Tag Archives: China

The Wrong Answer to the South China Sea

With conflict zones heating up around the globe, and our military continually being tasked to do more with far fewer resources, the last thing the United States Navy needs is for its opponents to have more opportunities to box it in through “lawfare.” And yet that is apparently what some would have us do in response to recent events concerning the South China Sea.

In the not-too-distant future, the Navy could be especially busy in increasingly dangerous waters. Iran, ever emboldened by its nuclear deal with President Obama, will continue to flex muscle in the Persian Gulf, as we saw when the Iranian Navy took our sailors hostage several months ago. As Libya and Syria continue to deteriorate, our navy may find itself called on to beef up its presence, and perhaps undertake combat missions, in the Mediterranean Sea. In what is undoubtedly a manifestation of Putin’s thinly veiled agenda to replay, and win, the Cold War, the Russian military is engaging in dangerous harassment of our own lawfully present Air Force assets in the Baltic Sea. China, meanwhile, continues to assert its vast territorial claims in the South China Sea, over the objections of its neighbors and in contravention of customary international law.

As tensions continue to escalate in key maritime areas throughout the world, analysts have been raising concerns for some time that budgetary constraints imposed by Washington, D.C., via sequestration are taking their toll on the Navy’s mission-readiness and deterrence capabilities — the Navy fleet is less than half the size it was 30 years ago, and a recent mid-year review of operations-and-maintenance funding indicates an $848 million shortfall, meaning restricted flying hours and deferred ship maintenance, with implications for future deployments.

It’s not just the shrinking budget complicating the Navy’s ability to train and carry out missions. The Navy has also had to contend with environmental organizations filing lawsuits to curtail the use of sonar. Just this month, the very liberal Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Natural Resources Defense Council, which argued that the 2012 National Marine Fisheries Service rules governing the Navy’s use of sonar during peacetime operations were insufficiently protective of marine mammals affected by such sonar use — even though under the 2012 NMFS rules, “the Navy was required to shut down or delay sonar use if a marine mammal was detected near the ship,” according to the Associated Press. “Loud sonar pulses also were banned near coastlines and in certain protected waters.”

These are consequential features of the Navy’s current operating environment. Yet it is in this environment that some are suggesting that, in response to a ruling recently handed down by an international arbitration court involving China and its neighbors in the South China Sea, the United States should now ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea — also known as the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) — so as to be better positioned to encourage China’s compliance with the court’s ruling. But while China’s provocative behavior in the South China Sea does indeed need to be countered, ratification of LOST would be an ill-advised way to go about it.

The case, brought under LOST’s mandatory dispute-resolution mechanisms before the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague, centered on the legality of China’s expansive maritime claims in the form of its “nine-dash line,” the outer boundary of Beijing’s territorial claim encircling vast amounts of the South China Sea and overlapping with the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of several neighboring nations. One of those nations, the Philippines (a party to LOST), brought the claim before the arbitration court, asserting that China (also a party to LOST), by drawing its nine-dash line well into the treaty-permitted EEZ of the Philippines, was in violation of LOST’s provisions governing the scope of permissible claims of maritime territory. The arbitration court held earlier this month that China’s nine-dash line, and the sovereign rights claimed over the territory it covered, were indeed not recognized under LOST. China, which has boycotted these proceedings and vowed previously to ignore any tribunal decision in this matter, has indicated that it will not comply.

Some are responding to the tribunal’s decision, and China’s determination to ignore it, by calling on the United States to ratify LOST. The thinking appears to be that without ratifying the treaty, the United States lacks the leverage and credibility with which to encourage China and other countries to adhere to international law in these matters. Such concerns are not only misplaced; they disregard the additional constraints that ratification would impose on our already stressed Navy.

The treaty itself is not the sole or original source of the international law of the sea but rather represents a codification of customary international lawon this subject over several centuries — law by which the Navy conducts itself to this day on the world’s oceans, as it has done since long before 1982, the year LOST was adopted at the United Nations. The United States has both the credibility and the means to defend this long-standing navigational regime, in the South China Sea or anywhere else, without signing up for LOST.

Ratification, while adding nothing to the Navy’s current ability to enforce international legal order in the South China Sea, would however bring with it new impediments to the Navy’s mobility globally. Articles 286 and 287 of the treaty lay out that one party to the treaty — including one with anti-American political axes to grind — may bring another party before one of several compulsory dispute-resolution bodies, the rulings of which are binding and cannot be appealed. While Article 298 provides an exemption for “military activity,” the treaty doesn’t define that activity, leaving the door open for LOST’s tribunals to rule on questions involving their own jurisdiction, as allowed for in Article 288 — so the United States cannot guarantee for itself that it won’t ever be brought before one of these forums on a specious environmental claim or, for that matter, that decisions rendered there will always favor the United States. And because the United States actually adheres to its treaty obligations, we will honor whatever rulings come out of such cases, including those adverse to our interests. (Note that China, already a party to LOST, does not share that view.)

Supporting this possibility is the fact that LOST also contains broadly written environmental-protection provisions, which could be used against the Navy not only by countries alleging environmental damage to the oceans before one of LOST’s international tribunals but by activist organizations arguing before activist American courts. What else will a court like the Ninth Circuit decide is required of the Navy the next time an environmental group sues for injunctive relief, if by then there are far-reaching and binding treaty obligations added to the mix?

In the South China Sea, and elsewhere in today’s volatile world, the Navy has enough working against it already. The last thing it needs is to be subject to an unnecessary and counterproductive United Nations treaty.

Russia and China to Conduct Joint Military Exercises in Disputed South China Sea

China and Russia have announced plans to conduct joint military training operations in the South China Sea in September; China claims they will be routine military exercises and are not aimed at sending a message to a third party. But the South China Sea has become an especially charged area in recent weeks after a UN Tribunal at The Hague ruled that China did not have legitimate historic claims over the islands in the Sea as China has previously claimed. Despite this, China has disregarded the ruling, claiming that it was incorrect and that it will disregard its implications.

The Philippines, which brought the case to the international court, has a number of claims in the South China Sea and strongly protested China’s claims to sovereignty over the Parcel and Spralty islands and their surrounding waters. Specifically, the Philippines complained that China interferes with Philippine fishing in international waters, which China considers to be their territory.

A number of countries including Thailand, Malaysia, and Vietnam have also laid claims in the South China Sea.

The refusal to obey by the international ruling is an example of China’s willful disregard for its signed treaties. It also reflects the ways in which international law only applies to countries that do not have the power to defend their claims.

China’s military exercises will send a clear message to the world: that China is powerful enough to enforce its claims in the South China Sea. Additionally, China’s increased military buildup in the sea along with its construction of artificial islands enforces the idea that China is willing to use force to secure its territory. Russia is sending a similar message: that it is interested in asserting itself and forging an alliance of states willing to flout established norms.

China’s flouting of the Law of the Sea Treaty is a reminder of the importance played by U.S. Naval forces in defending freedom of navigation and customary maritime law. Together, Russia and China are raising the potential cost for the United States to maintain its historical commitment to these principles.

China Ignores UN Tribunal in South China Sea Dispute

China has rejected a court ruling issued by a UN Tribunal which denies China’s territorial rights in the South China Sea. The ruling comes after the Philippines submitted a case to the court under the 2012 Law of the Sea Treaty to which both China and the Philippines are signatories. Specifically, the ruling found that China has no legal basis for claims to the islands in the South China Sea, including the Spratly and Parcel Islands. Law of the Sea Treaty only guarantees rights to the sea up to 200 miles off of a state’s main coastline; as a result, the South China Sea Islands are not China’s territory but rightfully belong to the Philippines. The court also ruled that China had violated international law by interfering with Philippine fishing and building artificial islands in what the court deemed to be international waters.

China rejected the ruling, claiming the court only has the authority to rule on “maritime rights”, and that it has no authority to rule on what amounts to a “territorial dispute.” The court rejected this assertion.

China claims that the islands have historically been China’s property since 1947 when the islands were seen as a crucial part of the Chinese nation.  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.

Vietnam argues that China had no presence on the islands before 1940 while claiming it can prove control over the islands since the 17th Century.

In addition to securing exclusive fishing rights, the islands contain vast natural resources and are a strategic location for trade; it is estimated that $5 trillion of trade goes through the waterway each year; designating it as international waters would prevent China from potentially exacting tariffs on ships passing through. The South China Sea is also estimated to contain roughly seven billion barrels of oil and 900 trillion cubic feet of natural gas; these resources are especially attractive for China, who consumes roughly 10 percent of the world’s oil while only accounting for 1.1 percent of its production.

The most violent dispute over the islands has been between China and Vietnam. In 1974, citing ancestral land claims, China forcibly seized the Parcel Islands from Vietnam, killing 74 Vietnamese troops. In 1988, the two sides clashed again on the Parcel Islands, leading to the death of 60 Vietnamese soldiers. Tensions escalated in 2014, when China attempted to build an oil rig near Vietnam, provoking conflict between the two navies.

The tribunal’s ruling in favor of the Philippines is only the latest of many tense disputes between it and China. In 2012, the two countries engaged in a naval stand-off, with each side accusing the other of drilling into a Coral Reef known as the Scarborough Shoal. The next year, the Philippines announced that it was taking China to a UN tribunal under the Law of the Sea Treaty.

In 2015, satellite images surfaced that revealed China’s military expansion onto South China Sea islands as well as the construction of man-made islands in the claimed area, which were also quickly militarized.

The conflict over the islands remains one of the most divisive issue in Asian international relations and the countries are unable to agree even on how to begin negotiations. China prefers bilateral negotiations to deal with the issue but their neighbors, realizing China’s size and power puts them at a disadvantage, favor negotiation through the ASEAN bloc, which China rejects.

China’s rejection of the ruling is a reminder of one of the reasons why U.S. critics of the Law of the Sea Treaty have urged the U.S. to remain a non-signatory; namely the willingness of powers like China to disregard such signed treaties when it suits them. It is also a reminder that ultimately the United States must rely on its ability to project naval power, and not multilateral agreements, in order to insure its commitment to freedom of navigation and customary international maritime law.

China Is Preparing for Conflict – and Why We Must Do the Same

Ever since Richard Nixon opened relations with Communist China in 1972, Chinese intentions have been a matter of incessant and often fevered speculation in this country.

In particular, national security and regional experts, non-governmental organizations and office-holders alike, have endlessly debated whether the People’s Republic of China could be brought into a U.S.-dominated international order and world economy in a manner consistent with American interests and, better yet, as a partner in opposition to mutual adversaries (e.g., the Soviet Union, North Korea, and the global jihad movement).

Regrettably, this controversy over China’s intentions has now been largely settled by actions of the Chinese government – and a rapid militarization. Under successive regimes – and most especially that of the incumbent Chinese ruler, Xi Jinping – the Chinese have relentlessly and unmistakably striven to put themselves in a position to challenge, and ultimately to displace, the post-World War II Pax Americana with a new order. This position would return China to what its leaders consider to be China’s rightful place as the Middle Kingdom, the preeminent global power strategically and economically.

At this critical juncture, it is both foolhardy and irresponsible for America and its allies to continue to construe China’s conduct as non-threatening. That conclusion is powerfully articulated by eight essays featured in a book just released by the Center for Security Policy, entitled Warning Order: China Prepares for Conflict and Why We Must Do the Same. (A video introduction is here.)

A Warning Order is a technique long used by the U.S. military to put its units on notice of an impending danger that requires countervailing action. The draft Secretary of Defense directive that briefly summarizes and suggests how to operationalize the findings of the contributors to this new volume – former U.S. Senator Jim Talent, former Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Fleet Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, China and national security experts Dr. Peter Navarro, Gordon Chang, Dean Cheng, Kevin Freeman and Lindsey Neas and journalist Bill Gertz – reads as follows:

WARNING ORDER:  Required Preparations for Conflict with China

  1. Situation. The People’s Republic of China is incrementally, but relentlessly, putting into place in its own region (notably, the East and South China Seas) and elsewhere around the world the capabilities required to engage decisively in military conflict with the United States and its allies.

China’s preparations include:

  • The acquisition and deployment – both at home and increasingly in global choke points – of advanced air, sea, land and space systems and asymmetric capabilities that appear designed to: 1) interdict allied forces, 2) deny them access to and the ability to operate in strategically important areas and 3) otherwise achieve the destruction and defeat of the U.S. and/or its allies;
  • The fielding of sufficient numbers of modern aircraft, ships, missiles, space weapons and nuclear forces to secure for China quantitative and, in some areas, qualitative superiority, at least regionally;
  • People’s Liberation Army cyber warfare operations that are intensifying in sophistication, aggressiveness and effectiveness against both official and private sector targets;
  • A variety of means of challenging and undermining the United States’ economic security, including by threatening: the dollar’s reserve currency status, Wall Street and other financial operations, and U.S. access to and relations with key trading partners;
  • High-intensity intelligence, information and influence operations against the United States and its allies; and
  • Amassing the dedicated military and dual-use industrial capabilities necessary rapidly and substantially to expand, and/or recover from battle-damage to, the PRC’s current conventional and nuclear arsenals.

It is not possible at this time to ascertain Chinese intentions or whether, if they do seek to precipitate a conflict, when and where it might begin. Our posture must not be based on assessments of such intentions, however, but be rooted in a clear-eyed, capabilities-driven threat analysis.

  1.  Tasking.  All DOD agencies, military services and combatant commands are hereby ordered to take such steps as are required to achieve at the earliest possible moment levels of readiness and power-projection needed to deter and, if necessary, to defeat any Chinese aggression.  U.S. capabilities required to perform such missions over the longer term are to be identified and acquired at the earliest possible time.  Wherever practical, useful and consistent with operational security considerations, the support and assistance of allied militaries should be obtained for this purpose.

Warning Order is intended to move our nation past a now-irrelevant debate about Chinese intentions and onto a far firmer footing, rooted in a focus on China’s capabilities – one that enables us to deter the PRC’s future use of existing, and anticipated, threats to our security and vital interests. It should be required reading for both prospective Commanders-in-Chief and those whose safety they will be responsible for safeguarding.

China’s imperialism on the South China Sea

China’s determined efforts over the past two decades to seize control of almost the entire South China Sea is nothing short of classic aggressive imperialism. What’s remarkable is that it has been done without basically firing a shot, using the Chinese People’s Liberation Army concept of “military soft power.” This tactic is designed to defeat the enemy without fighting. Make no mistake: China views the United States as the enemy. Under President Obama’s strategy to fundamentally transform America, our country doesn’t confront our enemies, it embraces them. China has the perfect enemy.

When the United States withdrew its forces from the Philippines in 1992, this created a vacuum, which presented China with an unprecedented opportunity to expand its influence and territorial objectives. In 1993, China announced its illegal claims to almost the entire South China Sea as part of its territorial waters. The claim is based on China’s questionable Nine-Dash Line maritime claim and includes large sea areas of internationally recognized economic zones belonging to Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan and Japan.

There is no question that what China has accomplished over the past two decades — both economically and militarily — has been remarkable. When I took the first U.S. Navy Task Force back to mainland China on Nov. 3, 1986, 37 years after the Communists seized power in 1949, its navy was nothing more than a coastal navy, and not a threat to anyone. However, since then, China — with a double-digit increase in its military budget — has dramatically modernized its military forces and specifically built a navy designed to confront the U.S. Navy. More recently, Chinese President Xi Jinping is in the process of transforming China’s military force’s mission from just a defensive posture and regional power to one that will potentially be capable of challenging the United States globally.

As we have seen, China has instituted an aggressive reclamation program, creating man-made islands out of shallow reefs and inlets to reinforce its South China Sea claims. Since 2014, China has reclaimed more than 3,200 acres. Airfields and other permanent facilities have been built on these islands. The islands, in effect, have become stationary aircraft carriers. China has already deployed significant air, naval and missile forces to its newly reclaimed stationary carriers.

It should be noted that while China is a signatory to the United Nation’s Law of the Sea Treaty, it has stated that any sea area it “unilaterally” claims as its territorial waters is excluded from arbitration and will not be submitted to any treaty tribunal for resolution. However, the Philippines challenged China’s claims over the South China Sea in 2013 by stating that the Nine-Dash Line maritime zone is illegal because it violates the 2006 U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty that sets out exclusive zones and territorial waters. China refused to participate in the challenge based on their previous unilateral declarations and its questionable claims that go back to the Ming Dynasty.

Nonetheless, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague is about to issue a ruling, which is anticipated to be unfavorable to China. The Chinese ambassador to the Netherlands, Wu Ken, stated, “China will not accept an invalid arbitral award. Abuses of international law and its hegemonic mentality have no place in any SCS dispute!” This is typical Chinese information warfare.

In a separate action, according to a June 1 article in Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post, China appears ready to impose air defense identification zones on the South China Sea — zones similar to the one they have in the East China Sea. One source said the timing of any declaration would depend on security conditions in the region, particularly the U.S. military presence, operations and diplomatic ties with regional countries (read: Vietnam). Here we have the classic case of China, the aggressor, presenting itself as the “victim” because the U.S. military is exercising its traditional “freedom of navigation and right of innocent passage” under recognized international law. China has chosen to view these legitimate operations as a challenge to China’s illegal claims in the region and, therefore, we are forcing China to declare air defense identification zones to protect its sovereignty. What nonsense.

Senior Chinese and U.S. officials are meeting this week in Beijing for the annual strategic and economic conference. As previously indicated, embracing one’s enemy to resolve serious strategic issues has never worked with a totalitarian regime, and it certainly will not work with China. The Obama administration’s responses to China’s aggression in the South China Sea have been weak and ineffective.

When China became displeased with U.S. actions, they moved quickly to show their displeasure by cancelling a recent carrier port visit to Hong Kong. We need to do the same. During the Beijing conference, we need to inform the Chinese that they have been disinvited to participate in upcoming June-July bi-annual Rim of the Pacific Exercise exercise. We should state in clear, unmistakable terms that this decision is based on their bullying of regional countries by building their questionable islands, as well as on their unprofessional action against our forces operating peacefully in the South China Sea. Having the Chinese participate in this exercise for our friends and allies has never made any sense. It provides the Chinese up-close intelligence-gathering opportunities to electronically fingerprint all our weapons systems, our tactics and operations.

To accompany our action, we should encourage the Philippines to give notice of impending immigration enforcement action against Chinese personnel and vessels. Further, U.S. and other allies should provide support to back up the Philippine action. Nothing less than bold action will stop Chinese aggression.

Threat of Student Visa Fraud makes U.S. Universities Prime Target of Foreign Espionage Activity

On Wednesday, May 25th, Reuters news agency released an investigative report on the academic fraudulence by international Chinese students at American universities. Their report, specifically outlining the fraud carried out by thirty Chinese students at the University of Iowa (UI), discusses the unique business system enabling Chinese students to pay for transcripts, essays, and other certificates necessary to enter into American universities as well as succeed in them.

The report follows a Chinese “tutoring firm,” Transcend, as well as a specific foreign national that was found to have manufactured a false transcript and other academic documents using the firm. In addition to this specific case, the report discussed how the university’s transcript evaluators failed to catch the fraudulent behavior because there are only four to five staff members available to review thousands of applications.

Reuters stated that the university caught these Chinese students after ProctorU, the online exam service, found discrepancies between the facial features of those taking the online exams and the students listed as taking the exams.

The Reuter’s piece, as well as the falsification of documents by Chinese international students, is not a novel issue among American universities, but has instead been a long standing issue regarding immigration and national security.

In May of 2013, the National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC) found in a study that fifty-seven percent of Chinese students had assistance with the college and/or student visa application processes. The association also found that it was “not uncommon for third parties, including agents, to forge academic credentials and letters of recommendation for students applying to overseas schools.”

In the last ten years, the number of Chinese students at American universities has tripled to around 200,000. During this time, the Chinese Ministry of Education approved approximately 450 agencies that offer support to students wishing to study overseas. With China being far and away the leading “sending country” of international students to the United States, concerns regarding the authenticity of their international students and the agencies enlisted to help them, helps raise questions about the US immigration system as a whole.

The student visa process is, and has been, largely dependent upon the credentials the students give the universities and government. It is thus extremely important that the schools carefully evaluate the background of the foreign nationals they wish to admit. If schools, such as the University of Iowa, dole out the task to very few people, then the evaluation of these students, their transcripts, and their legitimacy become difficult to confirm. Ultimately, the school’s confirmation of legitimacy is essential in the processing of any student-visa application and a component of review the State Department heavily relies upon.

However, the NACAC report found that many universities don’t employ review practices thorough enough to verify Chinese credentials. Much like the evaluation practice at UI, other American universities fail to provide enough oversight in their review process, which allows Chinese students to pay tutor agencies to aid them in their admittance process.

Coinciding with these lax admittance policies is the threat that stems from international students conducting espionage activities on United States’ campuses.

In an April 2012 Bloomberg article, the former deputy director of FBI counter-intelligence, Frank Figluizzi, claimed that efforts by foreign countries to penetrate universities have been increasing since 2007, specifically citing China as a country that attempts to obtain classified information by means of “academic solicitation.”

Though Figluizzi admitted that most international students, researchers, and professors come to U.S. with legitimate reasons, universities are often targeted as an “ideal place” for foreign intelligence services “to find recruits, propose and nurture ideas, learn and even steal research data, or place trainees.”

Other FBI reports confirm Agent Figluizzi’s claims that international students pose a threat to US national security. One investigative report, created in 2011, identified the targeting of universities to create foreign intelligence spy rings as a marquee threat. The report outlined FBI cases beginning in 2005 that showed the successes of international students engaging in spying on US technological and military operations.

Recent examples of these espionage acts occurred in July of 2014, when a Chinese national pleaded guilty to attempting to illegally export dense articles with military application to the People’s Republic of China. The defendant was a 29 year old who was on a student visa.

Later that same year, in September, a Hawaiian man was arrested after he e-mailed classified information to a 27-year-old Chinese woman he had a romantic relationship with; she was a graduate student who had a J1 student visa.

The man was a high-ranking lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army, and she had used their relationship to convince him to release numerous classified documents, including the Department of Defenses’ China Strategy and the U.S. Armed Forces Defense Planning Guide until 2018.

Between the NACAC, Reuters, Bloomberg, and the FBI, there appears to be a great threat stemming from the lack of oversight of the US student-visa system. Universities across the nation are failing to accurately identify the credentials, and even the identities, of many of the international students they extend admittance to. In return, this admittance has created a gateway to which China, and likely other foreign countries, can conduct espionage operations inside US borders, and ultimately steal vital military information and technology.

U.S. and Vietnam Agree To Lift Military Arms Embargo

On Monday, May 23, 2016, President Obama announced the United States (U.S.) would be lifting a 50-year military arms embargo with Vietnam. Obama along with Vietnamese President Tran Dai Quang, explained that the embargo lift was to help improve relations between the two nations.  Both leaders denied that the deal was in response to China’s aggressive campaign in the South China Sea (SCS).

The Vietnam War ended in April 1975 with the fall of Saigon and U.S. withdrawal from the country, thus allowing the North Vietnamese to launch an aggressive campaign to reunite the country under the communist doctrine. Diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Vietnam were restored in 1995, and by 2014 the Obama administration began easing sanctions on Vietnam by allowing the country to purchase maritime surveillance and security systems to strengthen itself against China.

While Vietnam and China both share a communist ideology, it has been China’s campaign of claiming territorial rights to 80% of the SCS that has escalated tensions. China has already claimed several atolls in the SCS, which Vietnam insists is in their sovereign territory. Conflict between the two nations occurred in 2014 when China installed a disputed oil rig in the SCS, and began intentionally ramming Vietnamese vessels anywhere near the oil rig. Tensions counted to mount between the two nations, when the Vietnamese coast guard seized a Chinese fueling ship this past April, which the officials claimed was in violation of being in Vietnamese waters.

In reality, Vietnam and China’s relationship has been turbulent for nearly 40 years in a series of conflicts from 1979-1988, known as the Sino-Vietnamese Wars.  Vietnam views China as unpredictable and dangerous. To better protect itself, Vietnam for years had a multi-billion dollar deal with Russia for military equipment, but now has expanded partnerships with Spain, the Netherlands, and Israel.

Vietnam, a country of 90 million, is a key partner in regards to the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), a U.S.-led trade deal to counter China’s growth.  The deal is currently stalled in congress, as a number of U.S. senators have called Vietnam regime one of the most oppressive regimes in the world, second only to North Korea under Kim Jung Un.

Quang, a former police chief and head of the Ministry of Public Safety, has only been president of Vietnam since the beginning of April. Many Vietnamese activists and journalists say it is the Ministry of Public Safety who harasses and detains protestors who only expressed freedom of speech.

Vietnam has been run under the communist political system since 1954. The Vietnamese government has been cracking down and arresting environmental protestors over the poisoning of fish at Ha Tihn along with targeting bloggers, journalists, and ethnic minorities.  In a means to prevent civil unrest, Quang had Facebook and other social media outlets shutdown, while Obama was in Hanoi.

Obama noted that the sale of arms to Vietnam will correlate to their human rights compliance and each request for weapons will be handled on a case-by-case basis. At a news conference on Monday, Obama acknowledged that Vietnam has made some progress in regards to human rights, but did not address questions in regard to the 100 political prisoners jailed, or Nguyen Van Dai, a human rights lawyer who has been unlawfully been detained and beaten according to Dai’s wife.

The Obama administration insists that the lift of the arms embargo on Vietnam is part of ending Cold War hostilities, and opening new economic and military relations. In reality, the deal is clear that the U.S. intends to supply Vietnam with the resources required to mitigate Chinese aggression.

China To Participate in ASEAN Military Drills

China will be taking part in the Association of Southeastern Asian Nations (ASEAN) maritime security anti-terror drill from May 2 to May 12 according to a Chinese military spokesman. The exercise will take place in Brunei and Singapore and will include both land and sea operations. China’s involvement in this exercise comes as tensions are at an all-time high in the South China Sea (SCS).

The Navies from 10 ASEAN countries will be participating along with navies from China, the U.S., Australia, South Korea, Japan, India, New Zealand, and Russia. The exercise will include joint military training, sailing in formation, escorting, searching at sea, helicopter landing on warships, counterterrorism training. The Chinese have indicated they intend to provide a Lanzhou missile destroyer along with a PLA Special Operations Forces unit, and 4 staff officers for the exercise.

The exercise is the first maritime security and counter-terrorism drills being held under the rubric of the ASEAN Defense Ministers Meeting.

The exercise will aim to increase military coordination to deal with security threats in the Asia-Pacific region. China has publicly criticized the U.S.’s SCS policy, which is focused on insuring “freedom of navigation.” China views the U.S. effort to insure traditional International norms of maritime freedom as destabilizing to regional stability and a pretext for U.S. intervention. China claims sovereignty over much of the SCS and has undertaken a strategy of developing fortified islands with airstrips and harbors for the Chinese military assets.

In late 2013, China began developing artificial islands in the SCS and began confronting foreign vessels. On December 5, 2013, A Chinese war ship aggressively confronted the USS Cowpens and the Cowpens had to change course to avoid a collision.

China has pushed the boundaries be developing a reef on the Kalayaan Islands which are under the Philippines sovereignty, and also militarized islands with Surface-to-Air Missiles (SAMS), air strips, ports, and radar stations on Woody Island. China claims Woody Island was previously militarized and no body seemed to notice.  Its not just the islands and reefs that China is looking at in the South China Sea, but also the vast resources including gas and oil.  The Spratly Islands are believed to have enough natural resources for 800 million to 5.4 billion barrels of oil.

Tensions between China and the U.S. have been particularly high dating back to November 2015 when a U.S. Navy destroyer sailed within 12 miles of Triton Island near the Paracel Islands. Tension also remain high between Vietnam and China, following a May 2014 incident in which Vietnam sailors claim a Chinese patrol boat intentionally rammed them and then sprayed them with a water cannon.

Taiwan has also been in a heated dispute with China over the tiny Taiping Island that Taiwan claims to have ruled for 60 years, and is no sustainable for any major development. The Philippines feeling the pressure China invited the U.S. but also Australia to partake in a military exercise on islands within the South China Sea.

Over the past year, China has become more active in working with other nations in military drills including Malaysia,  Cambodia, Russia, and Pakistan; and further inserting its military presence in Afghanistan and Djibouti as a means to deter U.S. influence and further their own national interest within these countries.

While the need for counter terrorism cooperation is obvious, the decision to permit China to participate in naval related exercises probably has more to do with seeking to reduce tensions during a period of increasingly adversarial activity in the region. It’s hard not to view the decision to include the Chinese military as a something of a reward for it’s increasingly provocative behavior.

Afghanistan President Says No More Peace Talks With The Taliban

On Monday, April 25, 2016, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani officially announced he would no longer seek future peace talks with the Taliban. This comes as a major blow for the Afghan president whose foreign policy centered on a commitment to the talks. He has now called upon Pakistan to help defeat Taliban insurgents which plague Pakistan’s tribal belt.

In a speech to the Afghan parliament Ghani asked Pakistan to be a “responsible government” and launch attacks against the Taliban and its allies, warning that if Pakistan fails to do so Afghanistan plans to refer the issue to the UN Security Council.

Numerous factors have caused Pakistani Taliban insurgents to cross into Afghanistan. First, the withdraw U.S. and NATO coalition forces in 2014. Second, in July 2014 Pakistan’s military launched “Operation Zarb-e-Zab” which displaced thousands of Pakistani, Arab, and Uzbek Taliban members from Pakistan’s Waziristan tribal area. Third, while Afghan security forces have struggled to hold off Taliban insurgents they lack aircraft support and reconnaissance and intelligence capabilities.

Ghani referred to the Taliban as “terrorists” for the first time in his presidency a statement he had avoided calling them in his first 18-months in office. He does not expect Pakistan to hand over the Taliban for any future negotiations, so Afghanistan security forces will now have to confront the group and any of its supporters.

There will also be no amnesty for Taliban insurgents under Ghani’s reign, which seemed to take a direct shot at former Afghan president Hamid Karzai who was suspected of releasing thousands of insurgents who claimed they revoked violence. One of last week’s truck bombers is suspected of receiving a reprieve from Karzai.

The Taliban took note of Ghani’s remarks and on social media claimed that Ghani and his cabinet were nothing more than “slaves” and “lackeys” under the imperialist watch of the nation run by “Kerry” referring to Secretary of State John Kerry.

Last week a truck bomb detonated in Kabul, Afghanistan’s capital and killed 64 while injuring another 347. It was the worst terrorist attack in the capital city since the suicide bombings killed 54 worshippers at a Kabul mosque during the festival of Ashura in December 2011. Afghanistan Intelligence into the truck bombing revealed that the Haqqani network, a Taliban-allied group was responsible for the attack.

Ghani along with Abdullah Abdullah, chief executive of Afghanistan’s Unity Government remained supportive of talks with the Taliban following a truck bomb attack last August injured 400 Afghans. In January 2016, a meeting was held consisting Afghanistan, Pakistan, the U.S., and China on how to handle the Taliban problem after they refused to show up for the talk. Pakistan made a pledge to utilize military action against the group, at the same time indicating they can only influence, not control the group.

Prior peace talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government have made little progress as the Taliban would not even attend talks until the withdrawal of foreign troops. The Taliban has re-engaged Afghan security forces under the most recent “Taliban Spring Offensive”.

Ghani may feel that Afghanistan has made every effort to broker a deal with the Taliban and to no effect. Given the failure of talks, the Afghans may need to seek new support for a military effort against the Taliban. The Obama administration had previously reversed insistence on withdrawal prior to the end of the President’s term in 2017. U.S. forces have largely been restricted from aggressively engaging the Taliban; something retiring General John Campbell has called for publicly, in order to push back against Taliban offensive despite lower than recommended U.S. Troops levels.

Absent a change in the level of U.S. commitment, Afghanistan may go elsewhere for support, with report of seeking Chinese and Russian aid.

 

Taliban Launch Deadliest Attack on Kabul Since 2011

Today, April 19, 2016, the Taliban launched an attack on the Afghanistan capital of Kabul killing at least 28 and wounding another 320. The Taliban used a combination of suicide bombs and gunfire against the government security building in the capital. Reuters reports this the most lethal attack on the Afghan capital since 2011.

The Taliban have continued to challenge the Afghan government, and they will continue to launch strikes like the one today until they are met with substantial force. President Obama hopes to leave 5,500 soldiers in the country by the end of his presidency, but General John Campbell has suggested that the U.S. force in the country should remain at upwards of 10,000. While President Obama has allowed for a contingent of 9,600 to remain in the country, this has done little to deter the Taliban from its campaign of making territorial gains in key areas.

The Taliban reclaimed roughly one-third of the country following the end of NATO combat operations in Afghanistan at the end of 2014. While around 13,000 international troops remain in the country they have taken a largely logistical role, with some counterterrorism functions. The Afghan forces are far less capable of deterring the Taliban, and there are reports Government soldiers are defecting to the Taliban.

While today’s attack was the worst attack since 2011, it certainly was not the first since 2011. The Taliban have been active around the region, launching attacks on Afghan government, security forces, and international forces personnel.

  • June 22, 2015, the Taliban detonated a car bomb outside the Afghan parliament building, and followed this with a gun assault on the building. The attack killed 2 and wounded another 28.
  • June 30, 2015, the Taliban detonate a suicide car bomb near a NATO convoy in Kabul, killing one and wounding another 21.
  • October 11, 2015, the Taliban attacked a UK military convoy in a residential area wounding seven people.
  • February 27, 2016, a Taliban suicide bomber detonated his vest killing 12.

The Taliban were formed in the early 1990s from a faction of mujahedeen fighters. The group was quick to gain control of major cities including Kandahar, and by 1996 they had control over Kabul. The Taliban strictly enforced Islamic law of Sharia over all its controlled territories, ruling roughly 90% of Afghanistan at the time of the U.S. invasion following September 11th, 2001.

Despite the lethality of the Taliban campaign, Afghan leaders, as well as Pakistan, the U.S., and China have continued to push for peace talks, in failed attempts convince the Taliban to integrate into the government.

Afghanistan, the U.S., Pakistan, and China have held two rounds of talks in which the Taliban have been absent from each. The Taliban has insisted that key members be removed from sanctions blacklists or released from prison prior to engaging in talks.

The Taliban are not the only group that the Afghan and U.S. forces have to focus on. The Islamic State has begun to grow within Afghanistan, and they have already launched attacks in the country. The U.S. and Afghan forces have been able to engage IS successfully, but the more they are forced to focus on IS, the less they can focus on the Taliban.

The current number of international soldiers in Afghanistan has done little to deter either Islamic State or the Taliban, in large part because U.S. and coalition forces are not engaged in combat operations.

While General Campbell has said current numbers are adequate for force protection and the support mission, U.S. troops lack permission to undertake offensive operations against Taliban forces. Until that changes, its highly unlikely the Taliban remain confident that it can acquire through force of arms more than it will be offered in negotiations.

If establishing a stable Afghanistan government is a U.S. interest, it may be time for the U.S. and NATO to regain control over the fight.