India and the NSG: Are the Outliers Justified in their Opposition?

3 June 2016
Abhijit Iyer Mitra
Visiting Fellow, IPCS
While China’s opposition to India’s NSG membership is considered the main stumbling block, there is a powerful set of smaller countries perceived variously as “problem states” or as “Chinese fronts” in New Delhi. These include Austria, New Zealand and Ireland. Their opposition to India’s membership is neatly aggregated in an article this week by Daryl G Kimball titled “Obama’s India Nuclear Blind Spot.” The question this raises is: are India’s concerns misplaced?
While Kimball’s article is a masterpiece of vacuous activist rhetoric, with esoteric concerns that are impossible to translate into policy, the outliers seem to have a “clear” set of demands. These include India’s signature on the FMCT, CTBT, speeding up the civil-military separation plan and “clear commitments” to NPT articles I (preventing the transfer of weapons materials) and article VI (a commitment to nuclear zero).

On the face of it, these seem perfectly reasonable demands till you start dissecting them. The first issue is that of process and hiding behind this so called “process.” The line that is floated is, “What happens in the NSG stays in the NSG.” That is to say the NSG will first have to reach consensus within before it offers membership to India. Per se this is not an unreasonable argument till it is considered that discussions have been going on for the better part of 2 years without even so much as cursory movement beyond posturing. When Indian diplomats approach Austria, Ireland or New Zealand and say, “Tell us what specific concerns you have, and let us work with you” - the answer is, “We have to work this out within the NSG first,” followed by a stock standard regurgitation of “sign FMCT, CTBT etc.” This then becomes a classic case of chicken and egg – where India is accused of not doing enough to allay concerns but at the same time specific alleviation measures are not negotiated bilaterally to allay specific concerns of specific countries. It is little surprise then that India considers these countries as being thoroughly disingenuous if not outright hypocritical.
Why hypocritical? Consider this – the FMCT is not even a treaty to begin with, bogged down as it is in negotiations. India, if it enacts legal measures to cut off production and have its NSG membership linked to this, would be in a constrained position that no other member of the NSG would be in till such time as the FMCT is ready, signed and ratified. Take another member state – China - which at best has a voluntary, unenforceable and unverifiable fissile material production cut-off declaration. This declaration is even less concrete than India’s voluntary moratorium on nuclear weapons testing, which is anyway impossible to hide given the high sensitivity of seismic monitoring stations. China though has signed the CTBT but has not ratified it. Yet again India’s requests to talk through India-specific measures to allay concerns have been met with the stock standard generic, “We will first achieve consensus at the NSG before we talk to you.”

Nuke Street Why China is Using NPT to Block India's Entry into the NSG

27 May 2016
Sheel Kant Sharma
Former Permanent Representative of India to the UN Office in Vienna & the IAEA
There is unusual and shocking stridence in China's very vocal stand, and its timing, demanding adherence to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as the criterion for India's membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group. Such insistence on being party to NPT as condition is just a foil to China's opposition to India's NSG entry. Are the roots of China's opposition geopolitical?
NSG's objectives in regard to non-proliferation are met by India's consistent policies and practices conforming to global export control norms, non-proliferation goals and nuclear disarmament. The exemption granted to India by the NSG in 2008 was in recognition of India's record, commitment and responsible behaviour.
Over the past decade or so since that exemption was given, nothing has been done that should give rise to any doubts about India's commitments and performance as a recipient of nuclear transfers to meet its mounting energy needs.
As the US qualified in its 'food for thought' paper before the NSG in 2011, adherence to NPT was one of the factors for consideration but not mandatory for entry to NSG which in the US view rested on a combination of several factors.
These factors add up to the overall impact of a country's policy and practice in support of global non-proliferation goals. US has since categorically stated at the highest level that it considers India as meeting the requirement to join the NSG as a member.

China and the NSG
China's association with NSG is comparatively recent. It was neither the founder nor shaper of the evolution of NSG. Nor for that matter has China been a long time standard bearer for the NPT. It began moving towards NPT in measured steps in the mid-nineteen eighties when it needed to import nuclear technology for power in the hay day of Sino-American bonhomie.
The Safeguards Agreement that China signed with the IAEA in 1988, INFCIRC/369, was a voluntary offer agreement along the lines of those done by the other P5 states i.e. nuclear weapon states.
However, in contrast with other P5, China makes no mention of NPT in INFCIRC/369.

US On China: Cooperate Where We Can, Confront Where We Must

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/06/us-on-china-cooperate-where-we-can-confront-where-we-must/?utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=30263248&_hsenc=p2ANqtz--AY5x2lVbeg7lOSDtfO5Bcxd4G6dUsIu1VJhUTflety18YV2sZBGTGz29DjV_Wkexiu53NX6Urm_jhsLRvKlTgd8nCfA&_hsmi=30263248
By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. on June 04, 2016
SINGAPORE: In his speech to the Shangri-La Dialogue here, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter laid out a cautious and carefully crafted vision for security in Asia. Carter called for an “inclusive (and) principled security network,” one that would try to include China and encourage it to abide by international law, rather than seeking to confront and isolate it.
The secretary did warn China against “provocative and destabilizing” actions, notably such as building artificial islands in the Scarborough Shoal off the Philippines. But he and other Pentagon leaders here also took pains to emphasize positives, such as China’s participation in the 27-nation Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercises.

“Some of China’s behavior is having the effect of self-exclusion on their part,” Carter told reporters this afternoon, “(but) we hope that every country, including China, chooses to be part of the network and not to exclude themselves.”
“We’ve seen positive behavior in the last several months with China,” added Admiral Harry Harris, the head of the Pacific Command, not once to mince words on Chinese behavior. “Every now and then we’ll see an incident in the air that we may judge to be unsafe, but those are really, over the course of time, rare (and the two militaries meet) to work through these incidents.”
“We have a set of rules by which we have agreed to behave together, (CUES), the Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea,” agreed Adm. Jonathan Richardson, Chief of Naval Operations. “More and more of our encounters are completely consistent with that code: They are routine, safe, and professional, (although) every now and then we’ve got an outlier.”
That said, “we want to cooperate with China in all domains as much as possible… but we have to confront them if we must,” Harris warned. “I would rather we didn’t have to.”




Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member states.

Keep Troop Levels Steady in Afghanistan

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/keep-troop-levels-steady-afghanistan-16450?page=show

An open letter to the president.

Open Letter

Washington, DC, June 3, 2016

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing, as Americans committed to the success of our country’s Afghanistan mission, to urge that you sustain the current level of U.S. forces in Afghanistan through the remainder of your term. Aid levels and diplomatic energies should similarly be preserved without reduction. Unless emergency conditions require consideration of a modest increase, we would strongly favor a freeze at the level of roughly ten thousand U.S. troops through January 20. This approach would also allow your successor to assess the situation for herself or himself and make further adjustments accordingly.

The broader Middle East is roiled in conflicts that pit moderate and progressive forces against those of violent extremists. As we saw on 9/11 and in the recent attacks in Paris, San Bernardino and Brussels, the problems of the Middle East do not remain contained within the Middle East. Afghanistan is the place where Al Qaeda and affiliates first planned the 9/11 attacks and a place where they continue to operate—and is thus important in the broader effort to defeat the global extremist movement today. It is a place where Al Qaeda and ISIS still have modest footprints that could be expanded if a security vacuum developed. If Afghanistan were to revert to the chaos of the 1990s, millions of refugees would again seek shelter in neighboring countries and overseas, dramatically intensifying the severe challenges already faced in Europe and beyond.

In the long-term struggle against violent extremists, the United States above all needs allies—not only to fight a common enemy, but also to create a positive vision for the peoples of the region. Today, aided by the bipartisan policies of the last two U.S. administrations, Afghans have established a democratic political system, moderately effective security forces, a much improved quality of life, and a vibrant civil society. Afghans are fighting and dying for their country, and in our common battle against extremism, with more than five thousand police and soldiers laying down their lives annually each of the past several years.

What China Learned from America's Biggest World War Two Naval Victory

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/what-china-learned-americas-biggest-world-war-two-naval-16452?page=show

The Battle of Midway: The PLA Navy uses American strategies as a blueprint for future success.

Lyle J. Goldstein, June 3, 2016

China’s aircraft carrier program is maturing. The first photos have now emerged that show Liaoning operating with a decent clutch of J-15 fighters, as well as helicopters on deck. The aircraft are now painted in telltale battle gray, rather than the yellow used with the initial prototype aircraft. It is difficult to tell for sure, but one may assume that the testing and training regimen has been intense. True enough, the Liaoning was bought from Ukraine and it is, unlike American “big decks,” conventionally powered rather than relying on nuclear power. It also has a ski-jump bow to assist with take-off rather than catapults, which are one of the most critical technologies for efficient carrier operations since they allow aircraft to extend their range with increased weapons payloads.

On the other hand, the J-15 (a knockoff of a Russian design) appears to be a rather formidable fighter and attack aircraft. Additionally, nuclear-powered carriers are still encumbered by logistics: high-tempo aircraft operations—not to mention the battle group escorts—still require enormous amounts of fuel. The convincing for the argument that the PLA Navy aspires to go beyond a modest flirtation with the aircraft carrier concept is the news that construction of Beijing’s second carrier is now well underway. 

For the last five years, the Chinese naval press has produced reams of analysis on carrier operations. One example of this is the detailed reports examining U.S. Navy accidents related to flying off carriers. There is no substitute for experience, of course, but it should be recalled that the U.S. Navy has not employed aircraft carriers in combat against another significant naval force since World War Two.

ISIS Launches Offensive to Capture Last Territory North of Aleppo Held by U.S.-Backed Syrian Rebels

ISIS Collapses Opposition Frontline in Northern Aleppo Province
Institute for the Study of War
June 3, 2016
By Christopher Kozak

Key Takeaway: The Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) has mounted a major offensive against opposition groups in Northern Aleppo Province over the past week, threatening the total collapse of the last pocket of opposition-held terrain along the Syrian-Turkish Border. ISIS seized at least six villages in Northern Aleppo Province on May 27, besieging the critical opposition stronghold of Mare'a and entering the outskirts of the border town of Azaz. These gains by ISIS mark the latest in a series of recent setbacks for the opposition in Northern Aleppo Province since the Hawar Kilis Operations Room - a coalition of opposition groups backed by the U.S. and Turkey that includes fighters vetted by the U.S. Department of Defense - captured the ISIS-held town of Al-Rai on April 7. The looming defeat of these opposition groups poses a significant risk to the long-term success of the anti-ISIS campaign. Turkey has repeatedly called for the U.S. to increase its support for Sunni Arab opposition groups in Northern Aleppo Province as an alternative to deepening cooperation with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) - a U.S.-backed coalition led by the Syrian Kurdish YPG, considered by Turkey to be a terrorist organization due to its links with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party. The collapse of the Mare'a Line will foreclose this alternative and instead drive the U.S. to deepen its current overreliance on the Syrian Kurdish YPG - setting the conditions for long-term ethnic conflict in the region and further limiting opportunities for partnership with Sunni Arabs in Northern Syria as part of the anti-ISIS campaign.



Read the full post online

The Less-Than-Perfect Security Situation in Russia

Russia: Trapped In The Tragic Past
strategypage.com
June 2, 2016
The post-Cold War Russian hopes for a better life fading fast among Russians. In the 1990s the prospect of a more prosperous, livable and powerful Russia was widely anticipated. No more, for after the 1990s came the return of totalitarian rule and the traditional aggressive attitudes towards the outside world. Especially since 2014 Russia has been in sharp decline. The economy is a mess. Russia has fewer allies and the future looks dim. The government insists the economy is getting better but the reality is it is getting less worse and Russians, as they have often been forced to do, are adapting. Another bit of unwelcome nostalgia is the return to the days when Russia had pathetic allies. These days it is nations like Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Syria, Afghanistan, China, North Korea and several other poor nations whose loyalty can be rented for a while if the price is right. The more prosperous nations see Russia as a threat and not to be trusted or befriended. It wasn’t supposed to work out this way.

After the Soviet (Russian) empire dissolved in 1991 the rest of the decade was spent trying to reorganize and rebuild. That did not work out well at all. Russia entered the 21st century with a new elected government dominated by former secret police (KGB) officers who promised to restore economic and civil order. They did so but in the process turned Russia back into a police state with less political and economic freedom. Many younger Russians resisted this and the government responded by appealing to nationalism. This was done by reviving the traditional threatening attitude towards neighbors. Just as corrupt communist bureaucrats replaced corrupt imperial officials after World War I (1914-1918), post-Cold War (1947-1991) Russia is now ruled by corrupt businessmen led by self-serving government officials dominated by members of the communist secret police (which was founded by veterans of the tsarist secret police). The current semi-free economy is more productive than the centrally controlled communist one but that just provides more money to steal. Like the tsarist and communist government before it the new Russian rulers tolerate corruption as a necessary tool to control the nation. The new tyrants, like past ones, use propaganda and control of the mass media to justify the mess and convincingly depict Russia as under siege by outsiders. Opinion polls show wide popular support for this paranoid fantasy and most Russians are willing to tolerate a police state to get some economic and personal security. That atmosphere, plus the anxiety generated by the Ukraine aggression has scared away a lot of foreign investors and many Russian ones as well. Russia can downplay this in the state controlled media but without all that foreign and Russian capital the economy cannot grow. The corruption discourages the kind of innovators and entrepreneurs that create and sustain the sort of prosperity and freedom Russians have always envied. This is causing real problems for the government (as it had for communist and tsarist rulers) because no matter what a tyrant does they cannot motivate and retain enough of the talent needed to be competitive in world markets. Some government officials admit this, for a while at least until ordered to shut up. Thus in the last decade or so military leaders have pointed out that Russian defense firms are still not competitive with the West and probably never will be without some fundamental changes. The head of the Russian program recently came out and said the same thing, in part to explain the continued failures of Russian efforts in developing new satellite launchers and long-range rockets in general. Shortly thereafter that official insisted his remarks had been misunderstood.

Maybe Wall Street Has the Solution to Stopping Cyber Attacks

https://www.wired.com/2016/06/cyber-bonds/

The next American president will be tasked with deterring foreign government-sponsored cyber attacks against US citizens and companies. And under the current system, that task will be next to impossible. Cyber war is on the rise, from Russian cyber soldiers knocking out the power grid in Ukraine to Iranian hackers compromising American dams to Chinese agents stealing trade secrets from U.S. defense, technology, and pharmaceutical companies (to say nothing of the theft of millions of records from the Office of Personnel Management).
President Obama has threatened to retaliate against egregious cyber attacks with bombs and missiles, but as a former military man myself, I don’t think even a President Trump would have the gall to actually push the button.

Right now the government’s options for responding to cyber attacks are retaliation, sanctions, or, in very rare cases, individual indictments. These are insufficient for deterrence and ill-suited to the speed and reality of cyber warfare. Deterrence requires a credible threat. In the middle ages, kingdoms ensured the enforcement of peace treaties by exchanging their princes as hostages. In the Cold War, we had the doctrine of mutually assured destruction. Now we need something new. What if there was a way to deter cyber attacks by automatically hitting countries that launch them right where it hurts—in the wallet? What if Wall Street could solve a challenge that has confounded Silicon Valley and the NSA for years? Enter our unlikely hero: sophisticated financial instruments. Specifically, a kind of securitized cyber insurance that I will call Cyber Bonds.
The Idea

Securitized insurance began with catastrophe bonds engineered in the wake of Hurricane Andrew in 1992. Hurricanes, like cyber attacks, are expensive to insure conventionally given that claims are not independent and often catastrophic. Catastrophe bonds solve this problem by securitizing the risk and passing it on to a wide pool of investors. The bonds pay handsome coupons to investors in seasons when natural disasters don’t happen, and liquidate the investment principal to pay for damages in seasons when they do.
A similar framework for Cyber Bonds would have three parts. First, each country would identify which companies and infrastructure are systemically important to the economy, and compel those entities to buy standardized cyber insurance policies. These companies would pay premiums into a national insurance pool from which damage claims for cyber attacks would be drawn. Second, each country would then securitize its insurance pool on the private market, creating country-specific Cyber Bonds. Third, at the next round of international cyber security talks, each country would agree to buy an untradable basket of each others’ Cyber Bonds and hold them in their sovereign wealth funds that pay out pensions and stabilize government spending. (The equivalent for the US would be the Social Security Trust Fund.) Each basket would comprise Cyber Bonds from every country of the world and be weighted toward each country’s unique historical adversaries. Excess Cyber Bonds and investment-grade variants would be made available for investors to buy and trade on the secondary markets.

18 ways the Army wants to make you deadlier

 Hope our people from Indian Army specially from Infantry are looking at these.

    Blogmaster.

 

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/tech/2016/06/01/18-ways-army-wants-make-you-deadlier/84852750/
Kyle Jahner, Army Times,  June 2, 2016


If you look at a soldier from World War II or Korea or Vietnam, you will see similarities to today’s infantryman: helmet, rifle, bullets, boots: the basics.
Naturally, there’s a lot of differences, too. In five years, there will be more, and 15 years, more still, as the Army works to keep the technological edge of the dismounted combat troop.
As wide-ranging as they are, both near-term and long-term advances sought by the Army reveal some emerging themes.
The Army wants soldiers better protected, but also lighter and more agile.
The Army wants better situational awareness, including improved vision at night.
The Army wants to empower smaller units with more portable versions of tech now available to higher echelons.

But what about your guns? Improvements may be more incremental. Physics have limits and so do budgets. But the Army is upgrading carbines with a more reliable barrel, it has picked out a new sniper rifle and it is working to do the same for a new handgun.
These improvements come from a variety of sources, including the Army’s Research, Engineering and Development Command (working closely with industry and academia), the Maneuver Center of Excellence (infused with ideas direct from the battlefield) and of course Program Executive Office Soldier, which develops prototypes and procures field equipment as technological advances become available.
The result: an Army constantly developing and prioritizing new gear to make the dismounted soldier safer and more lethal. Here are just some of the programs underway that could mean new gear to the front lines — sooner than you think.

1. M4A1


The Army has looked at several ways to improve the M4A1. (Photo: PEO Soldier)
What does it do? Long-distance hole-punch. (It’s the latest version of your M4 carbine rifle.)
How heavy is it? Unloaded and without accessories: 7.74 pounds
When might you have one? You might already. The upgrade of M4s (and replacement of M16s) is around a quarter complete and will continue until roughly 2020.
Why should you care?The upgrade offers a heavier barrel; some soldiers reported M4s overheating, becoming warped and then jamming during extended use, particularly in Afghanistan. It also adds ambidextrous safety controls and converts the weapon’s three-round burst option into fully-automatic.
Will this actually happen? Yes. Here's what won't happen, however: The Army also ran a market survey in March 2015 for additional M4 upgrades dubbed M4A1+. Ideas included: an extended Picatinny rail, a floating barrel for enhanced accuracy, and an optional sniper-style single-stage trigger for marksmen, flash suppressor, removable sights, and more neutral colors, among a variety of other enhancements. But the “plus” died with the survey; there’s currently no formal requirements, program of record nor funding.

*Robotisation Of Militaries: Organisational, Policy And Operational Issues – Analysis

By Kalyan M Kemburi*

JUNE 3, 2016

Source Link

Military organisations world over have to grapple with a range of organisational, policy, and operational issues with the expanding role of robotic systems. This is coupled with increased automation of functions and processes in pursuit of military operations.

Popular media historically has been titled towards portraying ‘robots’ as menacing humanoid machines on a mission to exterminate the human race. In reality, the current robotic systems are more benign—or for that matter sometimes nondescript—ranging from iRobot’s cleaning robot Roomba to iPhone’s personal assistant Siri to drones hunting terrorists and unmanned ground vehicles sniffing IEDs. In fact, robots and the artificial intelligence that runs them have become so ubiquitous that we have lost the ability to detect their presence among us and sustain our normal functioning in their absence.

Similarly, in case of military applications, robots come in all shapes and sizes—from blimps to buggies to bugs—and gradually acquiring capabilities to undertake missions in all domains of warfare. On this road to robotisation, military organisations have to grapple with a range of organisational, policy, and operational issues, some of which deserve closer attention:

Organisational and Policy Issues

Revealed: India's Ambitious New Naval Strategy

Vivek Mishra

June 2, 2016

Source Link

Recent developments in the Indian Ocean have been a witness to India’s mustering enough political will to advance its regional interests through actionable deliverables, visibly in opposition to mere notional assertions of the past. As India reorients its Indian Ocean policy, a tripartite transformation is underway—a regional outlook that ties together India’s Act East policy, its Look West policy and, most noteworthy, its cooperation with the United States in the regional maritime domain.

Acting East

The transformation from a Look East to an Act East policy has been at the center of India’s maritime recalibrations in the past few years. Such an approach has been accompanied by an improvement in relations with not just the individual countries to its east, but with strong regional organizations such as ASEAN. Countries of specific focus for India have recently included Vietnam, Brunei, Thailand and Indonesia.

The maritime area extending from India’s Andaman and Nicobar Islands has also been critical to India’s recent regional maritime calculus. The focus on the Andaman Sea, for instance, has been critical to both India’s developing role in the Indo-Pacific as well as its by now axiomatic desire to be a regional net security provider. In this regard, from April 19–27 in the Andaman Sea, INSKarmuk along with a Dornier maritime patrol aircraft participated in the twenty-second Indo-Thai Coordinated Patrol (CORPAT). CORPAT has been underway since 2005, taking place biannually to ensure the safety of international trade and shipping lines. The twenty-second CORPAT had a clear focus on search and rescue at sea and preventing unlawful activities, furthering India’s regional net security provider agenda. India has also extended naval cooperation with Thailand in other areas, such as training of Thai navy and coast guard trainees. For this purpose, Indian naval ships Tir and Sujata and sail-training ship Sudarshini, along with the Indian Coast Guard’s Varuna, were deployed in Phuket, Thailand as part of an overseas deployment this spring.

India Needs To Stop Being Ambiguous About Taiwan – Analysis

By Namrata Hasija* 

JUNE 3, 2016

Source Link

In a historic moment, Taiwan’s first female President, Tsai Ying Wen took oath of office on May 20, 2016 in the presence of 700 dignitaries from 59 countries. Her party coming to power with an overwhelming majority and most importantly the position of DPP in the Legislative Yuan can lead to a number of changes in Taiwan’s domestic politics. Taiwan’s domestic politics is intricately tied up with its relationship with Mainland China thus influencing it heavily. The result of the recent Taiwanese elections gives two clear indicators as to why Tsai Ying Wen was elected — first of all, the Taiwanese people want economic improvement and secondly, public opinion rejects the close relations between Taiwan and Mainland China during Kuomintang (KMT) rule. The KMT promised growth in the economy and peace if they had healthy cross strait relations. With the economy crawling at 2 per cent, citizens showed their anger over the Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement (CSSTA) with China, resulting in the ‘Sunflower Movement’.

Already low in popularity, the KMT was hit again by the history textbook controversy. In both cases there was a strong message that local Taiwanese were not happy with the KMT government’s policy and that most people strongly identified as Taiwanese and not Chinese. The people of Taiwan were more scared after what happened in Hong Kong where pro democracy supporters were assaulted in June and September 2014 and the idea of ‘one country, two systems’ fading away in Hong Kong. Students in Taiwan supported protests in Hong Kong and realized the same could be their fate if integrated with the Mainland. Taiwanese respect their democracy and Tsai in her campaign and inaugural speech stressed on the same.

The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has 68 seats in a 113-seat legislature for the first time, while the KMT has 35 seats, the new, youth oriented New Power Party (NPP) has five seats, and the People First Party three seats and independents hold two seats. For the first time DPP has a clear majority in the Legislative Yuan which means it can pass the cross-strait agreement oversight legislation which was a major demand of the Sunflower Movement. This agreement requires that decisions like CSSTA should have public inputs. This is one of the major changes that the DPP promised during its election campaign.

Canadian Spies Get Medals for Work in Afghanistan

Justin Ling

June 1, 2016

Canada’s Spies Won Awards for ‘Dangerous’ Work in Afghanistan, but Details Remain Secret

Canada won’t confirm exactly what its spies were doing in Afghanistan, but it has been quietly awarding service medals for their service, according to documents obtained by VICE News. And it was dangerous.

Those medals were pinned on to the spooks’ chests by Governor General David Johnston, who acts as Canada’s head of state, for their work in Afghanistan.

But for much of Canada’s involvement in the war-torn country, the work of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) remained strictly secret. In recent years, CSIS’ work in Afghanistan has slowly come to light.

Even now, the government will only say that that CSIS agents were processing detainees and doing basic interviews with possible al Qaeda or Taliban commanders from within Canadian Forces and Afghan military bases. But these new documents, obtained under the Access to Information Act, reveal that CSIS agents may have been directly in harm’s way.

A photo of the medals. (CSIS)

In 2013, the service created the Operational Service Medal (OSM), awarded specifically for “when the deployment involves a certain level of risk, threat, hardship or operational intensity,” according to the regulations creating the medal.

Pakistan’s Double-Game Stands Exposed Again: Killing Of Afghan Taliban Chief – Analysis

By Jai Kumar Verma*

 JUNE 3, 2016

Source Link

Mullah Akhtar Mansour, the Afghan Taliban chief who was killed in a drone attack on May 21 in the restive Pakistani province of Balochistan was a hardliner and averse to the idea of any negotiations. He refused to participate in the Quadrilateral Cooperation Group (QCG) constituted to initiate peaceful negotiations. In fact, instead of taking part in peace talks, under his leadership, the Afghan Taliban enhanced attacks on US and Afghan forces.

According to reports, when he was killed, he had a Pakistani passport in the name of Mohammad Wali on him and had valid Iranian visa, along with a CNIC which is issued to ‘bonafide’ citizens of Pakistan. He was entering Pakistan from the Taftan check post on the Iran-Pakistan border from where he was ostensibly headed to the Afghan Taliban headquarters in Quetta. It has been reported that he had travelled out of Pakistan several times, especially to United Arab Emirates and Iran on Pakistani passport. All of this comes to indicate his close relationship with the Pakistani deep state.

Taliban spokesperson announced the appointment of Mawlawi Haibatullah Akhundzada, who was the deputy leader of slain leader Mansour as the chief of Taliban on May 25. Mullah Mohammad Yaqoob son of Mullah Omar and Sirajuddin Haqqani were declared as the deputy supreme leaders of Taliban.

Will Pakistan Dump Taliban – Are You Kidding? – OpEd

By Lt Gen P. C. Katoch (Retd.)*

JUNE 2, 2016
http://www.eurasiareview.com/02062016-will-pakistan-dump-taliban-are-you-kidding-oped/

Leader of the Taliban, Mullah Akhtar Mansoor, as seen in this undated handout photograph by the Taliban. 

There was much speculation post the killing of Mullah Akhtar Mansour, Afghan Taliban chief not only about the possible leadership struggle within Afghan Taliban, but also that Pakistan may turn a new leaf and cooperate to usher stability in Afghanistan. Senator John McCain, Chairman of US Senate Armed Services Committee while speaking about the killing of Mansour said, “I hope this strike against the Taliban’s top leader will lead the administration to reconsider its policy of prohibiting US forces from targeting the Taliban”. He added that “it (Taliban) is the one force most able and willing to turn Afghanistan into a terrorist safe haven once again”. Senator Corker chipped in by saying, “If Pakistan would play a more constructive role, we could destabilize the Taliban far more rapidly.” That is a very big “if” and as deceptive as the size of the two Taliban banded together by Pakistan’s ISI.

Mansour was reportedly killed in a US drone strike in Baluchistan province of Pakistan. The installation of Mansour to head Afghan Taliban last year was carefully orchestrated by Pakistan keeping the death of former Afghan Taliban chief Mullah Omar in a Karachi hospital under wraps for more than two years. This was a strategic masterstroke by Pakistan as Mansour was the religious teacher of Haqqanis based in Pakistan for over three decades. Haqqanis have been consistently used by Pakistan as their covert arm to destabilize Afghanistan and target Indian establishment and interests in Afghanistan. But that was not all. Concurrent to Mansour becoming Afghan Taliban chief, the Haqqani Network chief, Sirajuddin Haqqani was placed as the deputy leader of Afghan Taliban last year itself. The US media got wise to this important development only recently as a New York Times report of May 8, 2016 indicates.

THE CHOICE FOR ASIA IN THE 21ST CENTURY

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN

JUNE 3, 2016

http://warontherocks.com/2016/06/the-choice-for-asia-in-the-21st-century/

Editor’s Note: The following is adapted from Sen. McCain’s speech as prepared for delivery at RSIS in Singapore before the start of the Shangri-la Dialogue. 

Here in Singapore, we have the largest congressional delegation ever to attend the Shangri-la Dialogue. We have the Secretary of Defense and other members of the President’s national security team. We have the PACOM commander and the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral John Richardson. This collection of civilian and military leaders speaks volumes about America’s enduring, bipartisan commitment to the Asia-Pacific region.

As a Pacific nation, the United States recognizes that much of the history of the 21st century will be written here in this region. Tremendous opportunities lie ahead. And I am confident we can seize these opportunities together if we stay true to the principles that brought us to this fortunate moment in the history of Asia.

Seventy years ago, out of the ashes of world war, America and our allies and partners built a rules-based international order—one based on the principles of good governance and the rule of law, free peoples and free markets, open seas and open skies, and the conviction that wars of aggression should be relegated to the bloody past. Put simply: These ideas have changed the fortunes of Asia forever.

Nepal Tibet: The Risky Himalayan Crossings For Refugees – OpEd

BY HARI PRASAD SHRESTHA 

JUNE 3, 2016

Source Link

Friendship Bridge between Nepal and China in Kodari Highway (Khasa) and Syaprubesi- Gyorong Highway are the major two point of crossing for heavy vehicles and people between two countries.

The border trading town of Khasa has remained closed following the earthquake. China is preparing to relocate the current residents of the earthquake-ravaged border town of Khasa to Xigatse, 200km to the northwest. The earthquake that hit central and eastern Nepal on 25 April 2015 affected Khasa as well and the residents were moved right after the quake.

Locals claim the resettlement plan is to discourage the illegal trade China believes has grown in the area because of the close ties between Nepalis and residents of the area. Some other say that even though China has security concerns it is also wary of the Tibetan refugees crossing Nepal through highways and passes between two countries..

There are many passes between Tibet and Nepal to cross the Himalayas. The passes are a kind of walking trails. Only a person and an animal like yak or horse can travel at a time due to its narrowness. Only some parts of the trail are in better condition for walking while most parts appear to be difficult to travel for human beings. These traditional, historical and natural trails are considered to be lifelines for the border people of both sides for many centuries.

China’s Aggression Is Killing Foreign Investment

Peter Navarro

June 2, 2016

Source Link

Every time China’s military forces advance with a territorial claim in the East or South China Seas or in India’s Arunachal Pradesh or across the Taiwan Strait, foreign direct investment into China retreats. As Senator Everett Dirksen once said, “a billion here, a billion there,” and pretty soon it’s real money.

If a strong economy is key to survival of the Chinese Communist Party, Beijing’s brain trust has made a huge strategic blunder in abandoning its “peaceful rise” in favor of a rapid military buildup and pursuit of territorial claims throughout Asia. Naked aggression by the People’s Liberation Army, coupled with Beijing’s hard, bullying line on a host of disputes, is not just driving most of the rest of Asia into America’s arms. The specter of a new Imperial China is also raising very real questions in corporate boardrooms around the world as to the wisdom of long-term capital investment in China.

Make no mistake about the importance of foreign direct investment (FDI) in China’s economic development and transformation. In the wake of Deng Xiaoping’s 1978 economic “second revolution,” first a trickle and then a flood of FDI transformed China into the world’s largest factory floor and drove double-digit GDP growth for more than three decades.

Today, however, China’s flood of FDI may have reached its high-water mark. In 2015, India overtook it as the world’s top FDI destination, while FDI into China has plateaued since 2011.

Commentary: With Washington looking the other way, Iran fills a void in Iraq

BY MOHAMAD BAZZI

Jun 2, 2016

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-iran-commentary-idUSKCN0YN2XW

A member of Iraqi security forces gestures near Falluja, Iraq, May 31, 2016.

On May 30, Iraqi special forces stormed the southern edge of Falluja under U.S. air cover, launching a new assault to recapture one of the last major Iraqi cities under the control of Islamic State militants.

Iraq’s elite forces who are leading the fight have been trained by U.S. advisers, but many others on the battlefield were trained or supplied by Iran. It’s the latest example of how Washington has looked the other way as Iran deepened its military involvement in Iraq over the past two years.

In recent weeks, thousands of Iraqi soldiers and Shi’ite militia members supported by Iran assembled on the outskirts of Falluja for the expected attack on the Sunni city. In the lead-up to the assault, General Qassem Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force, the special operations branch of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, met with leaders of the Iraqi coalition of Shi’ite militias known as the Popular Mobilization Forces.

Big Win Over ISIS Could Mean a New War

BY NANCY A. YOUSSEF MICHAEL WEISS

06.02.16

Source Link

The fight against ISIS is succeeding, but ironically the wins scored by U.S.-backed forces raise tough questions about who exactly will rule when the terror group is gone.

Troops fighting ISIS appeared to on the verge of another victory over the self-proclaimed Islamic State Wednesday, as they moved into a city that has served as the main thoroughfare for ISIS foreign fighters and weapons. But the potential seizure of the Syrian city of Manbij by U.S.-backed forces is only likely to set off a new battle for control—this time pitting Arabs against Kurds.

The battle Wednesday reflected a growing problem for the U.S. and its push to train local fighters, even as those forces take territory from ISIS. Who exactly will govern those towns now? Will it be the Kurds who have led the fight against ISIS? Or will it be what some in the Pentagon have privately called the “token Arabs” trained by the U.S. to accompany them?

Two defense officials told The Daily Beast Wednesday they don’t know. They believe the Arabs would be in charge. But even these officials admit that asking the 5,000-or-so newly-trained Arab fighters to control three or more formerly ISIS-controlled areas—and at the same time move into the ISIS capital of Raqqa—would be difficult.

DON’T KILL THE CALIPH! THE ISLAMIC STATE AND THE PITFALLS OF LEADERSHIP DECAPITATION

HARORO J. INGRAM AND CRAIG WHITESIDE

JUNE 2, 2016

Source Link

The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has endured significant territorial losses since its peak a year ago. Additional coalition deployments, an improving information campaign, a resurgent Iraqi army, targeted financial sanctions, and tireless diplomacy have set the stage for the eventual reduction of the self-proclaimed caliphate. Concurrent with these efforts is a large manhunt to bring Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, its leader, to justice. While this is an important consideration, defeating this movement is a much more pressing and daunting task. The best way to defeat ISIL in the long term is to leave Abu Bakr in place – as the caliph who lost his kingdom.

Don’t take our word for ISIL’s struggles; its spokesman Mohammad al Adnaniadmitted as much last week when he warned that the loss of movement leaders, past or future, would not deter the “soldiers of the state” from continuing the fight as insurgents, much like they did prior to 2013. Adnani, as dramatic as ever in this latest speech, does offer a point that we should consider. The specific targeting of this group’s leadership (via a decapitation campaign) has had mixed results in the past. In fact, it was the killing of Abu Musab al Zarqawi that probably saved what eventually became the Islamic State of Iraq in late 2006.

Iran’s Relations With Saudi Arabia: An Inside Look – OpEd

By Mohammad Masjed-Jamei*

JUNE 3, 2016

Source Link

Relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia have hit a deadlock and it seems that under present circumstances it is neither expedient, nor beneficial for Saudi rulers to adopt another policy other than the current policy of animosity toward Iran. Basically speaking, social and intellectual conditions in this country, in particular, and in the Arab world, in general, do not allow for such a change of policy. In addition, the country’s decision-makers, as part of the general society, think along the same lines as other parts of the society do. This can be deduced from their remarks.

At any rate, continuation of this situation is not in their favor, but it will take time before they understand this and in the meantime, any expression of willingness and probably insistence on Iran’s part will backfire, because Saudis will take it as a sign of our passivity and success of their own policy. However, the consequences of their current policies, especially with regard to their southern neighbor, will finally make them revise the current trend, even if on a small scale. Saudis and their allies started the war on Yemen to gain an absolute victory in a short period of time, but this did not happen in practice and it was clear from the beginning that this will not take place. Vanity over the power of their weapons and some sort of intellectual and analytical poverty were main factors behind this miscalculation.

Let’s not forget that Saudis’ current policy on Iran is part of their large-scale security, military, economic and developmental policy, whose goals they are planning to achieve in the next 15 years. This is a phenomenon special to the Third World that those in power sometimes design a big leap in their policies and the masses welcome that change either upon politicians’ instigation or in a self-motivated manner, but the enthusiasm ebbs after a while and hard realities come to the surface.

The Myth That Empowers Islamic Terrorism

Moorthy S. Muthuswamy

May 31, 2016 

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-myth-empowers-islamic-terrorism-16409?page=show

Radicals are exploiting a common misunderstanding of sharia.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is a man of mystery. Fascinating as he is dangerous, I contend that the only thing you need to know about him is that he is a religious scholar.

This is because Baghdadi is not alone as a terror leader; the founding or operational leaders of other major terrorist groups in the news—the Taliban, Boko Haram and Al Qaeda—are also religious figures such as clerics or Islamic scholars: namely, Mohammed Omar, Mohammed Yusuf and Abdullah Azzam, respectively.

Why have religious leaders come to play such an important role in violent radicalism, how did this all start, and what is the basis of their support?

For starters, the defining trend of recent centuries is the worldwide embrace of modernity and the socioeconomic advances brought about by science. As science began to replace religion as a source for understanding the world, secularists began growing in influence at the expense of religious leaders.

A manifestation of this trend in the Muslim world is rule by secular regimes and the domination of the public space by moderate elements. Unfathomable as this may seem now, even up until the 1970s, it was common for Kabul women to wear Western clothing and mix freely with men. A characteristic of this era was the absence of Islamist militant groups. Evidently, along with other religions, the forces of modernity were pushing Islam into a reformation.