7 March 2015

Russia’s Covert Military Role in the Ukraine Becoming Increasingly Clear, Even in Russia

Mikhail Bushuev
March 5, 2015

Evidence mounting of Russian troops in Ukraine

It was a surprising confession. In an interview with the opposition Russian newspaper, Nowaja Gaseta, (from Monday, March 2) a wounded Russian tank operator confirmed what many have long assumed: That contracted Russian soldiers are fighting alongside the separatists in Eastern Ukraine against the Ukrainian army.

And not just a few soldiers. A day after the interview was published, US General Ben Hodges said in Berlin that the US military was working on the assumption of 12,000 Russian troops in the region.

It’s not the first time such reports have surfaced. On Feb. 19, the Russian newspaper Kommersant published a surprisingly frank feature about the deployment of Russian soldiers in Eastern Ukraine. The article appeared in the online version of the paper, which belongs to oligarch Alisher Usmanov, known to be loyal to the Kremlin. Reporter Ilja Barabanov recounts how he met three Russians who had until recently been professional soldiers. In the second half of January, they went to Eastern Ukraine to fight.

"Former miners"

The men said they had fought since Jan. 20 on the front in various units of the separatist army of the “People’s Republic of Donetsk.” Before they left, they applied to end their army contracts and be officially discharged

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko presented captured Russian passports at a press conference

Whether or not they were actually discharged, and what their current status is, is unknown.

Did Japan Just Change Its Attitude Toward South Korea?

March 05, 2015

A change in Japan’s official diplomatic language is causing a furor in South Korea. 

Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has changed how it describes South Korea, raising concerns among South Koreans that the the bilateral relationship is becoming more strained.

On the MOFA’s website, Japan used to describe South Korea as “an important neighboring country that shares basic values with Japan such as freedom, democracy, and a market economy.” However, as of March 4, the description had changed to simply call South Korea Japan’s “most important neighboring country.”

The ministry’s altered description matches Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s recent stance on South Korea. When Abe gave speeches in 2013 and 2014, he described South Korea exactly the MOFA’s website used to: as “our most important neighboring country with which we share fundamental values and interests.” Abe changed this formulation in his February speech to the Diet, saying simply that “the Republic of Korea (ROK) is our most important neighboring country.”

Meanwhile, South Korean President Park Geun-hye said in March 1 speech that Japan and South Korea, “both upholding values of liberal democracy and a market economy, are important neighbors that are endeavoring together to pursue peace and prosperity in Northeast Asia.” The different descriptions hint that top leaders have diverged in their view of the relationship.

The Japanese daily Asahi Shimbun reported on March 4 that the changed language underscores the persistent friction between the two nations.

“We changed the description so that it matches the one that has often been used recently,” an unnamed MOFA official told Asahi Shimbun. Another unnamed government official told Asahi that the change was mainly brought about by South Korea’s October 2014 decision to indict a Japanese journalist, Sankei Shimbun’s former bureau chief in Seoul, on charges of defaming President Park.

Knife Attack Hospitalizes US Ambassador to South Korea

March 06, 2015

The alleged attacker said he was seeking Korean unification. 

The U.S. ambassador to South Korea, Mark Lippert, was attacked by a knife-wielding assailant while giving a speech in Seoul Thursday morning. According toReuters, Lippert was attacked while attending a forum on Korean unification. While the injuries were not life-threatening, he received cuts to his face and wrist that required 80 stitches in the hospital. In a message posted on the embassy website and on Twitter, Lippert said he was “doing well & in great spirits!”

The attacker, later identified as Kim Ki-jong, reportedly yelled “the two Koreas must be reunited!” during the attack. Kim also yelled “I carried out an act of terror” as he was being physically restrained after the attack. Kim was arrested at the scene. During a police interrogation, Kim said his attack was meant as a protest against joint U.S.-South Korean military exercises, which Kim said were an obstacle to Korean unification.

North Korea applauded the attack, with the official KCNA news agency calling it a “deserved punishment.” The piece added, “”The recent case amid mounting anti-Americanism reflects the mindset of South Korean people censuring the U.S. for bringing the danger of a war to the Korean Peninsula through the madcap saber-rattling.”

Pyongyang had previously offered to halt future nuclear tests if the U.S. and South Korea agreed to discontinue their joint exercises. When that effort was rebuffed, North Korean officials threatened to use the “toughest measures” to respond to the joint drills, including the possibility of a preemptive strike.

Though his stated rationale for the attack closely mirrored Pyongyang’s position, Kim said he had acted alone. Kim was apparently fascinated by North Korea, having reportedly traveled there eight times from 2006-2007 alone. In addition to anti-U.S. actions (including flag burning and protests prior to Thursday’s attack), Kim has also protested against Japan for its territorial dispute with South Korea over the Dokdo/Takeshima Islands.

Hillary Clinton's Wild Sense of Entitlement

March 5, 2015

There was no cogent reason for Clinton to skirt the law, just a predilection for secrecy.

Here we go again. Just when it looked as though Hillary Clinton was set to roll to the Democratic nomination, fresh peccadilloes involving her and Bill are surfacing. They may be waved off as manifestations of CDS—Clinton derangement syndrome—but that would be a mistake. The fact is that that the Clintons have a penchant for skirting not just the spirit but also the letter of the law when it comes to their own perks and prerogatives.

Recall, for example, Bill and Hillary looting the White House, during the last days of his presidency, sending $28,000 of furnishings, registered to the National Park Service, to their New York home before they had to depart the place. Or there was Hillary piously announcing that the Clintons, after they left the White House, were “dead broke”—even though she had just signed an $8 million book deal.

The Clintons, in other words, don’t get caught up in difficulties. They are surrounded by a miasma of scandal, both real and imagined. The latest one was broken by the New York Times and is engulfing the nascent Clinton presidential campaign, just as it was trying to deal with one broken a few days earlier by the Washington Post about allegations of malversation at the Clinton Foundation. In short, the new Hillary turns out to be the old one, and not a few Democrats are suffering their personal political version of PTSD over it all.

Hillary Clinton serenely says, in a twitter message, from on high: “I want the public to see my email.” No, she doesn’t. But the bad publicity surrounding her extensive effort to conceal her messages from the public by, in effect, running her own email exchange out of her Chappaqua home is forcing her to cough them up. The House Select Committee, which is investigating Benghazi, has now subpoenaed the State Department for her emails.

A Look Back at the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing

FEBRUARY 26, 2015 | 08:53 GMT 

On the morning of Feb. 26, 1993, a massive truck bomb ripped a hole almost 30 meters (100 feet) across the B-2 level of the parking garage beneath the World Trade Center's North Tower. The blast wave was so powerful that it penetrated five stories of the reinforced concrete building. In addition to causing structural damage, the explosion destroyed or heavily damaged hundreds of vehicles in the garage. That such a powerful explosion killed only six people is nothing short of a miracle, for the attackers had a goal much more grandiose.

They wanted to topple the North Tower onto the South Tower to destroy them both and kill thousands. Had a device of the same magnitude been detonated at street level during rush hour, it would have likely killed scores if not hundreds of people and wounded perhaps thousands more.
From Yemen to New York City

An hour or two after the bombing, I landed in Frankfurt, Germany, on my way back to Washington from Yemen. I was working as a special agent for the Diplomatic Security Service investigating a bombing attack against U.S. Air Force personnel in Aden on Dec. 29, 1992, and a rocket attack against the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa in January 1993. As I stood in the airport terminal looking at the first reports of the World Trade Center bombing, I had no idea the attack was linked to the incidents I had been investigating in Yemen. Later it would be discovered that the same group that conducted the Yemen attacks also bombed the Trade Center: al Qaeda.

I had initially flown to Yemen with a colleague from the explosives section of the FBI laboratory to investigate the strikes against U.S. interests there. We suspected the Libyans might have conducted those attacks after seriously wounding embassy communicator Arthur Pollick in a 1986 shooting in Sanaa and conducting a series of other attacks against U.S. interests around the world.

Japan's Intelligence Reform Inches Forward

MARCH 2, 2015

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe (L) inspects troops at the Ground Self-Defense Force Asaka training ground on Oct. 27, 2013. (TORU YAMANAKA/AFP/Getty Images)
Summary

When the Allies defeated Japan at the end of World War II, they dismantled the Japanese security apparatus and deliberately left the country dependent on outside powers. This entailed not only taking apart the military but also the extensive imperial intelligence apparatus that had facilitated Japanese expansion in Asia. As it reconstituted itself, postwar Japan opted for a decentralized intelligence system as an alternative to its prewar model. The result was more a fragment of an intelligence apparatus than a full system, with Tokyo outsourcing the missing components to its allies. This system worked through the Cold War, when Japan was more essential to U.S. anti-Soviet strategy. Since then, however, Japan has found itself unable to count on its allies to provide vital intelligence in a timely manner. The Islamic State hostage crisis in January, during which Japan depended on Jordanian and Turkish intelligence, reinforced this lesson.

In response to the recent incident, Japan's ruling Liberal Democratic Party has started drafting a proposal to create a new agency specializing in foreign intelligence. To address Japanese dependence on outsiders, the new system will shift away from a decentralized model with limited collection capacity to a centralized system with in-house capabilities. The plan would support Japan's slow normalization of its overall military capabilities in order to face new threats.
Analysis

During the Cold War, Tokyo could depend on Washington to provide for Japan's external security, while relying on its own economic muscle to gain access to resources. But Japan is no longer the vital Cold War bulwark in the Pacific, giving the United States less incentive to cooperate. Meanwhile, both China and North Korea have emerged as threats to Japanese security. Farther afield, Japanese nationals have become more deeply involved in regions such as Africa and the Middle East. Today, Japan needs fast, accurate and reliable intelligence. Nearly a quarter century since the end of the Cold War, however, Japan is still using a vintage system maladapted to the changing world.

Netanyahu, Obama and the Geopolitics of Speeches

MARCH 3, 2015

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is visiting the United States this week to speak to Congress on March 3. The Obama administration is upset that Speaker of the House John Boehner invited Netanyahu without consulting with the White House and charged Boehner with political grandstanding. Netanyahu said he was coming to warn the United States of the threat of Iran. Israeli critics of Netanyahu charged that this was a play for public approval to improve his position in Israel's general election March 17. Boehner denied any political intent beyond getting to hear Netanyahu's views. The Obama administration claimed that the speech threatens the fabric of U.S.-Israeli relations.

Let us begin with the obvious. First, this is a speech, and it is unlikely that Netanyahu could say anything new on the subject of Iran, given that he never stops talking about it. Second, everyone involved is grandstanding. They are politicians, and that's what they do. Third, the idea that U.S.-Israeli relations can be shredded by a grandstanding speech is preposterous. If that's all it takes, relations are already shredded.

Speeches aside, there is no question that U.S.-Israeli relations have been changing substantially since the end of the Cold War, and that change, arrested for a while after 9/11, has created distance and tension between the countries. Netanyahu's speech is merely a symptom of the underlying reality. There are theatrics, there are personal animosities, but presidents and prime ministers come and go. What is important are the interests that bind or separate nations, and the interests of Israel and the United States have to some extent diverged. It is the divergence of interests we must focus on, particularly because there is a great deal of mythology around the U.S.-Israeli relationship created by advocates of a close relationship, opponents of the relationship, and foreign enemies of one or both countries.
Building the U.S.-Israeli Relationship

New Snowden Leak: How New Zealand SIGINT Agency Intercepts Its Materials

Nicky Hager and Ryan Gallagher 
March 5, 2015 

In September last year, Edward Snowden said he had seen large quantities of metadata from New Zealanders’ communications while working in the NSA’s regional headquarters in Hawaii. 

He was presumably referring to New Zealanders’ communications intercepted during the Asia-Pacific regional monitoring conducted at Waihopai and other allied bases. The Snowden documents show how foreign intelligence staff follow a step-by-step process to access the GCSB’s South Pacific intelligence, including the metadata and communications of New Zealanders living, holidaying and interacting in that region.

A British agency guide shows that there are two databases on “Ironsand” (Waihopai)-intercepted communications they can access. ”To query the data on these sites,” the guide says, “you must first have a briefing on NZSID7, the law that governs what the GCSB can and can’t do.” The foreign staff were instructed to read a written briefing and then, before accessing the New Zealand intelligence, take an online test on the GCSB rules. 

Once they had completed the “multi-choice, open-book” test, the foreign intelligence analysts were told to “Click ‘Order the Products and Services catalogue’.” They typed “xkeyscore” and “Search” and then “NZXkeyscore”. The guide said, “Once you have filed the required information, click Add to Cart” and “Click Submit request”. 

The NZSID7 (New Zealand Signals Intelligence Directive 7) contains the rules for when the other Five Eyes agencies can look at intelligence about New Zealanders. For all other countries - friend or foe - there is unrestricted spying and unrestricted access provided to the Five Eyes spies. 

Defectors Talk About North Korea’s Cyberwar Capabilities

Bill Gertz
March 5, 2015

North Korean hacking threatens nations

A North Korean defector who once helped train Pyongyang’s military hackers warned this week that the totalitarian regime is a major cybersecurity threat to the United States and other nations.

Kim Heung-gwang, a former professor at North Korea’s Hamhung University of Computer Technology, a key training facility for the military, urged governments to do more to counter North Korean hacking.

North Korean hackers are targeting nuclear power plants, transportation networks, electrical utilities and all major government organizations abroad, he said.

"If all of this happens, North Korea is going to destroy the basic units of civil society, and we need to react strongly to prevent this," Mr. Kim said, speaking through an interpreter. "Concerning North Korea’s cyberterrorism, only when the government is involved can this issue be solved."

The defector said North Korea’s closest allies are Iran and Syria, fellow rogue states united in their opposition to the United States.

Mr. Kim was one of two North Korean escapees who spoke about their former lives in the Stalinist state during a meeting at Cheongshim University, about 30 miles northeast of Seoul. The meeting was part of a conference hosted by The Washington Times.

The second defector, Lee Na-kyung, fled North Korea in 2005 after her husband ran afoul of communist authorities for supplying rice to starving North Koreans during a famine in the early 2000s.

"More than 3 million people died of hunger," Ms. Lee said, noting that her husband was charged with a crime after violating rules restricting the distribution of food.

Cyber commands coordinate strategies


John Edwards annd Eve Keiser, Contributing Writers 
March 4, 2015 

As the number of serious online attacks multiply, U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) and its subordinate commands, including the 24th Air Force, 10th Fleet and Army Cyber Command, are developing joint strategies to both defend their networks and strike against confirmed adversaries.

"U.S. Cyber Command and the subordinate component cyber commands ... are tightly integrated from not only a command and control perspective, but also from a manning perspective," said retired RADM Robert E. Day Jr., the former commander of Coast Guard Cyber Command. "Many of the personnel at U.S. Cyber Command and the subordinate mission teams are formed from personnel that each service has assigned to the joint U.S. Cyber billets," said Day, who currently leads Bob Day & Associates, a cyber consulting firm located in Washington, D.C.

In the federal government's current cyber warfare infrastructure, missions overlap and each service is building its own defensive and offensive cyber capabilities. "One of the original ideas was to have the services concentrate on the areas that are closest to their core missions, so the Navy would work [on] maritime issues, the Air Force [on] air and space issues that come up in the cyber domain and the Army would work [on] land issues," said retired Col. Cedric Leighton, a former deputy director of training for the National Security Agency. "In practice, though, the cyber domain cuts across all this, so there are some who advocate for a separate 'cyber force.' "

Leighton believes that such an organization would need to be thought out and implemented carefully. "In the meantime, U.S. Cyber Command is supposed to exercise, manage or facilitate that coordinating function," said Leighton, who is currently the chairman of Cedric Leighton International Strategies, a strategic risk and leadership management consulting firm located in the Washington, D.C., area.

Day noted that CYBERCOM has already assigned specific missions to each of the component cyber commands under its operational control. "Additionally, component commanders are working with CYBERCOM and each service to revamp their enterprise IT systems to develop standard security architectures and security capabilities that enhance the ability of CYBERCOM and the components to harden and defend their cyber terrain."

According to Day, training and qualification standards have also been harmonized across the various cyber commands. "Even though they may be called [by] different qualification standards, the services have ensured that their cyber warriors each meet common core training and demonstrated skills so that they can be assigned into the joint billets."

Talent and training challenges

A NEW MODEL OF U.S. DEFENSE COOPERATION

March 5, 2015

War on the Rocks is expanding, and we need your help! Please support us on Indiegogo!

How are our European allies meant to cope with the predations of Russia, Middle East friends with the Islamic State, and Asian partners with the gray-zone challenges of China? Washington expects them to shoulder more of the burden for their own security, even as constrained defense budgets and the proliferation of high-technology erode the credibility of U.S. power projection forces.

The diffusion of power, threats, and technology demands adjustments to the way we partner with other countries to achieve common security objectives. Two days of intense and wide-ranging discussion about the implications of rising powers, hybrid threats, and disruptive technologies atChatham House in London reinforce our view that we must widen the aperture on how the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, and Langley contemplate defense cooperation. This applies to alliance management, partnership capacity building, and even defense acquisition. Achieving future strategic objectives will depend on our ability to refashion the way we prepare our allies and partners to deter or fight adversaries and shape the emerging world.

We call for a new model of defense cooperation because the challenges the United States and its allies face are more complex and diverse than they have ever been. From Russian aggression in Ukraine to the Islamic State and Boko Haram, to weak states and illicit trafficking, to natural disasters, climate change, and China’s contest over rules and rule-making in the East and South China Seas, the security challenges shatter familiar frameworks. Even in the United States we lack a clear consensus on our top security priorities. We need to download a new security operating system for government that makes our defense cooperation more responsive, effective, and affordable.

Our institutional machinery is failing to keep pace with a rapidly changing landscape. Governments and private industry are struggling to catch up with three characteristics of our contemporary environment: globalization, internationalization, and commercialization.

Remembering History’s Mightiest Warship

March 05, 2015

The brief look at the story behind the largest battleship ever constructed in naval history. 

Yesterday, I wrote a piece about the discovery of the wreckage of the Imperial Japanese Navy battleshipMusashi. That vessel, together with its sister ship, theYamato, were the largest and most heavily armed battleships constructed in naval history (Robert Farley has written about the Yamato here). The Musashi was sunk during World War II and was discovered in the Sibuyan Sea off the Philippines on March 1. Given the significance of the find, which also comes as we commemorate the 70th anniversary of the end of WWII, I thought I would briefly expand on the significance of the Musashi in a separate post.

The Musashi was built as part of the Yamato class of vessels planned in 1937, of which there only were two battleships. They were designed to offset projected American numerical superiority in an ongoing U.S.-Japan naval race, which intensified following Japan’s withdrawal from the Washington Naval Treaty and the League of Nations. They were also built in secrecy – the United States did not know about the ongoing construction despite the fact that it was going on close to its consulate in Japan. Akira Yoshimura, in the book Battleship Musashi: The Making and Sinking of the World’s Biggest Battleship, goes through the construction process in in detail. Personnel who worked on the ship at the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Nagasaki Shipyard were reportedly required take a secret oath which read as follows:

I am aware that all work involving the construction of the No. 2 Battleship is vital to national security. I will make the utmost effort to maintain the secrecy of the project, and swear that I will leak no information relating to the said battleship, even to relatives and close friends. In the event that I should violate this oath, I will submit to the punishment determined by the company and the Navy.

Commissioned in 1942, the Musashi weighed 72,800 tons full, measured 862 feet in length, and had a speed of 27 knots. Two traits in particular stood out. The first was its sheer size. As I noted in the previous piece, the World War II Database has some historical accounts of U.S. personnel marveling at how big the ship was when they encountered it a few years later in battle. “[Musashi] was huge!” exclaimed gunner Russ Dustan of the USSFranklin. “I had never seen anything as big in my entire life. It was a magnificent sight.”

What Can Isaiah Berlin Teach Us About Defense Analysis?

March 06, 2015


How to discern good from bad security analysis, according to a philosopher. 

In his essay “The Hedgehog and the Fox”, the philosopher Isaiah Berlin quotes the Greek poet Archilochus, who cryptically had jotted down the following axiom in antiquity: “The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one thing.”

Out of this saying, Berlin extrapolates a larger meaning that outlines a fundamental epistemological difference dividing all thinkers and writers.

“[T]there exists a great chasm between those, on one side, who relate everything to a single central vision, one system, less or more coherent or articulate, in terms of which they understand, think and feel – a single, universal, organizing, principle in terms of which alone all that they are and say has significance – and, on the other side, those who pursue many ends, often unrelated and even contradictory, connected, if at all, only in some de facto way, for some psychological or physiological cause related to no moral or aesthetic principle.”

Berlin notes that the first kind of people belong to the hedgehogs, the second to the foxes. The philosopher does note that this is naturally an oversimplification and somewhat “artificial.” However, his distinction is quite useable to highlight two different types of defense pundits: the ideological defense policy expert versus the fact-driven security analyst. Applying Berlin’s definition, it immediately becomes clear that defense policy scholars and analysts always ought to be foxes, rather than hedgehogs.

For Berlin notes that the thoughts of foxes are often “scattered or diffused, moving on many levels, seizing upon the essence of a vast variety of experiences and objects for what they are in themselves.” Hedgehogs on the other hand, consciously or unconsciously, seek to fit their analyses into an “all-embracing, sometimes self-contradictory and incomplete, at times fanatical unitary inner vision.”

The Future of War: Adios, Clausewitz

MARCH 4, 2015 

“War therefore is an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfil our will.” – Carl Von Clausewitz

In a white, perfectly circular rotunda at the Reagan International Trade Center, military officials and foreign policy experts gathered at the New America/ASU Future of War Conference. They sat at perfectly circular white tables, ate from perfectly circular white plates, and tried to create a perfectly precise definition of war. Yet the age of Clausewitz is over, a panel found. No longer is war only an act of physical violence, as Clausewitz theorized. In the future, what defines an act of war will become increasingly non-violent.

The norm of what constitutes war is changing said Charles Dunlap, a retired Air Force JAG general, “especially when you move over into the cyber realm”. For instance, if there were a cyberattack on a country where nobody was killed, but caused the stock market to crash, could that be considered an act of war? Under the classic definition offered by Clausewitz, it wouldn’t be. Nobody was physically harmed. “I think the norm is evolving” Dunlap said.

So where can we draw the line of what constitutes a war, asked Rosa Brooks, a Schwartz fellow at New America. Does that mean that economic sanctions can be considered an act of war? What about psychological tactics? Almost anything could be attributed to an act of war, it seems.

“Where I think the line drawing could happen is the element of control over other people.” said Naz Modirzadeh, the Founding Director of the Program on International Law and Armed Conflict at Harvard Law School “The law on armed conflict is about when you control other people.”

The Future of War essays (no. 18): Who cares about ‘the future of war’? We should be thinking about the future of victory!

BY THOMAS E. RICKS
MARCH 17, 2014

The Future of War essays (no. 18): Who cares about ‘the future of war’? We should be thinking about the future of victory!

What is the future of war? My response: Who cares? I mean, what good are the tools and methods of war when we don’t understand its nature in the first place?

Our country, with its unmatched military might and sophistication, has the capabilities to destroy any country, any coalition, and indeed, the world multiple times over. And at the same time, everyone knows we will never unleash our full military potential.

When exactly was the last time we decisively won a war? Too far to think back? Isn’t our military, the spiritual descendants of Chesty Puller and of Curtis LeMay, made up of the best trained killers in the world? Well, the USMC recruiting commercial showing the Marine working hard to pass out food packages like a Peace Corps worker suggests otherwise.

Our logic of warmaking is breathtakingly backwards. Nukes, weapons which assure the complete destruction of an enemy army or state in a moment, and which also make standing armies unnecessary, are too politically taboo to discuss. Drones and special operators, excellent accessories to conventional forces, are now our most cherished combat assets. And arguably the greatest danger on the battlefield is our rules of engagement. We actually imprison our soldiers for fulfilling their roles as soldiers. This is not only insane, this is our nation’s military policy!

India’s Defence Budget 2015-16

March 02, 2015

[W]e need a vast pool of highly skilled and qualified human resources for the defence industry. Our aerospace industry alone would need about 200,000 people in another ten years. We will set up special universities and skill development centres to cater to our defence industry, just as we have done in atomic energy and space… We must ensure that our tax system does not discriminate against domestic manufacture in comparison to imports. 

… Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in his address at Aero India on February 18, 2015

Introduction

The first full budget of the Modi government presented to Parliament on February 28, 2015 set aside Rs. 2,46,727 crore (US$ 40.4 billion) for defence, which amounts to a 7.7 per cent increase over the previous year’s allocation. The defence allocation is, however, exclusive of another Rs. 62,852.6 crore provided to the Ministry of Defence (MoD) under the heads of Defence Pensions (Rs. 54,500 crore) and Civil Expenditure of MoD (Rs. 8,852.6 crore), both of which do not form part of India’s official defence budget. The latest defence allocation comes in the wake of the Modi government’s all-out push for the ‘Make in India’ initiative, the ‘heart’ of which, as noted by the Prime Minister himself at the Aero India 2015, is the defence industry. The budget also comes in the wake of the government’s acceptance and implementation of the report of the 14th Finance Commission, which has made a number of recommendations that have a bearing on the central government’s budget, a significant portion of which is spent on defence. This Issue Brief examines the 2015-16 defence budget keeping in view these two developments in particular. But it begins with a macro survey of the Indian economy and the central government’s fiscal situation, both of which have a direct bearing on defence.
State of the Economy

The 2015-16 defence budget comes in the backdrop of some visible improvements in key indicators of the Indian economy. As the Economy Survey 2014-15 brings out, the real gross domestic product (GDP), as expressed through the recently revised methodology for estimating national income by the Central Statistics Office (CSO), is expected to grow by between 8.1 and 8.5 per cent in 2015-16, as against 7.4 per cent in the preceding year. The improvement in the GDP figure also coincides with a sharp decline in international commodity prices (particularly of crude oil). This has had a helpful impact on inflation and the fiscal deficit, the latter being projected to decline to 3.9 per cent of GDP in 2015-16 from 4.1 per cent in the previous year. On India’s external front, there has also been several impressive improvements as witnessed in the surge in the country’s foreign exchange reserves, stability in the rupee-dollar exchange rate, and a sharp narrowing of the Current Account Deficit (CAD) which had deteriorated to a ‘worryingly high’ level not so long ago, causing panic among investors and an outflow of foreign exchange.

6 March 2015

Towards a small war - What should be India's response to terror?

Subir Bhaumik
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1150306/jsp/opinion/story_7079.jsp#.VPlbYvmUf0A

The former American ambassador to India, Robert Blackwill, made the speculations public in February when he said that the next time India faces a 26/11-type terrorist attack, the country might consider going to war with Narendra Modi as prime minister. Blackwill, a Harvard academic who has researched the Asian alliances of the United States of America, was not kite-flying in solitude. During Barack Obama's recent India visit and beneath all the visible Obama-Modi bonhomie, the US security and intelligence officials accompanying the president, or in some way connected with his visit, were all involved in a detailed side exercise to assess what India might do if attacked by terrorists the next time on with Modi in the top job. Blackwill said what many in the US security-intelligence establishment seemed to strongly believe that though previous Indian prime ministers from Indira Gandhi to Manmohan Singh had considered the war option from time to time when hit by bloody terror attacks from Pakistan, it is Modi who could actually exercise the war option.

A popular - and populist - prime minister, who loves playing to the gallery and projecting himself as a modern day 'iron man' like Sardar Patel, and one whose political grooming as a fierce Hindu nationalist makes it incumbent on him to hit out strongly at Pakistan at the first opportunity, may not act with the kind of restraint that Atal Bihari Vajpayee displayed after the terrorist attack on Parliament when he mobilized the entire Indian army (Operation Parakram) but did not finally go to war.

Vajpayee, more than any Indian prime minister, had good reasons to make war on Pakistan as someone who had gone to Lahore to make durable peace and then been hit by Kargil, Kandahar, and finally the assault on Parliament. But he limited the Kargil campaign to a defensive effort to eject intruders from Indian territory, avoided pressures to do an Entebbe at Kandahar, and then deployed the entire Indian army without finally going to war with Pakistan. The feeling in Washington is that Modi is no Vajpayee. The fierce Indian riposte in artillery duels across the Line of Control seems to have confirmed American impressions that they need to work on developing a proper response to a scenario when India faces another Parliament attack or 26/11, and then decides to go to war.

A war between two nuclear-armed arch rivals has been Washington's worst case scenario in Asia, and Modi may make that happen is the feeling. As part of its ongoing exercise to defuse India-Pakistan tensions , Obama has done his bit to 'encourage'(some say, incentivize) Modi to resume dialogue with the Nawaz Sharif administration in view of Sharif's determined onslaught against the Pakistani Talibans after the Peshawar school attack. That has produced some results - the new foreign secretary, S. Jaishankar has visited Islamabad, although as part of a larger "Saarc yatra". But it is now emerging that Modi and his security-intelligence establishment are also confabulating on possible responses to a terror strike from Pakistan that some see as a possibility in the not-too-distant future.

Reconciling the irreconcilable

http://www.asianage.com/columnists/reconciling-irreconcilable-641
Mar 06, 2015

Mr Sayeed plays to the gallery to score brownies. Like a leopard not changing its spots, he has displayed this trait. His assertion that when he was chief minister last, he got a general to place his hat at the feet of an imam is totally false.

Politics is the art of the possible in which there can be strange bedfellows in pursuit of po-wer. After two months of talks the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the Bharatiya Janata Party, with diametrically opposite ideologies and agenda, have reached a consensus for sharing power in Jammu and Kashmir. There has been some give and take by both. However, this is a mismatched marriage which may not last long. The PDP-Congress alliance from 2002 to 2008, when the two parties had no fundamental ideological differences, was not a happy experience. As mutually decided, Mufti Muhammad Sayeed had to vacate the chief minister’s chair on completing three years as the chief minister. The PDP now started acting almost like an Opposition. Its ministers boycotted Cabinet meetings on flimsy grounds and even boycotted functions presided over by the President of India. Ultimately, the PDP withdrew support leading to the fall of the Congress chief minister. Let us hope that the new coalition partners fare better, particularly when the BJP prudently has conceded a full six-year term for Mr Sayeed. It is premature to have a non-Muslim chief minister in Kashmir at present.

Democracy has now got properly established in Kashmir. There was a time in the days of Sheikh Abdullah when single candidates would contest elections from a constituency and get elected unopposed. After Sheikh’s dismissal in 1953, the scenario changed. B.K. Nehru who was governor of Kashmir in the Seventies, wrote in his autobiography “from 1953 to 1975 chief ministers of the state had been the nominees of Delhi appointed through rigged elections.” Indira-Sheikh accord in 1975 brought Sheikh Abdullah back to power. He won a huge mandate at the polls. Thereafter, elections again started being rigged. The 1987 election was heavily rigged causing much frustration among those who lost. Mohammed Yusuf Shah, now known as Syed Salahudeen, was defeated at the polls. He went over to Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) and has been organising terrorist attacks across the Line of Control (LoC) since then.

The 2002 Assembly election was universally recognised as free and fair. International correspondents witnessed and confirmed this. Mr Sayeed, who had been the president of the Congress in the state, joined the Janata Party of V.P. Singh and became Union home minister for a while. It is said that he stage managed the abduction of his daughter and released five terrorists to get her back with a view to building a political base for himself in the Valley. He then started a new political party called the PDP.

From lip service to action in science

PALLAVA BAGLA
March 6, 2015


PTINO LIFT OFF: “Despite Narendra Modi applauding the scientists space community on the success of Mangalyaan, this year’s budget for the Department of Space has remained flat at Rs.6,000 crore.” Picture shows the PSLV-C25 rocket carrying the Mars Orbiter spacecraft, at Sriharikota in 2013.


If Narendra Modi’s new and much-needed thrust of ‘Make in India’ has to truly translate into reality, Indian Science and Technology has to be bolstered much more

The Union Budget, which was presented on February 28, National Science Day, unfortunately failed to bring a smile on the faces of Indian scientists. It is indeed ironic that it was on the same day, before the Budget was presented, that Prime Minister Narendra Modi referred to Indian scientists as “India’s pride.” But young research scholars, the foot soldiers of research and development who form the backbone of all innovation, marked that Saturday as a “black day.” Many of them are now sitting on a fast in New Delhi seeking a hike in scholarship amounts.

In the Budget which was supposed to announce “big bang” reforms, no new big ticket initiatives were announced in Science and Technology, possibly a reflection of Science Minister Harsh Vardhan’s preoccupation with the Delhi elections.

Last fiscal, there was a drastic and unprecedented 30 per cent cut in the field of science. A science secretary had a simple solution to this: “This year we will ensure that the money allocated for sanctioned programmes is spent by December,” he said. At least then, he added, the work force can be kept fully occupied with cutting-edge programmes.

Afghanistan’s Mujahideen and a Fragile Peace

By Ali Reza Sarwar
March 04, 2015

The continuing role of mujahideen leaders in Afghan politics puts the country’s future at risk. 

Twenty-six years ago, in February 1989, the last Soviet soldiers pulled out of Afghanistan, ending a nine-year of bloody invasion that left behind a ravaged land and cost the lives of roughly 15,000 Red Army soldiers andtwo million Afghans. The war was a mistake – according to Soviet authorities – and a tragedy for Afghanistan. It also sowed the seeds of the devastating civil wars and subsequent takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban in 1996.

When the Soviets left Afghanistan under the Geneva Accord signed between the last Soviet-backed government of Mohammed Najibullah and Pakistan with the former Soviet Union and the U.S. as guarantors, Afghan Islamic fighters known as the mujahideen were still fighting to enter Kabul. After another three years of fierce battle, they were in control of the capital. As a political tradition and a national holiday, the aging mujahideen leaders come together each year to celebrate their victory and attempt to define their current and future political role. This year, however, the situation in Kabul was rife with antagonism, uncertainty about the future, and controversy over who should be credited for Afghanistan’s jihad and consequently rule the country.

For instance, Abdul Rab Rasul Sayef, a powerful jihadi leader who competed in the first round of Afghanistan’s presidential election in April 2014, called President Ashraf Ghani’s shaky unity government a dictatorship and criticized it for excluding the mujahideen from major political decisions, particularly in the current negotiations with the Taliban and in the normalization of relations with Pakistan. Amir Ismail Khan, the former governor of western Herat province and minister of energy and water under Karzai, called on mujahideen leaders toestablish a united political platform to defend their status and rights. Earlier, when Ghani announced his cabinet on January 12, 2015, Ismail Khan warned that war could break out within the next two months because of the exclusion of the mujahideen. In response to the mujahideen leaders, Abdullah Abdullah, the current chief executive officer in the unity government and himself a jihadi leader under the late Commander Ahmad Shah Masoud from the Northern Alliance, said that “being a former jihadi does not qualify one to be appointed as minister as the credit for jihad goes to all the people of Afghanistan.”

China’s Great Wall Of Debt

March 04, 2015

China’s debt has surged in recent years. Can it handle it? 

China’s great leap forward economically has now led the communist nation to join its developed rivals in the major debtors club. With growth slowing, is the world’s second-biggest economy heading for a crash?

According to a new report by the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI), China’s debt has quadrupled from $7 trillion in 2007 to $28 trillion as of mid-2014, reaching 282 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) and higher than the level of the United States. Continuing its current pace of growth would see China’s debt reach 400 percent of GDP by 2018, the equivalent of Spain.

Commenting on China’s debt explosion, the report said: “Several factors are worrisome: half of loans are linked directly or indirectly to China’s real estate market, unregulated shadow banking accounts for nearly half of new lending, and the debt of many local governments is likely unsustainable.”

According to MGI, property prices have risen by 60 percent since 2008 in 40 Chinese cities, with residential prices in prime locations in Shanghai now only about 10 percent below the level of New York and Paris. A sustained slowdown would hit the housing construction sector that accounts for 15 percent of GDP, while banks would suffer the fallout, particularly city commercial banks where real estate accounts for up to 30 percent of their loan portfolios.

As much as $9 trillion of debt is directly or indirectly linked to the real estate sector, including most of the loans by the shadow banking sector, with loans of around $6.5 trillion. In addition, slowing property markets increase the risk of a blowout in local government debt, with up to 40 percent of debt servicing and repayments funded by land sales.

Borrowing by local governments has grown by 27 percent a year since 2007 – 2.5 times as fast as the central government’s. According to a Standard & Poor’s report issued in November 2014, as many as half of the provincial governments would fall below investment grade, with most having debt to revenue ratios exceeding 100 percent.

Already, a property correction is underway with a 14 percent fall in the value of residential property transactions in 40 Chinese cities between April 2013 and August 2014, although Beijing saw a steep 33 percent dive and Shanghai dropped 21 percent.

MGI said the Chinese economy accounted for more than one-third of global growth in debt since 2007, with the largest driver being borrowing by non-financial corporations, including property developers. At 125 percent of GDP, China has one of the highest levels of corporate debt in the world, it said, noting that “rapid growth in debt has often been followed by financial crises.”

“A plausible concern is that the combination of an overextended property sector and unsustainable finances of local governments could result in a wave of loan defaults in China, damaging the regular banking system and potentially creating a wave of losses for investors and companies that have put money into shadow banking vehicles,” it said.

While spillovers to the global economy would be reduced due to the fact that China’s capital account is not fully liberalized, any further slowdown in Asia’s biggest economy would hit growth prospects for its regional trading partners.

China: Exit Counter-Intervention, Enter Peripheral Defense

By Michael Carl Haas
March 04, 2015

China’s focus on countering a U.S. military intervention along its periphery is alive and well. 

In a recent article in The Washington Quarterly, two well-respected scholars of Chinese military affairs seek to debunk the idea that the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has been designing its modernization drive and strategic planning around the concept of “counter-intervention,” which refers to the ability to force an outside power to stand off from the Chinese mainland and its immediate periphery during a conflict. Their assessment is based on a meticulous review of Chinese military texts, which the great majority of Western defense analysts will find difficult to dispute and which imbues their work with an air of scholarly authority, even where their judgments stray beyond what is warranted by their careful review of the language involved.

The article has made quite a splash, with The Diplomat’s Franz-Stefan Gady going so far as to call it “The One Article to Read on Chinese Naval Strategy in 2015.” I have to disagree with this assessment. This is not to say that those interested in China’s military modernization can afford to gloss over Fravel and Twomey’s article – they cannot, and should not. It is an important corrective provided by two leading scholars and, as such, should induce us to adapt the vocabulary we rely on in describing Chinese military planning vis-à-vis the United States. But don’t stop reading just yet, and don’t fall into the strange constructivist trap of believing that a strategy suddenly ceases to exist because the language we used to describe it is shown not to be in widespread use among its makers.

The Myth: ‘Counter-Intervention’ as a Chinese Concept

In establishing this latter fact, Fravel and Twomey succeed beyond reasonable doubt: The idea that “counter-intervention” is the genuinely Chinese equivalent to the Western concept of anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) is not supported by the available evidence, period. The authors deserve credit for exposing this fallacy, and unless new material is uncovered that strongly points in a different direction, serious analysts should refrain from attributing the term “counter-intervention” to the PLA or other participants in the Chinese doctrinal debate. While I see no compelling factual grounds for discarding the construct altogether, its troubled history of association with Chinese sources should be reason enough to retire it. Given the PLA’s focus on defending China’s maritime periphery against both regional and extra-regional actors seeking to intervene in its perceived spheres of vital interest, the concept of “peripheral defense” would seem to me to offer an adequate alternative description of the Chinese approach to anti-access warfare.

While I may or may not be taken up on this suggestion, a replacement is, in fact, required. For when it comes to characterizing the actual content of Chinese military strategy and operational paradigms, Fravel and Twomey find themselves on much shakier ground. Spurred by their compelling refutation of the relevance of “counter-intervention” as a concept in current use by PLA planners to describe their overall operational and strategic frameworks, they begin to equate this with a refutation of the substance of the “counter-intervention” paradigm as an important element of PLA doctrine and plans.

Did Japan Just Change Its Attitude Toward South Korea?

March 05, 2015

A change in Japan’s official diplomatic language is causing a furor in South Korea. 

Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has changed how it describes South Korea, raising concerns among South Koreans that the the bilateral relationship is becoming more strained.

On the MOFA’s website, Japan used to describe South Korea as “an important neighboring country that shares basic values with Japan such as freedom, democracy, and a market economy.” However, as of March 4, the description had changed to simply call South Korea Japan’s “most important neighboring country.”

The ministry’s altered description matches Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s recent stance on South Korea. When Abe gave speeches in 2013 and 2014, he described South Korea exactly the MOFA’s website used to: as “our most important neighboring country with which we share fundamental values and interests.” Abe changed this formulation in his February speech to the Diet, saying simply that “the Republic of Korea (ROK) is our most important neighboring country.”

Meanwhile, South Korean President Park Geun-hye said in March 1 speech that Japan and South Korea, “both upholding values of liberal democracy and a market economy, are important neighbors that are endeavoring together to pursue peace and prosperity in Northeast Asia.” The different descriptions hint that top leaders have diverged in their view of the relationship.

The Japanese daily Asahi Shimbun reported on March 4 that the changed language underscores the persistent friction between the two nations.

“We changed the description so that it matches the one that has often been used recently,” an unnamed MOFA official told Asahi Shimbun. Another unnamed government official told Asahi that the change was mainly brought about by South Korea’s October 2014 decision to indict a Japanese journalist, Sankei Shimbun’s former bureau chief in Seoul, on charges of defaming President Park.

South Korean media expressed a deeper concern over the change in language, using it as evidence that Japan’s rightward shift is accelerating. Media also speculated the change could be a sign that Japan will try to deny the Murayama Statement later this year at ceremonies marking the 70th anniversary of World War II’s end.

Financial Scandals in Japan Could Force Shake-Up in Abe's Cabinet

March 04, 2015

Alleged violations of the Political Funds Control Law are reverberating through the LDP and DPJ alike. 

The past few days have been rough for Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and his ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). Following the resignation of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Minister Koya Nishikawa, Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Minister Hakubun Shimomura, Environment Minister Yoshio Mochizuki, and Justice Minister Yoko Kamikawa have come under intense scrutiny for impropriety with political funds under the Political Funds Control Law.

The Political Funds Control Law is meant to increase the transparency of campaign contributions. It forbids a company from making a political donation within a year of being notified that they would receive a state subsidy, in order to prevent paybacks for receiving such subsidies. However, ambiguities in the law remain, and Abe’s ministers are fighting back against the opposition’s charges.

Under the Political Funds Control Law, it is not illegal for the politician to receive the money if they did not know that the money was illegal (i.e. were not aware that the company had received a state subsidy in the past year). It is also not illegal if the state subsidy was used for non-profit activities, such as experiments, research, and disaster relief, or if the subsidy is disbursed through a general incorporated association rather than directly through the state.

Mochizuki and Kamikawa have denied that they knew Suzuyo and Co., which made donations to them in 2013, was receiving subsidies. Mochizuki’s electoral branch received 1.4 million yen ($13,000) from Suzuyo in 2013 within months after the company began receiving subsidies, but Mochizuki said he was not aware of those subsidies until contacted by media representatives on February 26. Kamikawa’s electoral branch also received donations from Suzuyo. Different sources provide different figures for these donations, with Yomiuri reporting 720,000 yen ($6,000) and Asahi reporting 600,000 yen ($5,000).