advances in developing more powerful nuclear warheads that will eventually be mounted on missiles, including ICBMs capable of hitting the United States.

Similarly, despite setbacks in its ballistic-missile program, there are signs that Pyongyang is accelerating this effort and making significant progress. While the parade of missiles and missile canisters displayed over the weekend in Pyongyang may have included mockups of missiles that are not operational or empty canisters, the parade included what appeared to be two brand-new ICBMs and solid-fueled intermediate-range missiles that can be launched quickly and are easy to hide. The submarine-launched KN-11 missile also was displayed; it could pose a serious threat to Japan and South Korea.

The short- to medium-term risks from North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs probably will not be ICBMs carrying nuclear warheads fired at the United States. They are more likely to stem from catastrophic failures of missile or nuclear tests.

North Korean long-range missile tests will be especially provocative, since the United States and regional states may try to shoot them down out of concern that these missiles could accidentally strike a neighboring state and because they cannot be sure they are not North Korean attacks. This could spark North Korean retaliation and a dangerous military confrontation.

A future underground North Korean nuclear test that vents significant amounts of radioactive gases might be a game changer and could fundamentally change Beijing’s approach to the North Korean nuclear program if these gases drift over Chinese territory. The Trump administration must explain this possibility to Beijing, and why it must act before such a disaster occurs.

North Korea has learned over the last 25 years that developing, testing, and threating to attack with nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles is a successful strategy to extort concessions from the international community in exchange for pretending to halt these programs. I believe the Trump administration understands that the Kim regime’s missile and nuclear programs are becoming too dangerous to allow this pattern of appeasement to continue. Hopefully China also realizes this too, and will begin cooperating with the United States to implement more aggressive steps to pressure Pyongyang to halt these programs and work with Washington on the only real solution to the North Korean problem: regime change.

US’ Talks with South Korea and Japan Pushes China to Put More Pressure on North Korea

Tension in the Korean Peninsula continues to grow as North Korea tested yet another ballistic missile in a show of force. The missile reportedly blew up on the launch pad, resulting in another failed test for their nuclear weapons program.

Vice-President Mike Pence, while visiting the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea, reminded the U.S. allies in the region that “All options are on the table as we continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of South Korea.”

Over the weekend, North Korea displayed more of their arsenal than they have in the past in a large military parade in Pyongyang on Saturday. Among these were several new types of ballistic missiles which, South Korean officials believe, could reach intercontinental ranges.  It’s unclear whether the missiles are fully functional, or, more likely, are mock-ups of current or future ICBM designs.

In anticipation of a missile test, the US Navy had dispatched the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson strike group to the region last week. These ships possess the capability to shoot down North Korean missiles and were probably intended to bolster President Trump’s position that if China won’t rein in North Korea, the U.S. with its allies will.

While many believed that North Korea might attempt to test a nuclear weapon around the time of Vice President Pence’s arrival and the celebration of the 150th birthday of Kim Il Sung, the nation’s founder there was no nuclear test last weekend. While it is clear that the failed launch was not accompanied by a nuclear test, as there was no seismic activity, very limited data was gathered on what type of missile was launched due to the limited amount of time before it exploded.

In response to this increasingly aggressive posture, Pence put North Korea on notice on Monday citing the recent U.S. strikes in Syria and Afghanistan as evidence of the administration’s resolve that he says should not be tested. This failed missile test over the weekend, according to General Mattis, was an attempt to provoke a response. In response, Mattis also promised to work with China to stabilize the region.

Susan Thornton, the acting U.S. assistant secretary of state for East Asia, reported that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Chinese State Councillor Yang Jiechi agreed in a phone call Sunday on the need for a stricter enforcement of U.N. resolutions. China has become frustrated with North Korea leaving Beijing increasingly willing to enforce UN Security Council sanctions as North Korea becomes more and more unpredictable.

How effective will Chinese pressure be? Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed to President Trump’s request to increase the pressure on North Korea to denuclearize. However, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi repeated China’s consistent position that this crisis can only be resolved through diplomacy.

China has made a concerted effort to put pressure on North Korea, more open than ever to taking a hardline approach to North Korea and has even threatened to impose an oil embargo if North Korea continues to defy UN Security Council resolutions. In February, China even suspended all coal imports from North Korea until the end of the year. With coal making up 34-40 percent of all North Korean exports in the last five years, and most of it being shipped to China, this was not insignificant.

However, despite the suspension of coal imports from North Korea, China reported just last week that its trade with North Korea had actually expanded. Despite the Chinese expressing an increased desire to see North Korea comply with UN Security Council resolutions, the two nations continue to maintain normal business relations, with North Korea conducting 90 percent of its business with China. One glaring example comes from the missiles paraded on Sunday that were carried on imported Chinese trucks.

However, the political relationship between China and North Korea is still strained. Chinese President Xi has yet to meet with Kim Jong Un since the North Korean leader took power in 2012. In the last five years, ties between the two countries have reportedly become distant. Even China’s veteran point man on North Korea and career diplomat, Wu Dawei, has not been to Pyongyang since February of last year. Wu led Beijing’s efforts to denuclearize North Korea for nearly a decade until the Six Party Talks between China, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, the United States, Japan, and Russia were suspended in 2008. While he visited South Korea just last week, perhaps in an effort to ease tensions before Pence’s arrival, he had not been able to confirm plans to visit North Korea.

Under the Trump administration, military action remains an option for handling North Korea. However, due to the potential for massive retaliation against South Korea and Japan, Trump likely plans to focus on intensifying economic sanctions first. Tougher sanctions would include an oil embargo, global ban on North Korea’s airline, and punishing Chinese banks that do business with North Korea.

While promoting an “America first” platform, Trump has expressed a willingness to link trade to the issue of nuclear proliferation. Trump is open to possibly cut China a better trade deal if it exerts its influence over North Korea and pushes for denuclearization, a movement that seems to recognize that greater Chinese cooperation is essential.

It is unclear what role Japan will play in denuclearizing North Korea, but Pence arrived in Japan April 18th, where he told a press conference “the era of strategic patience is over,” prior to a meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Abe. Pence promised to work closely with South Korea, Japan, and other allies in the region, together with China, to achieve a denuclearization of North Korea.

This cooperation between the U.S. and Japan is already evident as Japan sent warships to join the USS Carl Vinson strike group for naval drills in the East China Sea.

What is China doing in the South China Sea?

On February 22nd two U.S. officials told Reuters that China is building missile-launch pads that can be used to fire surface-to-air missile on two-dozen artificial islands the Chinese military has constructed in the South China Sea. Beijing already has military airstrips on some of these islands so adding surface-to-air missiles would further militarize the area.

China considers the area as part of its territory and began to construct those islands in order to shore up their claims. U.S. and its regional allies say that South China Sea is an international shipping route open to all countries and views these islands as an attempt to obstruct maritime traffic.

In an effort to enforce international law and U.S. policy in support of “freedom of navigation,” America has sent its naval vessels through the area for “routine” patrols.

The latest patrol was from the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson. Vinson arrived just a day after China finished its own naval exercises in the area. Through these patrols and exercises in the South China Sea both countries might be trying to lay a claim to the area.

In the airspace over the Sea the U.S. and China have come close to clashing. Chinese jets have done “inspection” flights over the area and Beijing declared that it wants to turn the South China Sea into an air defense identification zone (ADIZ).

An ADIZ is an “airspace adjacent to but beyond the national airspace and territory of the state, where aircraft are identified, monitored, and controlled in the interest of national security.” By claiming the South China Sea as its ADIZ Beijing could control air traffic within the area.

Besides trying to control the airspace Beijing is also attempting to control passage of military ships. China wants to revise parts of its 1984 Maritime Traffic Safety Law, the change would force foreign submarines to travel on the surface and display their national flags while in what the Chinese claim to be their “territorial waters,” i.e. the South China Sea.

These declarations to restrict the passage of submarines and military aircraft might be attempts to provoke an international incident in order to achieve a propaganda victory by humiliating the U.S. on the high seas. Currently America is the only major power that has sent submarines to the South China Sea.

Spotting submarines might get easier for Beijing because on February 28th the government announced it is building China’s first underwater platform in the South China Sea. The platform is supposed to be for wildlife observation, but given its strategic location and the fact that China has refused to reveal its location the structure may be intended for defense purposes.

Beijing already has experience seizing American submersibles with the Chinese Navy stealing an underwater research drone in the South China Sea last December. The drone was unmanned, but was taken as Military Sealift Command personnel looked on.

Since the U.S. Navy did not prevent them from seizing an underwater drone the Chinese might try to escalate to harassing a U.S. submarine.

China’s continued militarization of the sea-lanes and the airspace in the South China Sea could pose a danger to the U.S. and its allies. With the islands and its air patrols China might be slowly gaining control of these waters.

The islands allow Beijing to slow down or disrupt traffic while its Air Force could likely monitor air traffic over the South China Sea. With such capabilities China might make it harder for the U.S. and its Asian allies to ship goods through the area.

Why is China increasing its investment in Cuba?

The streets of Havana are increasingly populated by Chinese-made Yutong buses and Geely trucks. To the east of the capital a Chinese company signed a deal last year to build a $500 million golf course.

Those are just some evidence of China’s increasing presence on the island. Currently Beijing is Cuba’s largest trading partner and Havana’s largest debt holder lending them money on “soft credit terms.” Havana exports $311 million worth of goods to China while importing $1.05 billion worth of Chinese products. Cuba’s second export and import destinations are the Netherlands ($157 million) and Spain ($920 million).

Despite the large volume of trade done between the two countries Cuban consumers seem to be skeptical to Chinese electronic products. Many Cubans do not trust Chinese electronics and prefer ones made in the U.S., Japan, and South Korea.

As much as the Cubans might resist buying Chinese computers and cellphones, their electronics will most likely be getting internet from the Chinese telecom giant Huawei. In 2016 Huawei began to provide Havana’s restaurants and parks with broadband internet and now it is starting to connect Cuban homes.

Contracts to build large infrastructure projects such as the aforementioned golf course and a $600 million a nickel-processing plant have remained in limbo. This is similar to a pattern in other Latin American states where Chinese companies sign deals to build large infrastructure projects, but never follow through.

An example would be Nicaragua’s transcontinental canal. In 2013, the Nicaraguan government announced a joint project with Chinese investor Wang Jing to build a 170 mile long canal that would connect Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, but so far no progress has been made.

Even if the Cuban projects end up like the Nicaraguan canal China will probably continue to increase its influence in Cuba.

After all Cuba is already using Chinese cash to fill in the gap left in its budget by decreasing Venezuelan aid. For years Havana has relied on Venezuela to stay financially afloat, but this is changing as Caracas is plunging deeper and deeper into an economic crisis.

If Beijing takes on the role of Venezuela as the provider of Cuba’s financial stability then the island might become a Chinese satellite. Since China is Havana’s largest trading partner Beijing could probably exert influence on Havana. Raul Castro would likely not want to lose the largest foreign market for Cuban goods so he might acquiesce if the Chinese start making demands.

Also by providing internet Huawei is likely to help the Cuban government restrict the freedom of its citizens. The Foundation for Human Rights in Cuba wrote that Raul Castro might be using Huawei in order to impose strict internet controls over the island.

Huawei’s other international clients include Kazakhstan and Zimbabwe, all countries that enforce heavy government controls over their internet. China itself is known to censor and block websites it considers dangerous and subversive.

Many Cubans do not have access to the Internet in their homes. The government has created public Wi-Fi hot-spots where people can get connected, but opposition sites are still blocked and reception is poor.

Cubans want better internet and Huawei might be able to provide it while at the same time keeping it heavily censored. Such a solution would likely please the Castro regime. They could pacify their population by giving them better Internet access while keeping the web censored.

Beijing’s increased investment in Cuba’s infrastructure might signal attempts at China trying to establish a foothold in the Caribbean. During the Cold War Soviet assistance to Cuba also included vital materials such as oil and machinery. In return Havana agreed to become Moscow’s satellite.            Similar to the Soviet Union China is providing Cuba with important capital such as farm machinery and Internet. If Cuba’s dependence on China continues to grow, Havana might acquiesce to taking on the role of Beijing’s satellite.

Such a scenario would endanger U.S. national security. By having Cuba as its client state Beijing could force Castro to allow them to set up military bases or listening station on the island just 90 miles from Florida.

In the past Soviet investment in Cuba led Havana to become Moscow’s pawn in the Cold War. China might be attempting to do the same.

Is China enabling North Korea’s missile program?

On February 12th North Korea had successfully tested a new medium-to-long range ballistic missile, Pukguksong-2. The missile is propelled by a solid fuel rocket and is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. It travelled about 300 miles until it crashed into international waters.

The test drew condemnation from North Korea’s neighbors and the United States. China, Pyongyang’s closest ally, has also been criticized by Washington and Seoul for not doing enough to stop North Korea’s nuclear program. In response Beijing shot back at its critics saying that it’s the U.S. and South Korea’s refusal to negotiate with Pyongyang is stimming progress to find a solution to the conflict.

However, China provides 70% of North Korea’s total trade, whose volume approached $6.86 billion in 2014. Without Beijing’s energy and food supplies the Pyongyang regime would collapse.

Through its trade and humanitarian aid China is helping to perpetuate North Korea’s missile program. With each shipment of food and electrical power Beijing is helping to prolong the regime of Kim Jong-un. If China instituted a complete embargo Pyongyang would be unable to feed its people or provide electricity. Without the basic necessities to keep the country going the regime in Pyongyang would probably suffer a total governmental collapse where nobody could control the country.

The problem is that a governmental collapse of North Korea will probably result in regional destabilization and large refugee flows. China would lose its buffer zone and be forced to border a democratic Korea. Meanwhile, South Korea would have to integrate the backwards North Korean economy into its 21st century one. There would also be the issue of Pyongyang’s WMDs. A governmental collapse could precipitate a civil war where the warring sides might try to seize the nuclear arsenal and use it against each other or North Korea’s neighbors. A collapsing North Korean government might also try to sell their nuclear weapons to terrorists for extra funds.

In order to prevent such a scenario Beijing keeps sending aid to Pyongyang, but such efforts may not be enough.

Recent information from North Korean defector Thae Yong-ho show that Kim Jong-Un might not stay in power for long.

At the Seoul press conference Thae told the crowd that Kim’s days “are numbered” because of growing dissatisfaction among the ruling elites. Growing dissension among elites is rumored to be a result of Kim’s executions of high-ranking government officials.

Thae also noted that Kim has been unable to stem the flow of information into the country and is facing growing resistance among the population. South Korean movies and television shows are being smuggled inside and becoming popular through the country. At North Korea’s unofficial markets female merchants refuse to stop selling their goods even when faced with threats from the police.

Past North Korean defectors have made similar pronouncements, which lends credibility to Thae’s account.

If Kim continues to purge high-ranking elites and concentrate power around himself then any attempt by the elites to remove him from power might result in a governmental collapse.

Instead of cutting off food and electricity to North Korea Beijing might try to replace Kim. China could remove Kim from power by threatening to cut off North Korea’s aid if he does not resign as Supreme Leader. Other options such as assassination or a coup conducted by pro-Beijing North Korean leaders would represent a significant risk, and Beijing is traditionally viewed as being risk-adverse.

Threatening an embargo might work if China can give Kim the right incentive. For example, the “carrot and stick approach” would include Beijing threatening an embargo while promising to give Kim asylum in China. Allowing Kim to trade in his power for asylum might convince him to accept the deal and would not provoke an unhinged response.

The degree of Chinese influence among the North Korean ruling class is not known, but elites in Pyongyang might be grateful to China for removing Kim, given the fear of his ongoing purge, and the hope that Beijing might be willing to remove the trade sanctions it imposed in 2013.

China could use the threat of embargo to pressure the post-Kim regime to follow its orders. Beijing has shown that it disapproves of the program with such actions like supporting U.N. Resolutions 1718, which imposed economic sanctions on Pyongyang. In recent years China has responded to further North Korean nuclear test by reducing energy supplies and calling for the denuclearization talks, which suggests Beijing could be willing to pressure a post-Kim North Korea into giving up its nuclear program, if it possessed adequate leverage over Pyongyang’s regime.

Does China’s involvement in the Congo endanger U.S. security?

At the beginning of this year China Molybdenum Co Ltd. a Chinese private equity firm, acquired a majority stake in a massive copper and cobalt mine in Congo’s Katanga province. The deal cost CMCOL $2.56 billion and is only a fraction of the $6 billion loan that the Chinese Exim Bank made to the DRC in 2009. The loan went to improve Congo’s infrastructure and mining operations and, despite setbacks, the DRC government claims it has brought results.

While the Chinese mining companies have been expanding, western ones retreat from the area. Eurasian Resources Group BV in London are getting rid of 1,300 mining jobs in Congo while the Trafigura Beheer BV’s Mawson West Ltd from Amsterdam have placed its Kapulo mine on care and maintenance.

While Europeans have been cutting back, U.S. trade relation with the Congo have remained stagnant in comparison to China whose trade with the country has grown exponentially. In fact, in 2014 the volume of Chinese trade with the Congo was $4.33 billion, which was 12 times greater than that of the U.S. Without competitive trading interests in places like the Congo U.S. could be at risk of losing control of supply chains for minerals critical to its military. Conversely, if China corners the market on critical rare earth minerals, it will have the capability to disrupt essential U.S. defense supply chains.

For example, by acquiring the cobalt mines in the Congo China now has control over a metal that is an important component in lithium ion batteries. These batteries are used by the U.S. military to power many of their equipment, including terrain vehicles and aircraft.

Beijing is already the largest producer of another key component in lithium ion batteries, graphite. Analyst Simon Moorse from Benchmark Mineral Intelligence says that China has reached its peak in graphite production, but graphite mines in other countries are still being developed. This means Beijing will probably control the graphite supply chain for a long time.

Besides the supply chains for graphite and cobalt China also has a significant share of the tantalum market, another key component in modern day electronics. Tantalum is a heavy metal with a high melting point whose uses range from military aircraft to IPods. The DRC and China are some of the world’s largest producers of tantalum.

Most of Congo’s tantalum is processed by China. At the same time China’s own reserves are being exploited at a greater rate than before. This allowed Beijing to become the main supplier of tantalum for U.S. companies.

The control of cobalt, graphite, and tantalum supply chains could allow China to jeopardize the effectiveness of U.S. military. Without these minerals the U.S. would not be able to power its army or procure basic electronics.

Given the current international climate Beijing might try to cut off its exports of graphite, cobalt, and tantalum to the U.S.

China’s People’s Liberation Army has been revving up its offensive posture with a commentary on the army’s website declaring that the danger of war with the U.S. has become more real. While the state media threatened President Trump with “big sticks” if he tries to initiate a trade war.

Beijing’s response to any U.S. moves on the East China Sea or attempts to enact protectionist trade policies might include stopping the exports lithium ion batteries and tantalum. If the supply chain is disrupted the U.S. military might find it hard to procure batteries to power their communication systems and other equipment. China’s attempts to control a large share of the graphite, cobalt, and tantalum market are a strategic concern for the Department of Defense.

 

Will Ecuador’s elections remove the left-wing government from power?

On February 19th Ecuador will be having its presidential elections. The leading candidates are Lenin Moreno (former Vice-President) and Guillermo Lasso (a conservative banker). If Lasso or someone from the opposition wins it would bring to an end the over 10 year rule of the left-wing regime of Rafael Correa. However, if Moreno (Correa’s hand-picked successor) wins then his policies are bound to continue.

This would include Correa’s foreign policy, which seeks cooperation with Iran and China. Some of Ecuadorian and Iranian cooperation under Correa included laundering money for Tehran thus helping it skirt international sanctions. Since it is laundered money there is no information on what Iran is spending it on.

Moreno will probably continue Correa’s cooperation with Iran. Tehran might start sending “workers,” i.e. terrorists, into the country in the same way it did in Venezuela. This could turn Ecuador into another outpost for Islamic terrorism.

Correa has also turned China into a big market for Ecuadorian oil. Thanks to him China has the rights to 90 percent of Ecuador’s oil, profits from which go to repay the loans Correa took out from Beijing. This dependence on Beijing’s loans makes Ecuador a Chinese vassal state. Under Moreno Chinese firms will likely continue to buy up Ecuador’s petroleum reserves, which will allow Beijing to keep Ecuador dependent on its loans thus maintaining the regimes foothold in Latin America.

Despite Moreno leading in opinion polls, the opposition hopes that looming oil crisis and an ongoing corruption scandal could hurt him come Election Day. If he does not receive the required 40 percent of the popular vote then there would be a runoff election with the second most popular candidate. This could allow the fractured opposition to unite behind him and defeat Moreno.

However, the past decade has shown that left-wing populist governments are willing to subvert democracy to stay power. In Nicaragua Daniel Ortega placed his supporters in Electoral College and the Supreme Court in order to win a third term. While in Venezuela Maduro managed to win a slim majority in an election whose results were dubious.

All three branches of Ecuador’s government are staffed with Correa loyalists. The free press and media have also been censored by the regime. Given Correa’s authoritarian tendencies it is very likely that he could help swing elections towards Moreno.

So given the previous experience with Venezuela and Nicaragua Moreno will likely win the elections. Thus allowing Iran and China to increase their influence on the continent.

US Leaders Don’t Answer to Beijing

According to the mainstream media, foreign policy experts and Democrats, President-elect Donald Trump made a serious error when he accepted a phone call from Taiwan President  Tsai Ing-wen congratulating him on winning the 2016 presidential election.  Trump’s critics apparently believe Mr. Trump is not allowed to speak with the president of one of the world’s leading democracies and a close friend of the United Stats because the Chinese government forbids this.

Sorry, but China does not tell American officials who they can and cannot talk to.  Despite the 1979 decision to open diplomatic relations with China and withdraw diplomatic relations with Taiwan, America and Taiwan remain close friends.  We sell Taiwan billions of dollars in military hardware.  America may have an unofficial relationship with Taiwan, but this does not mean our leaders should shun or insult Taiwan’s president.

Trump’s critics claim his decision to accept Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen’s congratulatory phone call indicates he does not understand foreign policy.  I disagree.  This was an act of leadership by a president-elect who plans to enact a new U.S. foreign policy that rejects President Obama’s failed foreign policy of retreat, appeasement and leading from behind.

The Donald Trump-Tsai Ing-wen phone call also could reflect an intention by the Trump administration to reevaluate America’s relationship with Taiwan and possibly upgrade relations.  Such a move is long overdue. Taiwan is by any measure a thriving democracy and an independent state.  Although the United States in 1979 recognized that China and Taiwan believe in a “one China” policy, the U.S. government has never officially endorsed this position.  Instead of a U.S. embassy or consulate in Taipei, the United States maintains a nonprofit center known as the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), which operates as a barely unofficial embassy.  Trump advisers are right in considering whether it is time to reevaluate  U.S.-relations with Taiwan and the AIT.  These advisers include China expert Peter Navarro, who contributed to the Center for Security Policy’s recent book on the growing threat from China, Warning Order: China Prepares for Conflict, and Why We Must Do the Same.

Instead of piling on Donald Trump for taking a phone call from the leader of a U.S. ally, Trump critics should be focusing on how the lack of global leadership by Barack Obama created a power vacuum in the Asia-Pacific region that emboldened China to engage in belligerent actions to seize control of almost the entire South China Sea.  This action is endangering the economies and security of America’s friend and allies in the region and also threatens freedom of navigation in a crucial sea area.

We need a new approach to China that deals with Beijing based on strength and principle.  Donald Trump’s phone call with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen could be the beginning of such an approach.

Immigration ‘Trojan Horse’: Center Exposes Hostiles’ Exploitation Of ‘Pay-For-Citizenship’ Visa As A National Security Threat

Press Release                                                                                                     

For Immediate Release        

10 August 2016                                                         

Contact: Clare Lopez 202-719-2423

 

IMMIGRATION ‘TROJAN HORSE’: CENTER EXPOSES HOSTILES’ EXPLOITATION OF ‘PAY-FOR-CITIZENSHIP’ VISA AS A NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT

Washington, D.C.: Investigations into the checkered personal story of Islamic supremacist Khyzr Khan following his speaking appearance at the Democratic National Convention in July 2016 have called attention to the focus of his legal practice. As an immigration lawyer, he has specialized in the little-known “EB-5 Visa Program” – a visa that permits would-be immigrants effectively to purchase U.S. legal residency status and puts them on an accelerated path to citizenship.

The Center for Security Policy is pleased to publish as the latest in its Occasional Papers series a detailed critique of the EB-5 Program by another experienced immigration attorney, Shae Armstrong. Entitled, EB-5 Trojan Horse: How an American Pay-for-Citizenship Immigration Program Poses a National Security Threat, Mr. Armstrong’s case study examines the ominous use being made of this vehicle by Communist China in order to insinuate its nationals and strategic investments into the United States.

Shae Armstrong introduces his White Paper on the EB-5 Visa Program

Given the opportunity the EB-5 process affords the Muslim nations served by Mr. Khan, the Chinese and/or other actual or potential hostiles to introduce here a variety of national security threats, it is clearly time to revisit whether it is prudent to afford large numbers of such individuals access to this country and guaranteed rights – with little, if any, regard for their backgrounds, motives or future conduct.

On the occasion of the publication of EB-5 Trojan Horse, Center for Security Policy President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. said:

This insider account – and warning – from a patriotic, experienced EB-5 attorney is made all the more timely as it not only helps illuminate the use that might be made of that visa program by Khyzr Khan’s clients and their Chinese counterparts to our national detriment. It also provides a basis for a fundamental reconsideration of this program and, as appropriate, an overhaul of the terms under which those with their own fortunes, or access to other capital, can buy into America.

Fortunately, Congress has in the immediate future an opportunity, as well as a responsibility, to undertake such a reconsideration. The EB-5 Program will expire unless it is reauthorized by the end of the current fiscal year on September 30th. Shae Armstrong is right to urge that the current EB-5 Program either be allowed to expire or be considerably reformed in order to eliminate national security risks plaguing this program.

A PDF of the newly released Occasional Paper is embedded below:

EB-5_Trojan_Horse

 

– 30 –