Tag Archives: China

Deciphering China’s Moves

As Chinese Premier Xi Jinping prepares for his state visit to Washington, Beijing is flexing its muscle across Asia: massive hardware on display at the WWII victory parade, declarations of power projection across the region, and announcement of building airfields on the disputed islands in the South China Sea. Combined, these actions point to an increased assertiveness as part of a long-term strategy by the Chinese Politburo.

Currently, construction is ongoing on two separate artificial islands China has expanded from the original rock formations; the Obama administration is currently restricting the Navy from sailing within 12 nautical miles (which is the internationally recognized maritime boundary of a sovereign state) of the artificial islands.

This behavior grants de facto recognition to China’s claims. By positioning artillery and expanding airfields, it is clear what Beijing’s objective is: force projection across the South China Sea. With over $ 5 trillion worth of trade passing through these waters every year, the stakes could not be higher.

At the heart of the dispute is China’s claim of economic and military sovereignty well beyond 200 miles off its coast. While the US and its allies in the region point to the UN convention of the Law of The Sea, which stipulates that military sovereignty extends only 12 miles offshore, China is able to note that the U.S. has not itself signed the LOS treaty.

It’s not immediately clear that Beijing is ready to risk a confrontation with Washington over rock outcroppings offshore knowing, as it does, that the other parties in the dispute have signed military cooperation pacts with the US. Beijing could make trade very difficult if it chose to close choke points such as the Philippines’ Strait or the Straits of Malacca if its demands aren’t met. The US Navy is publicly committed to keeping the sea-lanes open, and such an act would greatly raise the probability of conflict.

US allies such as The Philippines and Japan are watching anxiously as the much-heralded ‘pivot’ to Asia by the Obama administration fails to materialize. Perhaps China’s military moves on the eve of Jingping’s visit will get the Administration’s attention.

Worried About Terrorist Drones? Then Worry About the Iran Deal.

Analysts are rightly pointing out that the deal between the United States and Iran on the latter’s nuclear program frees up more money, in the form of sanctions relief, for Iran to continue at an accelerated pace its sponsorship of terrorist organizations and their attacks throughout the world.  Incredibly, Members of President Obama’s own team – including National Security Advisor Susan Rice and Gen. Paul Selva, Obama’s nominee to be Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – have stated as much.

But what might that continued terrorism sponsorship look like on the ground, with more money coming in for that purpose?

There is a high probability that a cash-infused Iran will mean not only more terrorist attacks against our friends and our troops, but more terrorist attacks with better, more sophisticated hardware.  One item to be especially concerned about in this regard: the proliferation of Iranian drones.

Iran’s chief proxy Hezbollah has already made use of Iranian made drones since 2006 in Lebanon, and experts worry that their capabilities will only get more advanced over time.  Homeland Security Today’s Joe Charlaff reported earlier this year, citing interviews with Edan Landau of the Institute for Counter Terrorism in Herzliya, Israel, and Tal Inbar of the Fisher Institute for Air and Space Strategic Studies, also in Herzliya:

“…Inbar added, though, that in recent years, Hezbollah upgraded its fleet of UAVs and now has possession of the Shahed 129 UAV, an Iranian unmanned combat aerial vehicle (UCAV) which is in the same class of America’s Predator in terms of size. It’s also believed it may be able to be equipped with guided air-to-ground missiles. It’s also rumored to have been reverse engineered from a downed US drone…”

“’…Basically, anything in Syria or Iran’s arsenal is always available to Hezbollah.  During the last few years, the organization has gained valuable experience in using these drones,’ Landau added….”

“’The basic assumption should be that every type of UAV that is seen in Iran will probably be seen in Lebanon in the near future, and possibly in the hands of Islamic Jihad in the south’ Inbar said…”

To be sure, Iranian drones and those of its proxies still do not have nearly the same level of sophistication and capabilities of American or Israeli unmanned systems.  But when you’re Hezbollah, your weapons only need to be sophisticated enough to be that much more brutal and indiscriminate.  While the precision associated with U.S. and Israeli drones has been honed for the purpose of carefully selecting targets in ways that minimizes civilian casualties and the military footprint in general, Iran’s proxies are looking to drones to give them the precision needed to inflict more casualties, not less – whether in the form of providing the kind of intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance that can better guide rockets fired from southern Lebanon or Gaza, or perhaps sooner rather than later, carrying munitions that can more accurately target civilian population centers or critical infrastructure.

And that’s all just within the realm of what Iran could produce on its own by way of drones.

Importantly, though, this deal doesn’t just involve freeing up money that Iran could use to develop and deploy its own weapons.  The deal also entails lifting the conventional arms embargo on Iran in another five years, and that means a clearer pathway for Chinese drones making their way to the mullahs.  China’s drones – which are much further along technologically than Iran’s – have gotten the attention of the U.S. Department of Defense, which in its 2014 Annual Report to Congress on Military and Security Developments the People’s Republic of China, stated:

“China is incrementally advancing its development and employment of UAVs.  According to a 2013 report by the Defense Science Board, China’s move into unmanned systems is “alarming” and combines unlimited resources with technological awareness that might allow China to match or even outpace U.S. spending on unmanned systems in the future. During September 2013, a probable Chinese UAV was noted for the first time conducting reconnaissance over the East China Sea. This past year, China unveiled details of four UAVs under development, three of which are designed to carry weapons: the Xianglong (Soaring Dragon); Yilong (Pterodactyl); Sky Saber; and Lijian, China’s first stealthy flying wing UAV, for which China announced its first maiden flight on November 21, 2013.”

China, along was Russia, was pushing hard for an end to the arms embargo on Iran as part of this nuclear deal.

If you’re worried about drones in the wrong hands, you should be worried about the Iran deal.

Cui Bono From the OPM Hack?

December’s hack of the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) personnel files reportedly also reached other branches of the American government, affecting up to 4 million former and current US government employees. The information stolen by the hackers included Social Security numbers, job assignments, performance ratings and training information. Of course, this also includes current and former employees of intelligence organizations, as it was recently revealed that the hackers managed to access Pentagon employees’ personal and security information. A foreign actor could use the information taken from the OPM hack to identify spies or other sensitive personnel active in foreign nations, blackmail US government employees, or use email phishing from personal accounts to gain access to US government computers.

A Chinese government organization, such as their Ministry of State Security (MSS), is generally deemed as the most likely culprit, but it is safe to assume that North Korea’s Bureau 121, Russia’s FSB signals intelligence bureau, or Iran’s Cyber Defense Command could have either been a contributor to the effort or the main perpetrator of the data theft. Countries such as China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran have a fundamentally different view on the employment of cyberwarfare than the United States.

China has long been suspected to have a dedicated cyberwarfare division, but the existence of such an organization was only officially confirmed in May 2011. The “online blue army” is based in the Guangzhou military region and has access to a $1.54 million dollar yearly budget. Although ostensibly for defensive purposes (and for keeping tabs on Chinese citizens online), China has repeatedly been accused of employing cyberwarfare and espionage against other countries. The Chinese government also makes use of semi-official civilian hackers & proxies that allows the Chinese government to deny knowledge of their own actions to foreign governments searching for the origin of cyberwarfare attacks. China has also been implicated in the 2010 theft of intellectual property from Google’s  (and many other software developers) network systems, as well as a Senate Armed Services Committee probe that found that Chinese hackers had subverted the computer systems of several US airlines, technology companies, and several contractors for the US military involved in the transportation of troops and equipment overseas. It is quite likely that the Chinese are banking on cyberwarfare as a possible counterweight to US conventional military superiority. Should a conflict arise in Taiwan or the South China Sea, the Chinese could be relying on cyber attacks to disable the US’ SIGINT network and prevent the United States from aiding allies in the region.

Russia has their own cyber warfare program as well. Soviet-style media manipulation is alive and well, and especially on the internet, where the Russian government employs “professional trolls” to spread disinformation in the Kremlin’s favor. During the 2008 Russo-Georgian War, Russian hackers conducted a major DDoS attack on Georgian government websites, paralleling a similar attack on Estonian government websites the previous year. In Ukraine, Russia has employed a more sophisticated program referred to as “Ouroboros” to subvert Ukrainian government computer systems. It is also likely that Russian agents have an interest in collecting information to use as blackmail material or to foil US covert operations directed against Russia.

North Korea’s cyber warfare agency, Bureau 121, is part of the General Bureau of Reconnaissance, North Korea’s intelligence agency. Bureau 121 is said to comprise of the country’s elite computer experts, recruited at age 17 and trained at the University of Automation, North Korea’s military run school for computer science. Consisting of around 1,800 specialists, Bureau 121 is considered to be an elite unit of North Korea’s intelligence bureau. Despite North Korea’s perceived weaknesses, Bureau 121 is suspected to be the culprits behind the infamous hacking of Sony back in December. North Korean hackers also managed to attack South Korean banks and broadcasting companies, as well as deface South Korean government websites, using simple malware dubbed “DarkSeoul.” The DarkSeoul attack was noted to be very similar to the cyber attack carried out by the “Guardians of Peace” on Sony Pictures.

The Iranians also have a notable cyber warfare agency, dubbed the Cyber Defense Command. However, the bulk of Iran’s offensive cyber capabilities are relegated to the “Iranian Cyber Army,” an unofficial group of hackers who have pledged loyalty to Iran’s Supreme Leader. Allegedly created by the Revolutionary Guard Corps in 2005, the Iranian Cyber Army has been able to hack into Twitter and Baidu in the past. Members are recruited from Iranian hackers, offered employment in the Cyber Army instead of imprisonment. The Iranian Cyber Army is allegedly overseen by many of the same officers who run the IRGC’s cyber defense division. It is notable that the ICA became more effective and public on the internet in the wake of the Stuxnet attack on Iran’s network infrastructure, indicating that the Iranians may have learned from the cyber attack. Some analysts believe that the attacks on Twitter and Baidu were trial runs for the ICA, who wish to launch a “Stuxnet” style attack on the United States and Israel. USAF General William Shelton, head of the Air Force’s Space Command and overseer of the USAF’s cyber operations, has stated that Iran is potentially a serious threat on the cyber warfare front. Hacking the OPM personnel files won’t help Iran much with that endeavor, but the OPM personnel files would no doubt be useful to Iran for counter intelligence reasons.

Most troubling is the very likely possibility that no matter which nation managed to carry out the hack, any one of them could sell or otherwise share the information with other hostile states, making an already bad situation worse. If so, any of these four nations could possibly collaborate on cyber warfare programs and share expertise on hacking and virus creation.

China’s Cyber Espionage is the Iceberg’s Tip

Communist China has reportedly stolen 4 million past and present U.S. government employees’ personnel information. The potential damage to our security is immense, prompting two concerns in particular:

First, it underscores that the Chinese are waging against us what they call “unrestricted warfare.” To date, this has involved using asymmetric techniques. In addition to cyber-enabled intelligence collection and recruitment, these include currency manipulation and other forms of economic warfare and taking steps to control the strategic South China Sea.

Second, Americans should not be required to give the government immense amounts of personal data – from our children’s DNA and educational performance to our health histories. If the Feds can’t prevent their own information from being ripped off by the Chinese or others, why would ours be safe in the government’s computers?

 

The Greatest Security Breach in US History? China’s cyberattack on 4 million Federal Employees

On Thursday, Washington officials released information stating that in December 2014, hackers took data from an estimated 4 million “current and previous federal employees” in the private governmental agency, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). However, government officials reported this morning “nearly every federal government agency was hit by the hackers.” Investigators are pointing fingers at the Chinese government, when asked who is responsible for the attacks.

The breach was “discovered in April” using “new detection tools,” but the DHS “said it didn’t conclude until May that the records had been taken.” The information hackers had access to from the OPM, according to officials, includes employees “Social Security numbers, job assignments, performance ratings and training information.”

Although specific proof has not yet been provided on this hack, attacks on our cyber security from China are far from unprecedented. In March 2014, a security breach of OPM was tracked back to Chinese cyber attackers. In May 2014, five Chinese military officials were indicted on charges of “economic cyber espionage.” The FBI suspects that a security intrusion on Anthem Health Insurance, which runs Blue Cross and Blue Shield health plans, in February was the work of Chinese hackers as well.

China responded Friday saying the accusations are “irresponsible and unscientific.” Hong Lei, the spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Minister has stated, “We wish the United States would not be full of suspicions, catching wind and shadows, but rather have a larger measure of trust and cooperation.” The Chinese President XI Jinping’s first planned visit to the US is set for September, and cyber security is planned to be a topic of discussion between Presidents.

The Washington Post reports, “Intruders used a ‘zero-day’ – a previously unknown cyber-tool – to take advantage of a vulnerability that allowed the intruders to gain access into the system.” The Department of Homeland Security reportedly used “intrusion detection system EINSTEIN” to discover the invasion of foreign entities in the cyber system. However, according to the Center for Digital Government’s Cyber security expert Morgan Wright, the system has become a “failure.”

The OPM website describes their role as providing “human resources, leadership, and support to Federal agencies and helps the Federal workforce achieve their aspirations as they serve the American people.” The OPM is essentially the Human Resources department of the government, ensuring the entire government is running smoothly with jobs such as hiring and firing employees, managing payroll, training, confirming security clearances for government personnel and “conducting more than 90 percent of federal background investigations.”

The OPM is a valuable government agency holding large amounts of information on each federal employee. Donna Seymour said of the situation, “Certainly, OPM is a high- value target. We have a lot of information about people, and that is something that our adversaries want.” A few examples of what China could do with this information includes use it to conduct their own counterintelligence operations seeking to root out potential U.S. intelligence officers, sending emails from personal email addresses to other co-workers in order to target specific federal computers, or targeting government employees that could “provide useful intelligence” for espionage purposes.

Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA), the senior Democrat on the Intelligence Committee tweeted yesterday his shock with current security measures set in place by the government. Schiff also stated legislation that “passed the House last month” concerning cyber security should pass quickly in the Senate in light of the attack.

The New York Times reports, “The personnel office told current and former federal employees that they could request 18 months of free credit monitoring to make sure that their identities had not been stolen.” As more details come to fruition on one of the greatest security breaches in US history, the US government will decide the necessary steps it needs to take in order to prevent future cyber attacks from not only China, but Russia as well.

The FBI said it is currently investigating the situation and promised to “hold accountable those who pose a threat in cyberspace.”

Jihad In Post-Soviet Central Asia

Recently on the Free Fire blog, there was a report on the defection of Colonel Gulmurod Halimov, the head of Tajikistan’s elite OMON counter-terrorist unit, trained by both American Special Forces and Russian Specnaz, to Islamic State. Shortly after the news broke of Halimov’s defection, Tajikistan declared Islamic State a terrorist organization by means of a suit from the Prosecutor-General’s Office. Halimov’s change of allegiance also coincided with a meeting of CIS nations to discuss counter-terrorism starting on May 26th. Of particular importance was the discussion of “color revolutions” and the threat posed by Islamic State; reports on the meeting note that a goal of the meeting was to “prevent spread of religious extremism and terrorist ideology.”

Central Asian countries have good reason to be concerned about Islamic State moving in to the region. Tajikistan in particular fought a brutal civil war in the 1990s between the post-Soviet communist strongmen and a strange alliance between Islamists and democratic reformers. Since then, the Tajik government has engaged in a campaign of countering growing Middle Eastern cultural influence in the heavily Muslim country, fearing a resurgence of jihadist activity. With Islamic State making an appearance in Afghanistan, the Tajik government has good reason to fear jihadist infiltration of the country.

As of January, Islamic State has formed the Khorasan province, which includes Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and several other states in Central Asia. In the letter announcing the creation of the Khorasan province, Islamic State spokesman Sheikh Abu Muhammad al-Adnani urged jihadists in Central Asia to abandon factionalism and join with the new Caliphate.

Before discussing the more militant jihadist organizations, we must first bring attention to Hizb ut-Tahrir. Like the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb ut-Tahrir prefers to use “pre-violent jihad” to achieve their goals of creating a unified Islamic state. Hizb ut-Tahrir spread widely throughout post-Soviet Central Asia, despite being made illegal by all of the nations in the region. One reason for Hizb ut-Tahrir’s successful spread among disaffected Central Asian Muslims is its resemblance to Soviet Communism in economic issues. The economic policies of Hizb ut-Tahrir include guaranteed employment, nationalization of industries, free health care, and criminalization of usury. It is from Hizb ut-Tahrir from which the more militant groups in the area sprung, albeit Hizb ut-Tahrir tends to oppose such groups due to their use of violent jihad against fellow Muslims.

In addition to the Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan and the East Turkestan Islamic Movement have been the other major Central Asian jihadist organizations. Though Islamist politics in post-Soviet Central Asia has been less popular than in the Middle East, the lack of political freedoms and corruption in the former Soviet republics have created fertile ground for jihadist organizations. Central Asian leaders such as Uzbekistan’s Islam Karimov have repeatedly cited “jihadism” as the greatest threat to stability and security to their nations, and as a result secularism has been aggressively pursued throughout the region.

Currently based in northern Pakistan, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan was created by Tahir Yuldash and Juman Namangani during the conflict in the early 1990s between Islamist clerics and the Islam Karimov government, backed by Uzbekistan’s quietist Hanafi clerics and scholars. The Islamist clerics, referred to as mujadidiya(reformers), demanded a rollback of the Soviet-era secularism, adherence to the salafist view (thus rejecting the Hanafi school which is popular in Central Asia), and the establishment of “Muslimonabad” an Islamic state ruled by Sharia law in Central Asia. The mujadidiya were made more confident by success of the Iranian revolution and the efforts and success of the mujahideen in Afghanistan, but ironically enough, were aided in their conflict against the Hanafis by the Soviet government. Both the atheistic Soviets and the mujadidiya saw the Hanafists as common enemies; the Soviets feared the Hanafists, being more numerous and influential in Uzbekistan, undermining their authority and saw the mujadidiya as an effective tool to turn religious Uzbeks against mainstream Islam. Thus, the USSR allowed for Wahhabist and Muslim Brotherhood texts to be distributed in Central Asia. However, the end of the USSR saw pro-mujadidiya scholars become politically active, and Islamist militias became more prominent in the hinterlands where the Soviet retreat left a power vacuum.

The Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan was one of those militias, the organization initially referred to as “Adolat.” Adolat became known as the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan by 1998, and would attempt to assassinate President Islam Karimov in 1999 and conduct bombings of the US and Israeli embassies in 2004. IMU was initially prevalent in the Ferghana Valley of eastern Uzbekistan, but would later flee for northern Afghanistan where they were protected by the Taliban while they continued activity against the Uzbek government. During the US invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, the IMU would retreat to northern Pakistan, where the group would grow, becoming integrated with Al-Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban, and would incorporate jihadists from around the world.

IMU would become a significant threat in the tribal areas of Pakistan, launching several attacks against Pakistani government officials, pro-government tribal leaders, and Pakistani military forces since 2007. With Yuldash’s death in a drone strike in 2009, the IMU’s new leaders had little, if any, connection to Uzbekistan. The IMU’s new mufti, Abu Zar al-Burmi, a Pakistani of Burmese Rohingya ancestry, has moved the IMU towards closer affiliation with the Pakistani Taliban and incorporated anti-Chinese and anti-Burmese government grievances into the IMU’s propaganda; prior to al-Burmi’s rise to power the IMU had never been interested in South Asian issues. Al-Burmi has also urged jihadists to target China, a major power with a history of oppressing Muslims and a major backer of the Pakistani government. Other major figures in the IMU include Moroccan German national Abu Ibrahim al-Almani, Abdul Hakim, a Russian national, and Adnan Rashid, a Pakistani and former commander of the Taliban.

Lately, the IMU have begun targeting NATO and Afghan troops in northern Afghanistan, moving the focus of its operation to the northern part of Afghanistan where their Taliban allies have little control over. With northern Afghanistan’s ethnic makeup of Hazara, Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Turkmen, the IMU has a closer background to northern Afghanistan than does the heavily Pashtun Taliban, and the IMU is once more close to Uzbekistan’s borders. As of March 2015, IMU has officially pledged allegiance to Islamic State, stating in a beheading video that they were no longer allied with Mullah Omar and the Taliban.

The other domestic jihadist organization of note in Central Asia is the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), also known as the Turkestan Islamic Party. Just like in Central Asia, the government of the People’s Republic of China is aggressively secular and politically repressive; China’s hostile stance towards religion is especially an element unpopular among the Muslim population in western China. There is also the added component of ethnic chauvinism from China’s Han majority towards the Turkic Uighurs and Kazakhs of the westernmost Xinjiang Autonomous Region.

Politically marginalized Uighurs have attempted to foster separatism and defend their rights by means of forming (explicitly Islamic) organizations such as Hizbul Islam Li-Turkistan since the 1940s. After the Sino-Soviet split, the USSR deliberately fomented Uighur nationalism to weaken the Chinese hold on the Xinjiang Autonomous Region. In turn, China felt threatened by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and began to support the Afghan mujahideen, opening training camps for the mujahideen in Pakistan and western China and supplying them with weapons. The Chinese also began to broadcast anti-Soviet messages in Russian and local Turkic languages into Soviet Central Asia.

The ETIM was reportedly founded by Hasan Mahsum and Memetuhut Memetrozi in 1997; Memetrozi was allegedly educated at a madrassa in Pakistan, according to reports from Chinese media. If true, this would be a clear case of the dog biting the hand that feeds it. The Chinese have long considered ETIM as a terrorist group, fearing further regional separatist movements should ETIM become successful, and warned the United States that ETIM had ties to bin Laden and Al-Qaeda after September 11.

China’s crackdown on ETIM has led it to flee to Pakistan, where like the IMU, it became internationalized, albeit retaining its primary goal of freeing Xinjiang from Chinese control. Recently, around 300 Uighurs have travelled to Iraq and Syria to fight for Islamic State. Chinese intelligence blames elements in the Turkish government, as the Uighurs generally enter Islamic State territory through Turkey by means of Turkish passports. Turkey’s complicity in aiding Islamic State has been covered by Center for Security Policy before. Turkey’s support for Uighur rights is well known, President Erdogan having described ethnic violence in Xinjiang as “genocide.”

Whatever the case, the East Turkestan Islamic Movement is a growing threat to China. Chinese Muslims have paid close attention to the Arab Spring and the rise of Islamic State, feeling wronged due to China’s anti-religious policies and ethnic chauvinism. Over the past few years, jihadist terrorism has been on a severe upswing in China, including bombings and ethnic violence and rioting in Xinjiang. The most prominent attacks so far was an car attack (suspected to be a failed bombing) in Beijing on October 2013, and a car bombing in Urumqi last May.

As mentioned earlier, several Uighur terrorists have gone west to fight with Islamic State, and even before then the ETIM was closely affiliated with al-Qaeda. The former leader of ETIM, Abdul Haq al-Turkistani, was appointed a member of al-Qaeda’s Shura Majlis in 2005. Just like the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, ETIM has been “internationalized” due to its ties to al-Qaeda and IMU, and has joined with IMU in its struggle against the Chinese and their Pakistani allies. Haq also was able to raise funds and purchase weaponry and explosive materials throughout the Middle East in order to facilitate attacks against Chinese targets outside of China. Though China’s size and lack of significant Muslim populations in the wealthy east make it a difficult target for ETIM, Chinese assets and personnel in Central and South Asia are open targets for the jihadist organization.

Chinese security officials are greatly concerned about Uighur jihadists returning from Syria with experience and further training in how to carry out terrorist attacks. Certainly, leaders such as the Turkestan Islamic Party’s Abdullah Mansour have explicitly requested aid from Muslims worldwide to help in defeating the Chinese infidels. In response, Chinese security forces have enacted a dramatic crackdown on Uighur nationalists over the past year. Last year, in the wake of the Xinjiang attacks, Chinese police conducted 27,164 criminal arrests in Xinjiang, nearly double that of last year.

Russia has also been concerned over Islamic State operating so closely to their own borders. One of the major reasons for the USSR’s entrance into the Afghan war back in the 1980s was to prevent the establishment of a Islamist state on the USSR’s backyard, and to prevent Afghan heroin from flooding into the USSR. Since then, the Russians have attempted to keep the Taliban busy and away from instigating jihad in Russia, from supplying the Northern Alliance with weaponry to tacitly approving of US bases in Central Asia, at least until recently.

Lately, Russian Foreign Minister Sergej Lavrov has stated that Islamic State is Russia’s most dangerous enemy. Lavrov noted that Russia was concerned over jihadists from the Caucasus or elsewhere returning home and establishing their own terror cells affiliated with Islamic State within Russia. He also stressed the claim that Russia was aiding the Assad regime in Syria to prevent Islamic State from getting a foothold in the Middle East. However, Russia has lately decided to greatly reduce their aid for the troubled Syrian dictator.

To counteract Islamic State influence in Central Asia, Russia has donated $1.2 billion worth of surplus arms to Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, not only the two poorest former Soviet Central Asian states, but also the two former subject states that still have Russian military bases in their borders. Russia continues to sell arms to the relatively wealthier states such as Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. A secondary condition on the donation was that Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan cease their attempts to purchase arms from the United States, doubtlessly to keep the poor nations reliant on Russian aid. Doubtless these arms are intended to help keep the local strongmen dictators in power and deter jihadists.

With the threat of Islamic State spreading to Central Asia, China and Russia are finding themselves forced to improve their counter-terrorist strategies and bolster their allies in the region. In this troubling time, the United States should not abandon Afghanistan as it has Iraq, especially as reports of Islamic State militants operating in the country have appeared.

How Not to “Stabilize” the South China Sea

The Diplomat, often a good source on East Asia security-related issues, recently ran a piece suggesting that in light of China’s ratcheting up its outlandish territorial claims in the South China Sea by accelerating construction of artificial islands there, the United States Senate should address China’s actions by ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, also known as the Law of the Sea Treaty or LOST, and thereby “help stabilize” that area. The author, Ankit Panda, essentially argues that although the U.S. Navy already considers LOST to reflect customary international law on the subject of artificial islands and navigation of international waters, not having ratified LOST puts the U.S. in a weaker position to defend those navigation principles. He goes on to recall a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in 2012 at which the military leadership at that time registered unanimous support for ratification, and ends with the assertion that although there are “perceived costs” associated with ratification – including “limitations to naval operations, effective ‘taxation’ of seabed mining, and exposure to international arbitration” – they are “far outweighed by the benefits of ratification.”

Two quick thoughts:

  • It’s unclear why the U.S. Navy needs LOST in order to defend international navigation interests in the South China Sea on the basis of customary international law. As Panda himself points out, the Navy is already doing this, even absent ratification of LOST – yet he goes on simply to assert that ratification would help “strengthen” the U.S. position, whatever that means. As the Heritage Foundation has observed frequently, the customary international law that the Navy is presently defending with respect to the South China Sea pre-dates the 1982 adoption of LOST by a long shot.

And in exchange for this non-strengthening of the U.S. position (particularly vis-à-vis China, which, as Heritage points out, routinely violates or ignores LOST anyway) we would incur the very real costs of, for example, 1) the U.S. Navy being subject to lawfare (by China and others) in the form of compulsory international dispute resolution bodies, the findings of which cannot be appealed, and; 2) the redistribution of U.S. oil-and-gas royalties to countries whose coffers we would not otherwise be inclined to fill, including countries or entities that sponsor terrorism. These are just two of many downsides – real, not perceived – that come with ratifying LOST.

  • I was present at that 2012 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing to which Panda refers, at which active military leadership serving in the Obama administration expressed support for ratification. What Panda leaves out is Sen. Inhofe’s introduction into the record of a letter opposing ratification of LOST on national security grounds, “signed by several senior retired military leaders, including a former Chief of Naval Operations, a former Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, and a former Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Navy Forces Europe, among others (after the hearing, two additional former Chiefs of Naval Operations signed on to the letter as well). The letter, which can be found here, stated in part:

“…We wish respectfully to challenge the perception that military personnel uniformly support this accord by expressing our strongly held belief that LOST’s ratification would prove inimical both to the national security interests and sovereignty of the United States….”

“…it is our considered professional military judgment that the United States should remain unencumbered by state-party status in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea—free to observe those provisions we chose to and unencumbered by the others. We have demonstrated in the three decades since President Reagan refused to sign LOST that as a non-party great power we can exercise great and essential influence on matters involving the oceans without being relegated to one vote among 160-plus, obliged to abide by the will and whims of a generally hostile majority without the benefit of a veto to protect American national interests. There is no basis for contending that we will be better off if we have a so-called ‘seat at the table’ under such circumstances.”

The folks over at Real Clear Defense recently published a piece by James. R. Holmes, Professor of Strategy at the Naval War College, recommending five ways to counter China’s behavior in the South China Sea. I can’t speak to Prof. Holmes’s views on whether the Senate should ratify LOST, but one can’t help but notice that ratification of LOST is not present among his five recommendations. Prof. Holmes provides a much more sensible starting point for U.S. government action in the South China Sea than ratification of a deeply flawed treaty that will do far more harm than good.

Note: Updated 31 May 2015 to reflect proper chronology of when former Chiefs of Naval Operations signed the letter.

China Stations Weapons In South Sea Islands

With the recent discovery that the Chinese are deploying artillery to at least one of the islands, it appears extremely likely that the Chinese intend to use the artificial islands as support areas for the invasion of nearby islands held by other countries. The mobile artillery vehicles seen on the island are of little worth against enemy ships or aircraft, but could be used to shell troop positions on nearby islands. The presence of such vehicles on the island are likely more of a declaration of intent, as the warships and aircraft present in the area are much more capable combat platforms for the sort of warfare that would occur in the South China Sea.

Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter called for the Chinese to halt construction of the islands this week, stating that the United States would not respect illegitimate claims of territory in the South China Sea. Carter’s comments came after a US Navy P-8 Poseidon reconnaissance/anti-submarine aircraft flew over the Chinese held Fiery Cross Reef, now being converted into an island. Such a warning was clearly meant for China, despite claims from Washington that it was not aimed at any particular nation.

The South China Sea has been the subject of a long standing territorial dispute between the nations in the region, chiefly China, the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Vietnam. The Paracel and Spratly island chains in the South China Sea are suspected to be rich in natural resources and the sea itself serves as a major shipping route and fishing grounds. Lately, the Chinese, whose “nine dash line” claim on the area is by far the largest out of all the nations laying claim to the South China Sea, have begun to enforce their claims on the South China Sea by reclaiming land from the sea to create artificial islands. The artificial islands are created by means of dumping sand onto reefs and covering the sand with concrete. As the Chinese expanded into the South China Sea late, all the islands were claimed by other regional powers. The Chinese came up with a way around the deficiency; create their own islands. In 2012, the Chinese government saw control of the South China Sea as a vital element of foreign policy and decided to enforce their claims to the area. Previously, China and Vietnam had come to blows over the Paracel and Spratly islands twice in 1974 and 1988; the naval skirmishes resulted in China gaining control of the Paracel Islands and the Johnson South Reef near the Spratlys.

The Philippine government feels threatened by the construction of Chinese-controlled islands close to their shores, and has sought a ruling by the UN Tribunal on the Law of the Sea ruling in an attempt to stop China from building islands. However, the Chinese have rejected the Philippine’s government’s argument and have continued on with the island building program. Maintaining a permanent air base in the South China Sea, in addition to their existing carrier battle group, could allow for China to deny the strategically important area to American fleets as the US Pacific Fleet frequently travels through the South China Sea. This is troubling news, especially when taken with the recent reveal that China intends to develop a blue water navy capable of projecting power in the Pacific.

Though the Chinese claim that the building of artificial islands is completely lawful and justified as they do not target any particular country, American officials have cautioned against China upsetting the balance of power in the region, which has benefited all nations.

China Planning Navy Base In Djibouti?

The Chinese may be planning to build a permanent naval base in Djibouti, according to comments made by Djibouti President Ismail Omar Guelleh. Djibouti, stationed right on the African side of the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, is a strategically vital location for ensuring the safe passage of shipping in and out of the Red Sea. Thus far, the Chinese have not confirmed any such plan for a naval base in Djibouti, but Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying noted that:

“regional peace and stability serves the interests of all countries and meets the aspirations shared by China, Djibouti and other countries around the world. The Chinese side is ready and obliged to make more contributions to that end.”

China has routinely deployed warships to the Gulf of Aden to combat piracy, and may feel it is time to establish a more permanent presence on the African Indian Ocean coast. Significant deployments of PLAN ships include the 17th and 18th naval escort task-forces to escort cargo ships through the Gulf of Aden last year, and the 19th naval escort task-force deployed off of the coast of Somalia in December 2014, which was relieved by the 20th naval escort task-force in April 2015.

Currently, France, the United States, and Japan keep naval bases open in Djibouti, primarily for fighting piracy in the Gulf. The US base, known as Camp Lemonnier, also is the center of the drone airstrike campaign against Al-Qaeda in Yemen and Al-Shabaab in Somalia. Last year, China and Djbouti signed an agreement giving the Chinese access to Djbouti port, and China currently funds infrastructure projects in Djbouti’s neighbor Ethiopia.

The Bab-el-Mandeb Strait is of little direct concern to China, as they receive petroleum from the Middle East by way of the Strait of Malacca and Strait of Hormuz. Only 4% of China’s natural gas imports and 3% of their petroleum imports come through the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait. This move is no doubt going to worry the United States and especially India, where fears over attempted Chinese hegemony in the Indian Ocean is paramount in the minds of Indian military strategists. China’s Silk Road agreements are viewed by many in India as an attempt by China to attain dominance over the Indian Ocean, where the vast majority of petroleum and natural gas used by India, China, and Japan is shipped through. A Chinese base in Djibouti would also be of great use in Chinese intelligence gathering operations, as the Chinese can easily observe US, French, and Japanese actions in the Arabian Sea as well as the greater Middle East.

Putin and Kirchner’s “Trade” Talks (ENG & ESP)

Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner met with Russian President Vladimir Putin yesterday to start off bilateral trade talks. This most recent round of negotiations is set to commemorate the two countries’ 130th anniversary of diplomatic relations.

In the opening press conference, President Putin stated that while Argentina and Russia have shared a long diplomatic history, this meeting would serve to hash out remaining problems between the two nations. While there may not be any clear evidence of diplomatic conflict, these talks revolve around solving the decreasing influence of Russia in Argentina.

Due to increased relations between Kirchner and the Chinese, Russia has had to play catch-up to their regional ally. The Chinese have already secured a satellite-tracking base in the region, and Putin cannot risk losing such a historically strong partner in the Southern Hemisphere.

While Russian media portrays this meeting as one to increase food trade in order to ease the stress of international sanctions, the reality lies in more strategic opportunities. It has been reported that Argentina and Russia will sign agreements today involving not only trade, but military and energy cooperation as well.

Both Russian and Argentina have much to gain from increased relations. Russia is suffering from an embargo on perishable foods placed on it by Europe and the United States. As a result, Putin wishes to establish a deal which would send Argentine meat and dairy to Russia. In return, Putin is holding the opportunity of assistance in Argentina’s attempt to build another civilian-nuclear facility, named Atucha-III.

The possibility of military cooperation in these talks reflects both nations’ mentality when it comes to the West. This sort of cooperation proposed by Russia would see an increase in Russian arms sales to Argentina. Both nations have a certain level of hostility towards western powerbrokers, primarily the United States and Britain.

Putin believe that Britain is the real reason his country suffers from international sanctions, while Kirchner wants Britain to leave the Falkland Islands. This kind of mutual dislike towards Great Britain has led to an increase of British military personnel on the disputed territory. It has been rumored that Russia is ready to trade long-range bombers to the Argentine military in order to retake the oil rich islands.

Putin’s Russia has long held “polite animosity” towards the United States, essentially returning their diplomatic mentality to cold war posture. Putin has seen any opportunity to defy Western “imperialism” as an important step in fostering strong ties with various leftist governments in Latin America. As a result, Russia has supported Kirchner’s fight against American investors’ vulture funds throughout the region.

Putin’s ambitions are well known and an increase in Russian influence in Argentina should not be overlooked. With the developing ties in Argentina, as well as the existing strong ties with the regimes in Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua, Putin is slowly building a formidable presence in the United States’ back yard.

 

La presidenta argentina, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, se reunió con el presidente ruso, Vladimir Putin, ayer para comenzar negociaciones comerciales bilaterales. Esta última ronda de negociaciones fue establecido para conmemorar 130 años de relaciones diplomáticas entre los dos países.

En la primera conferencia de prensa, el presidente Putin declaró que Argentina y Rusia han compartido una fuerte historia diplomática, pero esta reunión servirían para discutir problemas pendientes entre las dos naciones. Aunque puede que no haya ninguna evidencia clara de un conflicto diplomático, estas conversaciones se enfocan en la resolución de la caída de la influencia de Rusia en Argentina.

Debido al aumento de las relaciones entre Kirchner y los chinos, Rusia ha tenido que igualar con rapidez a su aliado regional. Los chinos ya han asegurado una base militar/satélite en la región, y Putin no puede correr el riesgo de perder un aliado tan históricamente fuerte en el Hemisferio Sur.

Mientras que los medios ruso representa esta reunión como uno para aumentar el comercio de alimentos con el fin de aliviar el estrés de las sanciones internacionales, la realidad se encuentra en las oportunidades más estratégicas. Se ha reportado de que la Argentina y Rusia firmarán acuerdos hoy día sobre no sólo el comercio, sino la cooperación militar y la energía también.

Tanto Rusia y Argentina tienen mucho que ganar con el aumento de las relaciones. Rusia está sufriendo de un embargo sobre los alimentos que fue implementado por Europa y los Estados Unidos. Como resultado, Putin quiere establecer un acuerdo que enviaría carne y productos lácteos de Argentina a Rusia. A cambio, Putin está sosteniendo la posibilidad de ayudar en el intento de Argentina de construir otra instalación civil nuclear, llamado Atucha-III.

La posibilidad de la cooperación militar en estas conversaciones refleja la mentalidad de ambas naciones cuando se trata del Occidente. Este tipo de cooperación propuesto por Rusia vería un aumento en las ventas de armas rusas a Argentina. Los dos naciones tienen un cierto nivel de hostilidad hacia los agentes del poder occidentales, principalmente los Estados Unidos y Gran Bretaña.

Putin cree que Gran Bretaña es la verdadera razón por que su país sufre de sanciones internacionales, mientras que Kirchner quiere que Bretaña debe abandonar las Islas Malvinas. Este tipo de aversión mutua hacia Gran Bretaña ha dado lugar a un aumento del personal militar británico en el territorio disputado. Se ha rumoreado que Rusia está dispuesta a intercambiar bombarderos de largo alcance a los militares argentinos con el fin de retomar las islas, que son fértiles del petróleo.

La Rusia de Putin se ha sostenido durante mucho tiempo “animosidad amable” hacia los Estados Unidos, básicamente volviendo a la mentalidad diplomática de la guerra fría. Putin ve todas las oportunidades para desafiar el “imperialismo” occidental como un paso importante en el fomento de fuertes vínculos con varios gobiernos de izquierda en América Latina. Como resultado, Rusia ha apoyado la lucha de Kirchner contra los fondos buitres de los inversores estadounidenses en toda la region.

Las ambiciones de Putin son bien conocidos y el aumento de la influencia rusa en la Argentina no se debe dejar sola sin hacer nada. Con los relaciones en desarrollo en Argentina, así como los fuertes lazos existentes con los régimen en Venezuela, Cuba y Nicaragua, Putin está construyendo lentamente una formidable presencia en el patio de los Estados Unidos.