11 September 2019

What’s Next for India-Japan Defense Relations?

By Rajeswari Pillai Rajagopalan

India’s Defense Minister Rajnath Singh is on a five-nation East Asian tour, starting with Japan, one of India’s increasingly important strategic partners. India’s ties with Japan have grown tremendously in the last decade, though there are still many areas that remain untapped in this relationship.

In Tokyo, Singh co-chaired the annual Defense Ministerial Dialogue with his Japanese counterpart Takeshi Iwaya, and his trip had several other interactions as well including a call with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Concerns about the strategic consequences of a rising China in the Indo-Pacific is providing greater momentum to the India-Japan partnership. This annual ministerial dialogue is one more platform for strengthening the defense and security bonds between the two countries.

After Trump Calls Off Talks, Afghanistan Braces for Violence

By David E. Sanger and Mujib Mashal

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s decision to break off peace talks with the Taliban, at least for now, left Afghanistan bracing for a bloody prelude to national elections this month, while the administration declined on Sunday to rule out a withdrawal of American troops without a peace accord.

In a round of television interviews, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo blamed an attack by the Taliban for the cancellation of talks at Camp David this weekend that the administration had expected would lead to the signing of a peace agreement.

Mr. Pompeo said that the Taliban had “tried to gain negotiating advantage by conducting terror attacks inside the country,’’ resulting in the death of an American soldier in Kabul. “We’re going to walk away from a deal if others try to use violence to achieve better ends in a negotiation,’’ he said.

But after abruptly scrapping a diplomatic process that appeared to be inching toward a conclusion, it was unclear where Mr. Trump would go from here.

More Americans will die after Trump abruptly ends Afghan talks, Taliban say

Abdul Qadir Sediqi, Doina Chiacu

KABUL/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump’s decision to cancel Afghan peace talks will cost more American lives, the Taliban said on Sunday while the United States promised to keep up military pressure on the militants, in a stunning reversal of efforts to forge a deal ending nearly 20 years of war in Afghanistan.

The Islamist group issued a statement after Trump unexpectedly canceled secret talks planned for Sunday with the Taliban’s major leaders at the presidential compound in Camp David, Maryland. He broke off the talks on Saturday after the Taliban claimed responsibility for an attack in Kabul last week that killed an American soldier and 11 others.

Zabihullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, criticized Trump for calling off the dialogue and said U.S. forces have been pounding Afghanistan with attacks at the same time.

“This will lead to more losses to the U.S.,” he said. “Its credibility will be affected, its anti-peace stance will be exposed to the world, losses to lives and assets will increase.”

In Washington, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that Afghan peace talks were on hold and Washington would not reduce U.S. military support for Afghan troops until it was convinced the Taliban could follow through on significant commitments.

Does America have a moral imperative to stay in Afghanistan forever?

Damon Linker

After 18 years of waging war in Afghanistan, the Trump administration is attempting to pull back. But critics have responded with outrage. What's the point of trying to reach a deal with the execrable Taliban? How can we contemplate abandoning the Afghan government when the country could be plunged into civil war or worse?

The implication of these objections is clear: Eighteen years has been insufficient. The U.S. should be willing to guarantee Afghan security and stability — including playing Whack-a-Mole with Taliban insurgents — with no end in sight. Anything less than such an open-ended commitment is tantamount to a surrender — and surrendering to America's enemies should be considered unacceptable, no matter the cost in blood and treasure.

There's just one problem with this line of reasoning: It's based entirely on a single false premise, one that has helped to justify every American military intervention since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

To understand it, let's start with Afghanistan. If we define American interests narrowly, to involve defending the American homeland from attack and the country's most vital strategic relationships with its allies and trading partners from interference by rivals and adversaries, the case for staying in Afghanistan is incredibly weak. The country is poor, feeble, on the other side of the planet, and no longer serving as a base of operations for terrorists with the capacity to launch international attacks. Even with significantly fewer troops in the country, the U.S. military will retain the capacity to strike quickly and decisively against any terrorist groups with international ambitions that seek to re-establish themselves.

Taliban Talks Hit a Wall Over Deeper Disagreements, Officials Say

By Mujib Mashal

KABUL, Afghanistan — Even as President Trump blamed a recent Taliban attack for his decision to call off nearly yearlong negotiations with the insurgents, officials suggested on Sunday it had more to do with the Taliban’s resistance to the American terms for a peace deal, and a rushed plan for a Camp David summit meeting.

Talks that once seemed on the verge of a breakthrough had hit a wall over how the deal should be finalized and announced, they said.

With the president himself showing more engagement in the talks in recent weeks after boiling criticism of a deal that was finalized “in principle,” the Trump administration had set in motion a daring gambit: Fly the insurgents’ leaders and the Afghan leader, Ashraf Ghani, to American soil.

Trump cancels secret US meeting with Afghan Taliban

US President Donald Trump says he has called off peace negotiations with the Taliban that sought to end America's 18-year war in Afghanistan.

Mr Trump tweeted he had been set to meet Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and senior Taliban leaders on Sunday.

But he cancelled the secret meeting at his Camp David retreat after the militants admitted they were behind a recent attack that killed a US soldier.

The Taliban said Americans will "lose the most" for cancelling.

The talks were due to take place a few days before the anniversary of 9/11.

The US invaded Afghanistan and overthrew the Taliban government in the autumn of 2001, because the militants had given safe haven to the al-Qaeda network to plan the attacks on the US on 11 September.

What Happens if Rohingya Stay in Bangladesh Forever?

Joshua Kurlantzick

Earlier this month, the Myanmar government embarked upon a new plan to begin repatriating Rohingya who had fled Rakhine State after waves of brutal violence there. It was the second time Naypyidaw tried to begin the repatriation process—the first attempt was in November—and this time the Myanmar government reportedly had approved some three thousand Rohingya to return, with the backing of Bangladesh for this action. None apparently voluntarily took up the offer, instead fleeing back to the camps in Bangladesh or hiding out.

That Rohingya would not want to return to Myanmar is hardly surprising. It has been only two years since the deadliest wave of violence against them in Rakhine State. Rakhine State, where most Rohingya in Myanmar live, remains a violent and unstable place.

In recent months, violence in Rakhine State has been rising again, as the army battles the ethnic Rakhine Arakan Army. The military has resorted to its usual scorched earth tactics in response, and the UN’s human rights office has accused the Tatmadaw of launching attacks against civilians in this fighting. Amnesty International has further issued a report claiming that the Myanmar military is committing new atrocities in Rakhine State, against both ethnic Rakhine and Rohingya—including extrajudicial executions.

What Happens if Rohingya Stay in Bangladesh Forever?

by Joshua Kurlantzick
Source Link

Earlier this month, the Myanmar government embarked upon a new plan to begin repatriating Rohingya who had fled Rakhine State after waves of brutal violence there. It was the second time Naypyidaw tried to begin the repatriation process—the first attempt was in November—and this time the Myanmar government reportedly had approved some three thousand Rohingya to return, with the backing of Bangladesh for this action. None apparently voluntarily took up the offer, instead fleeing back to the camps in Bangladesh or hiding out.

That Rohingya would not want to return to Myanmar is hardly surprising. It has been only two years since the deadliest wave of violence against them in Rakhine State. Rakhine State, where most Rohingya in Myanmar live, remains a violent and unstable place.

U.S.-China Trade War and the Fourth Industrial Revolution

By Jin Kai

A new era is dawning, presaged by dark clouds between the world’s two leading economies.

The first industrial revolution, which commenced in the second half of the 18th century, was driven in large part by technological innovation — the steam engine. It was a prelude to the “machine age” which unfurled the rule of capitalism, driven by Britain, to the whole world. A century later, the second industrial revolution began. The late 19th century marked the beginning of the “electronic age,” during which the old capitalist countries entered a stage of imperialism. The era witnessed later the fall of Britain and the rise of the United States. The third industrial revolution started after World War II and significantly led human society into the “information age” with computing technology, biotechnology, and information technology. The United States has been an almost unchallenged world leader in both technological innovation and political, economic, and military predominance since.

These industrial revolutions profoundly changed the political and economic landscapes of the world several times by significantly altering the productivity and production relations in and among countries, be they close or far to the core of the revolution. Out of all the impacts and consequences brought by the previous industrial revolutions, there were, of course, large-scale wars among major powers, be they hot or cold. These industrial revolutions ultimately changed the way we perceive, live, and act.

China and the United States: Cooperation, Competition, and/or Conflict

By Anthony H. Cordesman

This report is a major update to an experimental net assessment that addresses China's emergence as a global superpower, and its competition with the United States. The report is entitled China and the U.S.: Cooperation, Competition and/or Conflict. The entire report, and the report is available on the CSIS web site in several forms:

Key sections are available on the CSIS web site in PDF form by clicking on each section title below. The size of some of these PowerPoints may present problems for some IT systems, but quick comparisons of different Chinese and U.S. policy statements and assessments, and of the graphics and data that summarize the trends and issues involved are only possible if PowerPoint is used. The PDF versions are smaller but make it far more difficult to quickly compare a broad range of different trends.

A PDF version of the full report is available here. This document allows the user to skim through comparisons of all the net assessment’s different sections, but the assessment’s length and the PDF format make it difficult to explore given issues in detail.

Who’s Afraid of Huawei? Understanding the 5G Security Concerns

Emily Taylor

Emily Taylor examines the controversy around the Chinese tech giant’s mobile broadband equipment and the different approaches taken by Western countries.

As countries move towards the fifth generation of mobile broadband, 5G, the United States has been loudly calling out Huawei as a security threat. It has employed alarmist rhetoric and threatened to limit trade and intelligence sharing with close allies that use Huawei in their 5G infrastructure.

While some countries such as Australia have adopted a hard line against Huawei, others like the UK have been more circumspect, arguing that the risks of using the firm’s technology can be mitigated without forgoing the benefits.

So, who is right, and why have these close allies taken such different approaches?

The risks

Long-standing concerns relating to Huawei are plausible. There are credible allegations that it has benefitted from stolen intellectual property, and that it could not thrive without a close relationship with the Chinese state.

China needs ‘five to 10 years’ to catch up in semiconductors, Peking University professor Zhou Zhiping says

Jane Zhang

Semiconductors represent the cornerstone technology of the information age. These tiny devices power the world’s modern economies by serving as the data-processing brains in a wide range of products, from personal computers and smartphones to cars and spacecraft.

Growing trade tensions with the US, however, has exposed the soft underbelly of China’s technological ambitions. Despite hefty investments in the semiconductor industry over the years, China remains dependent on the US for high-end integrated circuits. The country’s annual chip imports have surpassed that of crude oil in recent years to reach US$312 billion in 2018.

Zhou Zhiping, a Peking University professor of microelectronics, spoke to the South China Morning Post on the sidelines of the Smart China Expo held last month in the southwestern city of Chongqing. Zhou was a founder and vice-president of production of the Hengnan Transistor Factory in China from 1970 to 1978 and a guest scientist at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the US from 1987 to 1989. He is a fellow of SPIE, a professional society for optics and photonics technology, and senior member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, among his major affiliations.

Double Trouble

On Sunday, Hezbollah fired anti-tank missiles against the Israeli military, the first incident of its kind since the 2006 war between the two sides. This followed an Israeli drone attack a week earlier on a building housing Hezbollah’s media center in Beirut’s southern suburbs. It was later suggested that Israel had targeted an industrial mixer necessary for the production of propellant for missiles.

In the aftermath of the attacks, Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah announced that Hezbollah would retaliate from Lebanese territory for the drone attack. After the party did so on Sunday, both sides could claim success. The Israelis for having purportedly destroyed equipment critical for Hezbollah’s missile manufacturing capacity, Hezbollah for having reaffirmed its deterrence capabilities. Even as both sides scored points with their constituencies, neither seems to want a war. There are several reasons contributing to this.

The escalation needs to be seen in light of the broader regional standoff between Iran and the United States. It is becoming increasingly clear that while the United States has used sanctions to tighten the economic and financial noose around Iran, Israel has been tasked with upping the ante on the military front. In light of this, Hezbollah viewed retaliation for the drone attack as necessary to deter Israel’s efforts to change the rules of engagement with the party, whom the Israelis have accused of manufacturing precision missiles. Therefore, even as they fired on each other, both sides were focused mainly on defining the parameters of their future confrontation, not on mobilizing for a major conflict—at least for now.

Visualizing Brexit: A Flowchart

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson will ask the House of Commons on Sept. 9 to authorize an early general election. Two-thirds of the members of the Commons must agree with Johnson to hold a snap election, which means that his Conservative Party needs to persuade members of the main opposition party, Labour, to back the proposal.

Labour is internally divided on whether, and when, to hold the vote. Some Labour members believe that an election should take place before a European Council summit on Oct. 17 so that a new government can be appointed and negotiate a deal with the European Union. But others fear that an election before the summit could result in a hard-line government that refuses to ask the European Union for a Brexit delay if there is not a deal, precipitating a hard Brexit. The latter group believes that by delaying an early election it can pressure Johnson to ask the European Union for a Brexit extension, under the threat of holding a no-confidence motion and appointing a new prime minister if he doesn't.

Europe Marvels as Britain Convulses Over Brexit


What on Earth happened to you, Britain? That is, in effect, the question being posed in many different languages as the Continent observes the goings-on in London with perplexity and growing distress. What is Boris Johnson doing? What is the state of play of Brexit? And really: Why, Britain, why?

For more than three years, Britain has been engaged in internecine political battles over its withdrawal from the European Union. Throughout that time, onlookers in Paris, Rome, Berlin, and elsewhere across Europe have marveled at how a country that once seemed from across the channel to be the pinnacle of competence, understatement, and musn’t-grumble consensus had become deadlocked over the best way to sever itself from Europe.

“Maybe it’s already a done deal. No doubt it’s pretty late to tell you this, but because I simply don’t want to believe it, it’s with crazy hope that I just want to say: Don’t leave us! Don’t do it!” Bernard Guetta, a newly elected member of the European Parliament, wrote in a cri de coeur in Le Monde. He continued: “In war and peace, we have shared a destiny for two thousand years, and today you want to cut your roots, to amputate us from you and you from your Europeanness at the very moment when our unity and our common institutions have finally allowed all of us Europeans—you and us—to live without killing each other.”

The U.S.-Taliban Negotiations: A Deadly Qatari Trap

by Yigal Carmon

One can understand President Donald Trump’s wish to leave Afghanistan. There are, however, ways to leave without losing people, respect, and allies. Mr. Trump, instead of leaving unilaterally, while reinforcing the democratically elected government in Kabul without boots on the ground, is unfortunately empowering his Taliban enemy by protracted negotiations, where America makes successive concessions and ultimately throws its Afghan allies under the bus.

Afghan officials are the first to sense that the sellout of the Kabul government is impending, and are scurrying to defect to the Taliban (in July alone there were 800 defections).

As opposed to what many Americans think, Qatar did the US no favors in building the base in the mid-1990s. It needed an American base for its own self-protection and this dependence still persists. Without this base, this Lilliputian energy Gulliver would be taken over by its neighbors (whether Iranian or Saudi) within a day. The US military establishment ignores this reality to its own detriment, and behaves as if America is in Qatar’s debt rather than the reverse.

Human Rights in a Shifting Landscape: Recommendations for Congress

Human Rights are part of the American DNA. Congress has long advocated for human rights to play an integral role in U.S. foreign policy, with significant success. However, rising authoritarianism and the gross human rights violations taking place around the world call for immediate and stronger U.S. leadership and Congressional action. To that end, the Human Rights Initiative of CSIS worked with CSIS scholars, who developed recommendations relevant to their expertise that identify how Congress can build on its past human rights leadership to meet today’s challenges.

This report is made possible through general support to CSIS. No direct sponsorship has contributed to its publication.

Trump says peace talks with Taliban are now ‘dead’


WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. peace talks with the Taliban are now “dead,” President Donald Trump declared Monday, two days after he abruptly canceled a secret meeting he had arranged with Taliban and Afghan leaders aimed at ending America’s longest war.

Trump’s remark to reporters at the White House suggested he sees no point in resuming a nearly yearlong effort to reach a political settlement with the Taliban, whose protection of al-Qaida extremists in Afghanistan prompted the U.S. to invade after the 9/11 attacks.

Asked about the peace talks, Trump said: “They’re dead. They’re dead. As far as I’m concerned, they’re dead.”

It’s unclear whether Trump will go ahead with planned U.S. troop cuts and how the collapse of his talks will play out in deeply divided Afghanistan.

Trump said his administration is “looking at” whether to proceed with troop reductions that had been one element of the preliminary deal with the Taliban struck by presidential envoy Zalmay Khalilzad.

Donald Trump pulls out of Afghan peace talks with the Taliban

IN THREE SHORT messages sent as Kabul slept, President Donald Trump has upended more than a year of painstaking American negotiation with the insurgents of the Taliban, who have been fighting to overthrow the American-backed government in Afghanistan for 18 years. Mr Trump revealed that senior Taliban leaders had been due to meet him on Sunday at Camp David, the president’s country estate. But that had been arranged before a Taliban suicide-bomb attack in Kabul on September 5th that killed an American soldier along with 11 others.

“I immediately cancelled the meeting and called off peace negotiations,” Mr Trump tweeted. “What kind of people would kill so many in order to seemingly strengthen their bargaining position?” He carried on: “If they cannot agree to a ceasefire during these very important peace talks, and would even kill 12 innocent people, then they probably don’t have the power to negotiate a meaningful agreement anyway.”

In Her U.S. Open Victory, Bianca Andreescu Shows the Swagger That Serena Williams Brought to Women’s Tennis

By Louisa Thomas

Back in March, after losing to Bianca Andreescu in the third round of the Miami Open, and only a few days after losing to her in the final of Indian Wells, Angelique Kerber approached the net for the traditional post-match handshake with a grim look and a message. “You’re the biggest drama queen ever,” she said to the Canadian, who was then eighteen, pointedly looking away as they shook hands. Kerber, who is known as one of the nicer players on tour, was irritated by a medical time-out that Andreescu had taken after the first set, to deal with an injured shoulder; no doubt Kerber was also angry about losing to her twice in one week. Before 2019, Andreescu was mostly unknown. She began the year ranked No. 152 in the world. But, ever since, she has defeated some of the best players in the world, demonstrating a stunning array of skills—flat, deep ground strokes topping out at close to ninety miles per hour; moony topspin shots designed to disrupt the rhythm of her opponent; nasty skidding slices and delicate drop shots—and the intelligence, imagination, and audacity to use them effectively. She exposed Kerber’s defense-minded game, which Kerber has used to win three grand slams, as one-dimensional. More than that, though, she showed self-assurance—the kind of competitive intensity and unapologetic swagger usually reserved for a few legends of the game. She carried herself more like Serena Williams than like what she was: a teen-ager with a wild card.

The German Economy Is Running Out of Options

By Ryan Bridges
Source Link

It’s crunch time for Germany and the European Central Bank. For close to a decade, the ECB has been cutting interest rates while urging member states that have funds for fiscal stimulus (read: Germany) to use them. The ECB grew increasingly desperate to stimulate the eurozone economy and raise inflation, and in 2015, it finally introduced its asset purchases program. It continued to urge the German government to act in order to support growth throughout the bloc, and Germany continued to refuse. From Berlin, things didn’t look so bad. The ECB’s easy money kept the value of the euro down, which gave a boost to German exports and the German budget, practically without Berlin having to lift a finger. Until the second half of 2018, the German economy was riding high, even as German politicians and bankers lamented the effect that the ECB’s low interest rates were having on German savers and bank profits.

Why North Korea Denuclearization Is Such a Long Shot

North Korea denuclearization efforts have been at the forefront of the international agenda for more than two years, but there is little progress so far. Critics say the Trump administration has a flawed approach to the negotiations—and the U.S. trade war with China isn't helping. Meanwhile, North Koreans continue to suffer.

Ending North Korea’s nuclearization efforts has been at the forefront of the international agenda for more than two years now. But despite improved relations between North and South Korea and two unprecedented face-to-face meetings between U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, there has been no clear progress toward North Korea denuclearization.

Is Asia Ready for an Indo-Russian Order?

By Carl Jaison

In the context of the recent India-Russia annual summit in Vladivostok, there were some underlying interests between the two countries that seemed conspicuous. Firstly, India and Russia find themselves with very few political issues between them, a rare foreign policy relationship that has stood the test of time. Recently, India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar pointed to the fact that the India-Russia relationship has remained a relatively stable factor in international relations, more so than any other significant relationship since the heydays of the Cold War.

Secondly, both countries are building on the economic dimension of their partnership, evidenced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s participation as the chief guest in the Eastern Economic Forum to boost Indian investments and business in Russia’s Far East. There is an increasing recognition that the economic relationship can move beyond its current one-dimensional nature based on New Delhi’s reliance on defense imports from Moscow.

European Strategic Autonomy and the US

Jack Thompson
Source Link

Jack Thompson writes that, historically, the United States has been wary of initiatives designed to bolster Europe’s strategic autonomy. Further, even now, the Trump administration is working to undermine it. Yet in the long run, European strategic autonomy could form an indispensable component of a constructive transatlantic relationship.

Intelligence Official: U.S. not prepared to defend against hybrid warfare, a favorite of Russia and China

by Andy Wolf

Senior intelligence officials are warning the U.S. military that it should adapt to dealing with hybrid warfare- a personal favorite 21st Century strategy of adversaries such as Russia and China.

Army Lt. Gen. Karen Gibson, the Deputy Director of National Intelligence for National Security Partnerships, discussed the matter earlier this week in Virginia, addressing the multi-spectrum nature of hybrid warfare.

For those not “in the know,” hybrid warfare utilizes more than brute force but often has more pull than insurgency. Utilizing irregular (proxy) troops, conventional forces, disinformation campaigns, and cyber warfare, hybrid wars are just as much a fight for minds as it is for territory- and the goal is to fire as few shots as possible.

One masterful expert of hybrid warfare is Russia, who utilized the tactic to make significant strides in Georgia and Ukraine.

China, to a lesser extent, has also experimented with hybrid warfare in the South China Sea, though simply creating islands is somewhat of a different example.

What Economists Still Need to Learn


More than a decade after the global financial crisis, macroeconomists have failed to absorb three crucial sets of lessons. Their models are still struggling – and mostly failing – to cope with disruptive change, and with the fact that both balance sheets and inequality matter.

AMSTERDAM – Macroeconomics was one of the casualties of the 2008 global financial crisis. Conventional macroeconomic models failed to predict the calamity or to provide a coherent explanation for it, and thus were unable to offer guidance on how to repair the damage. Despite this, much of the profession remains in denial, hankering for a return to “normal” and in effect treating the crisis as just a rude interruption.

That needs to change. Although an economic recovery has taken root, its structural fragilities suggest that macroeconomics is still in pressing need of an overhaul. Three sets of lessons from the past decade stand out.

Government attempts to find 'middle ground' with tech giants over encrypted messages

James Cook

The government is hoping to find a "middle ground" over the use of encrypted messages, a senior civil servant has said.

Sarah Connelly, the government’s director for security and online harms, told a House of Lords committee on Tuesday that the government supported the availability of encrypted messaging services.

However, the government is hoping to meet with technology firms to find a way to carry on identifying abusive content.

"The idea is that we wouldn’t require eyes on on the content but we would require user complaints," she said of encrypted messages sent through WhatsApp.

Advances in 3D Printing Technology: Increasing Biological Weapon Proliferation Risks?

By Kolja Brockmann
Source Link

The states parties to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC) gathered in Geneva from 29 July to 8 August for a series of Meetings of Experts. Among other topics, states reviewed scientific and technological developments that impact the objectives of the treaty. Additive manufacturing (AM)—also referred to as 3D printing—is one of the technologies that is starting to receive attention, next to more well-known biotechnologies and genetic engineering techniques. Advances in AM have been met with concerns over its potential to facilitate the development, production, delivery and thus proliferation of biological weapons—and have highlighted the potential role of export controls in reducing these risks.

Concerns with this technology are therefore shared by the Australia Group (AG), a multilateral governance body that rarely interacts with the BWC. The AG’s relationship with the BWC has been controversial due to its exclusive membership and the alleged impact of export controls on the sharing of technology. Nevertheless, the AG has effectively set the standard for controls on the trade in relevant goods and key biotechnologies—with many non-members adopting the group’s control lists in their own export control systems.

AM and bioprinting

The True Toll of the Trade War


CHICAGO – Another day, another attack on trade. Why is it that every dispute – whether over intellectual property (IP), immigration, environmental damage, or war reparations – now produces new threats to trade? 1

For much of the last century, the United States managed and protected the rules-based trading system it created at the end of World War II. That system required a fundamental break from the pre-war environment of mutual suspicion between competing powers. The US urged everyone to see that growth and development for one country could benefit all countries through increased trade and investment.

Under the new dispensation, rules were enacted to constrain selfish behavior and coercive threats by the economically powerful. The US served as a benevolent hegemon, administering the occasional rap on the knuckles to those acting in bad faith. Meanwhile, the system’s multilateral institutions, especially the International Monetary Fund, helped countries in dire need of funds, provided they followed the rules.1

U.S. Army Paratroopers receives next gen tactical communication equipment

U.S. Army Paratroopers assigned to the 173rd Airborne Brigade has received of its newest high-speed and high-capacity Point of Presence (PoP) and Soldier Network Extension (SNE), or PoP/SNE, tactical communication equipment.

The new equipment is the first integrated group of networked technologies – radios, sensors and associated equipment and software – that will deliver an integrated voice and data capability throughout the entire Brigade Combat Team formation, from the brigade commander to the dismounted soldier.

Currently, the Army not only reducing system complexity and increases the reliability of many of its legacy core on-the-move vehicle integrations, but it also reduces the size, weight, and power to make them more expeditionary.

The vehicles equipped with the latest Army’s tactical communication equipment will provide soldiers and commanders with mobile networking, or mission command on the move, allowing them to take valuable network capability with them as they maneuver around the battlefield.