A pedestrian carrying an umbrella walks through a Memorial Day display of United States flags on the Boston Common in Boston, Massachusetts May 23, 2013. According to the Massachusetts Military Heroes Fund, the flags are planted on the Common for fallen Massachusetts service members at the Memorial Day holiday, which will be celebrated May 27 in the U.S.
REUTERS/Brian Snyder

Russian Spy Games
By Edward Lucas
Foreign Affairs

The Cold War may have officially ended and the rest may be the new policy, but Russia and the U.S. are still adversaries, says Lucas. While Ryan Fogle’s, the 29-year-old third secretary at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, gamble may seem absurd, the extraordinary thing about the case is actually that the Russians made it such a public scandle, which are by convention not published. But with Putin’s regime facing a recession and a decline in popularity, renewing anti-Westernism with a spy scandle should come as no surprise.

Tocqueville in China
By Rebecca Liao
Dissent

Tocqueville’s been imported to China, and after a plug by China’s anti-corruption czar, has become one of the best-selling titles in the last few months. Liao examines China’s fascination with Tocqueville and the relevance of the text to the modern Chinese government.

A Day in the DRC
By Armin Rosen
The Atlantic

Goma, a city of roughly one million inhabitants in the province of North Kivu, DRC, is a city “built by conflict” but not defined by it. A thoughtful piece on a trip through this city in the “conflict-prone” province of North Kivu.

An ‘Epic’ Mess in Iran
By Abbas Milani
The New Republic

With a list of vetted candidates due to be announced on Tuesday, Khamenei’s so-called “epic election” seems like it might be on the rocks. Former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who announced his candidacy at the last minute and who has been shunned by the mouthpieces of Ahmadinejad and Khamenei, has put Khamenei in a lose-lose situation: Throw him out and lose the “epic election” or allow him to run, thereby failing in his eight-year mission to discredit him.

Pulp Liberation Army
By Isaac Stone Fish and Helen Gao
Foreign Policy

Military fantasy novels are far from new — as Fish and Gao note, Tom Clancy can imagine a situation where the U.S. attacks Beijing all he wants. In China, however, facing strict censorship and unforgiving review boards, these fantasies of foreign wars and invasion are not permitted to be published, forcing authors online. In the process, these novels have become vehicles of self-reflection, exploring Chinese identity through imagined conflicts.

Blogs:

A Candid Discussion with Eric Trager by Reza Akhlaghi
Somalia and the Slippery Slope of ‘Jubbaland’ by Abukar Arman
India, Pakistan and China: The importance of regional powers in a post-U.S. Afghanistan by Tyler Hooper
Beyond the Amended Arab Peace Initiative by Justin Scott Finkelstein
Analysis: The Arctic Council’s Kiruna Vision by Mia Bennett

SOURCE: AP/Saurabh Das

By Tyler Hooper

With U.S., NATO and International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) personnel set to withdraw the bulk of their military personnel from Afghanistan in 2014, regional powers such as China, India and Pakistan will have the opportunity to play an influential role in the country’s future. Both India and Pakistan have historically been involved in Afghan affairs, and lately China has begun to show interest in expanding its Central Asian influence. With an Afghan election set for April of 2014, in which President Hamid Karzai will have to cede power, U.S. policymakers hope that the next Afghan leader will continue to combat Islamic extremism and the Taliban. Although the U.S. has plans to keep some of its military bases in the country, U.S. foreign policy interests are bound to shift away from Afghanistan towards other regions, such as Africa and the South China Sea. Ultimately, as western powers scale down their military forces, regional powers will be forced to play a greater role in Afghanistan’s future, and in terms of U.S. interests, India’s actions will be of vital importance.

After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and subsequent withdrawal ten years later, a civil war between the Taliban, Northern Alliance and local warlords broke out across Afghanistan. The civil war and Taliban presence, supported by the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), during the 1990s made Afghanistan a regional threat to India, which caused Indian leaders to support the Northern Alliance, the Taliban’s chief rival. Since 9/11 and the U.S.-led invasion, India has played an important role providing aid to Afghanistan and its people and has continued to support international efforts to eliminate the Taliban. As a result, the U.S. has recognized India’s economic and strategic importance to the country, and lately U.S. policymakers have publicly praised India for its role in Afghanistan.

Recently, Robert Blake, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia, stated during a Congressional hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee that “any discussion of South Asia has to start with India.” Blake also highlighted the economic impact India has had on the Afghan economy: “We appreciate very much the significant role that India is playing in Afghanistan. In fact, we see India as kind of the economic linchpin for the future.” Blake was correct in calling India an “economic linchpin” as India is the largest regional contributor of aid to Afghanistan, having provided approximately $800 million in aid so far. The Indian government, led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, has pledged to provide more than a billion dollars of foreign aid and has also put a sizable amount of cash into foreign investments, primarily in ore deposits like the one in Hajigak.

Unlike ISAF and the U.S., India has taken a “soft-power” approach when it comes to dealing with Afghanistan: instead of strictly providing military assets, India has invested in relief aid for the country, which goes towards building proper infrastructure, agricultural development and improving security. Because of this, relations between India and Afghanistan have been relatively good; Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who studied in India and speaks Hindi, has a good relationship with Prime Minister Singh, and the Afghan people have been known to get along with Indian workers and even embrace aspects of India’s culture. However, some U.S. officials worry that India’s hostilities with Pakistan are the primary motivator for India’s interest in Afghanistan.

In 2011, Chuck Hagel, President Obama’s newly appointed U.S. Defense Secretary, commented that India was using Afghanistan as a “second-front” in its feud with Pakistan. Although India publicly refutes these claims, there appears to be some truth behind Hagel’s comments. Both Indian and Pakistani officials have blamed each other for attacks in and outside of Afghanistan. Pakistan claims that India has funded rebel groups who target the ISI and the Pakistani military. Similarly, Indian officials accuse the ISI of being involved in the planning of the 2008 and 2009 attacks against the Indian embassy in Kabul in which India accused the Pakistan based al-Qaeda Haqqani network for planning the attacks, something Islamabad and Pakistani officials strongly deny. Relations became especially tense after the Mumbai attacks in 2008, in which the Pakistani based jihadist group Lashkar-e-Tayiba (LeT) — allegedly funded by the ISI – killed more than a 160 people and wounded almost 300.

But Pakistan and India are not the only regional powers to show interest in Afghanistan. China, who has invested in Afghan mineral and oil deposits, has expressed concern over the security with its Afghan border. The two countries share a very small border between Tajikistan and the Jammu and Kashmir region and recently China has become increasingly worried about the increase of Islamic extremist activity in its Xianjing province. Consequently, newly elected President Xi Jinping has taken interest in what a post 2014 Afghanistan will look like, and has even planned to meet with an Indian delegation to discuss the Taliban and the threat of Islamic extremism to the border regions.  However, a recent land grab by the Chinese military, which saw Chinese forces penetrate and build a camp more than 700 kilometers into India’s territory, has threatened to create a rift between the two countries, a rift that could bring more instability to the region and stall any discussions on Afghanistan.

Some speculate that China may have other reasons for being interested in Afghanistan. For instance, some argue that China may wish to use Afghanistan to expand its Central Asian pipeline, which already runs through Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. Dr. Alexandros Peterson recently wrote a very interesting article in Foreign Policy magazine in which he asked, “Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan have grown wealthy and centralized partly due to Chinese energy investment. Could the same be true for Afghanistan in the future?” A pipeline built through Afghanistan would greatly expand Chinese influence in South and Central Asia. In addition, such a large project could be extremely helpful to the Afghan people, creating potential jobs and bringing foreign business and investment to the country. However, a pipeline is highly unlikely until Afghanistan becomes less of a security risk for foreign investors, and given Afghanistan’s current state, the outcome doesn’t look promising.

Afghanistan’s fate rests largely on what kind of role regional powers will play after the U.S. and other foreign troops withdraw the bulk of their forces in 2014. Currently, interest in Afghanistan remains high; both India and China have foreign investments in the country (China’s largest investment is a copper mine in Mes Aynak) and both would like to capitalize on the plethora of untapped natural resources. Moreover, Pakistan also has a heightened interest in the future of Afghanistan and recently Pakistani and Afghan forces have skirmished among the Afghan-Pakistani borders, creating tension between the two countries. Given the ISI’s history of involvement with the Taliban and other Islamic extremist groups, Pakistan will not let its influence in the country wane easily. As previously mentioned, 2014 will present more opportunities for regional powers to play a substantial role in Afghanistan’s future. In terms of U.S. interests, India’s involvement in both foreign aid and security aspects will be of vital importance. As western attention begins to turn elsewhere, particularly to Africa and Asia, other countries will need to pick where the U.S. left off.

Tyler Hooper is a freelance writer and journalist from Ottawa, Ontario. He has a Master’s degree in history from the University of Waterloo, in which his studies primarily evolved around Western and South Asian diplomatic relations during the Cold War. Tyler writes on a variety of subjects including politics and technology, but his passion lies in U.S. foreign policy, particularly U.S. policy in Afghanistan and the Middle East. He has a blog and website at http://tyhooperw.wordpress.com/ where you can check out the rest of his work. You can also follow him on Twitter @thooper8.

Just when the rhetoric on both sides seemed to be fading, last week the People’s Daily, a Chinese newspaper, ran a lengthy commentary penned by two academics challenging Japan’s sovereign rights to the Ryukyu island chain – not far from Taiwan and home to Okinawa prefecture, the administrative body of the disputed Diaoyu/Senkaku islands directly to their east.

The authors, from a prominent state-backed think tank, argued that foreign aggression toward China during the Qing dynasty (1644-1911) so weakened the state, that it could not counter Japanese aggression in the broader region.  The two authors argue that now is the time to rethink territorial disputes, “History’s unresolved questions relating to the Ryukyu have reached a time for reconsideration.”

The Japanese, of course, hotly dispute China’s claims to the territory, “There’s no doubt that [Okinawa] belongs to Japan historically and internationally” exclaimed Japanese government spokesman Yoshihide Suga, adding that a reconsideration is “completely out of the question.”

Meanwhile in Osaka, the mayor Toru Hashimoto was rehashing another long-running dispute over the hundreds of thousands of “comfort women” from China, Korea and the Philippines forced to work as sex slaves for the Japanese troops during the second World War.  Hashimoto claims that the use of these “comfort women” was a necessary measure, pinching a sensitive nerve in the Chinese mind.

And on Tuesday, footage emerged showing Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe posing with his thumbs up inside the cockpit of a jet used by the Blue Impulse flying squad.  In the footage, the number 731 is clearly visible on the outside of the jet, a significant number for many Chinese, as Unit 731 of the Imperial  Japanese Army was the covert chemical and biological weapons team based in Harbin that undertook lethal human experimentation on Chinese men, women and children during the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945) and World War II.

Shinzo Abe, whom the Economist calls “a hawk with distorted views of history,” has paid respects to Japan’s war dead (including leading World War II war criminals) at the controversial Yasukuni Shrine. Abe has previously warned China over the disputed Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands, saying Japan would not concede “one millimeter” of territory. Like his grandfather, the former prime minister Nobusuke Kishi, he is a vocal advocate of rewriting Japan’s postwar pacifistic constitution.

The recent flurry of rhetoric certainly plays to their respective home crowds, but looks insensitive and not very diplomatic on the international stage. Trying to explain territorial losses as the strong conquering the weak is an obvious point – redrawing territorial lines to address these imbalances is an impossibility on a regional scale and would trigger further actions on a global scale. Claiming that using sex slaves was “necessary” is insulting and clearly not an admission of wrong-doing. Associating oneself with the use of chemical and biological weapon experimentation on war prisoners is simply sadistic. The dialogue and rhetoric on both sides needs to move quickly away from playing to the baser instincts of the populace and seek to educate their respective populations on the horrors of war and the use of common-sense approaches to resolving differences. 

Closing the meeting in Kiruna. Photo: U.S. Government Work.

Asia in, EU not yet

China, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, India and Italy have all been admitted as permanent observer states to the Arctic Council, while the EU will have to wait. Though technically admitted, it still must work out its differences with Canada. Countries are admitted as permanent observer states by consensus between the eight member states and six permanent participants. A consensus was not yet completely reached on the EU’s application because of Canada’s objection to the organization’s ban on the import of seal furs, which has disproportionately harmed indigenous livelihoods in northern Canada. The Arctic Council’s Kiruna Declaration (PDF) welcome the new permanent observer states under the section, “Strengthening the Arctic Council.”

In a joint statement issued by HR/VP Catherine Ashton and EU Commissioner Maria Damanaki, the representatives stated, “The EU welcomes the Arctic Council’s decision on the EU’s application for permanent observership. The EU considers the Arctic Council a primary international forum for Arctic cooperation and looks forward to stepping up its engagement with the Arctic partners in tackling the challenges faced by this region of increasing importance. Further to previous exchanges with the Canadian authorities the EU will now work expeditiously with them to address the outstanding issue of their concern.”

Greenland’s boycott

The controversy demonstrates that indigenous affairs can and do have a real impact on international relations. The new chairperson of the Arctic Council, Leona Agglukaq, is of indigenous heritage herself — a first for someone in this position. Yet a major indigenous voice was missing from the ministerial meeting in Kiruna: that of Greenland, which boycotted the summit.

Nunatsiaq News stated that Denmark used to have three chairs at meetings until Sweden took over the chairmanship. Now, Greenland and the Faroe Islands are forced to sit behind, which newly elected Greenlandic Premier Aleqa Hammond finds unfair.

In a May 14 interview in Danish with the Greenlandic newspaper Sermitsiaq, Hammond expressed: “We believe it is of great importance for the population of Greenland and Greenlandic society that we are directly involved in the negotiations on conditions in Greenland. The work of the Arctic Council is very important to us, and we will not settle for being on the sidelines.”

Danish Foreign Minister Villy Søvndal noted, “We hope that there will soon be basis for Greenland to fully resume its place in the Arctic Council’s work and we will be working actively to achieve that.” Denmark was successful in its request for two chairs in Kiruna. The second went to the Faroe Islands as Greenland sat out the meetings, a decision which former Premier Kuupik Kleist called “unwise.” “You must be present if you want to be heard in a case,” he opined to Sermitsiaq. It is ironic that whereas countries like China, Japan, and Korea were angling for so long to merely be granted permanent observer status – and therefore ensure their presence at meetings and discussions — Greenland has willingly turned its back on the chance to be heard. But maybe the boycott — and the lack of presence — speaks more loudly than anything Hammond could have said. After all, when the Kremlin shut down RAIPON, the Russian indigenous peoples’ organization and permanent participant in the Arctic Council, the media paid it more attention than at any other time I can remember. Absence, then, is just as notable as presence, but in a different way. So now, the debate turns from the question of which countries will obtain permanent observer status to whether Greenland and the Faroe Islands should be according representation on an equal level as the other Arctic states, or at the very least, get back their individual chairs during meetings.

No such thing as a free lunch

The chairmanship has now passed to Canada, marking a new era for the Arctic Council, and for Arctic affairs more broadly construed. The chairmanship has now rotated through all eight member states, and Canada will hold the position it held at the start of the Arctic Council from 1996-1998. With all of the Asian applicants admitted, plus Italy, to permanent observer status, it will be interesting to see what types of projects the Arctic Council will pursue. China, Japan, and Korea are already quite involved in climate change research, so perhaps the Arctic Council will do even more in this area (though keeping in mind that funding from an observer state can never outstrip that of a permanent member). As Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide stated, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch…By becoming an observer you’re also signing up to the principles embodied by this organization, and that is why we have been working hard to make that happen.”

The Kiruna Declaration made note of the new Observer Manual adopted by the Senior Arctic Officials, which I haven’t seen yet but hopefully will be posted soon. The manual will outline the logistics and roles to be played by permanent observer states.

North American absence and presence

The other notable absence from the Arctic Council was that of the Canadian Foreign Minister, John Baird. As the Globe and Mail somewhat humorously points out, it seems there might be a bit of confusion in Ottawa as to who really is in charge of foreign affairs: John Baird or the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, Jason Kenney. Possibly, it was ultimately decided that Health Minister and Arctic Council chairperson Leona Agglukaq might be the clearest choice to represent Canadian interests in the Arctic.

Meanwhile, for the second time, the United States sent its secretary of state to the Arctic Council. In a speech that was more notably focused on climate change than any other representative’s, John Kerry gravely called attention to record-high carbon dioxide levels, melting sea ice caps, and Arctic wildfires. The BBC notes that he held one of the first Senate hearings on climate change in the 1980s with then-Senator Al Gore. Will Kerry be able to turn his interest and rhetoric on the urgency of climate change into real action?

I don’t have an exact transcript of Kerry’s speech, but he did argue that the Arctic is shared not just by the nations that touch it. Instead, the Arctic states have a responsibility to execute stewardship in the region, which “touches every person around the world and our way of life.” Whereas Canada tends to emphasize a more proprietary Arctic, with development benefiting northern peoples and residents, Kerry’s geopolitical framing of the Arctic reflected a vision more often promoted by Chinese officials, who occasionally talk about the region as a global commons. Both the U.S. and China, with their massive economies and reliance on shipping, have an interest in maintaing freedom of the seas. So while they might disagree on strategic issues in the Pacific, they might be able to agree on commercial and transportation issues in the Arctic. In that case, so much for talk of conflict in the Arctic. The circumpolar north might actually be able to cool tensions in other parts of the globe.

The Space Shuttle Atlantis is seen shortly after the rotating service structure (RSS) was rolled back at launch pad 39a, Thursday, July 7, 2011 at the NASA Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida. Credit: Bill Ingalls

The Thin Red Line
By Dexter Filkins
New Yorker

President Obama has said on numerous occasions that the use of chemical weapons in Syria would be his “red line” and a “game changer” in the United States’ approach to the Syrian civil war. Filkins investigates the White House’s debate on Syria and the issues behind an intervention after the “searing experiences” of Iraq and Afghanistan.

My father, the good Nazi
By Philippe Sands
Financial Times

Otto von Wächter, the former Nazi governor of Galicia and Krakow, has been identified as a war criminal since 1942. His son, Horst, denies his crimes — who is by no means the first child of a Nazi official to do so — even after Sands approaches him with documentation on the atrocities.

U.S. cyberwar strategy stokes fear of blowback
By Joseph Menn
Reuters

As the U.S. confronts its rivals over use of cyber warfare, it has rapidly become the biggest offensive player on the cyber field. But as the defense industry continues to offer “bounties” to hackers who have uncovered critical exploits, some policy makers are beginning to wonder if this may, in the end, be harmful to U.S. security.

China: Year Zero
By Christian Caryl
Foreign Policy

As Caryl points out, sometimes “it is inevitable…that we tend to focus on leaders when we examine grand political and economic transitions.” However, leaders aren’t the only actors in this transformation. Caryl tells the story of how China jolted its economy not only to life, but brought it to the fast lane.

Maggie
By Andrew O’Hagan
The New York Review of Books

Andrew O’Hagan reflects on “Thatcherism” and its effect on Britain from the perspective of growing up in a small Scottish mining town. And even as she drove the nation apart — by pitting not just political parties against each other, but the north and the south of Britain — perhaps her greatest legacy was “to have made Britain a place more out of love with the idea of tolerance.”

Blogs:

A Cheat Sheet to Pakistani Elections by Zainab Jeewanjee
A Candid Discussion with Cliff Kupchan by Reza Akhlaghi
Solving Syria – A dilemma for the West by Maxime Larive
Red Lines, Syria, and Rhetoric by Julia Knight
The Politics of Guantánamo by Scott Monje

Photo by Jason Lee: Reuters

As territorial disputes have continued to escalate between the Chinese and Japanese over the Diaoyu/Senkaku island chain, Chinese tourists are arriving at The Eighth Route Army Culture Park in Wuxiang county, a war theme park where visitors can dress up at Chinese or Japanese troops and then shoot at each other using toy weapons.  The $80 million theme park, backed by the local government, opened a year ago, and is located in an area famous as a “red tourism” destination.  Of the 140,000 troops of the famed Eight Route Army, which fought over 4,300 battles against the Japanese during the 1930s and 40s, over 90,000 of these troops were from Wuxiang county.

Activities at the theme park include trench simulation scenarios based on the video game “Stalker” whereby visitors dress as Japanese or Eight Route Army troops, a train ride where passengers can shoot at Japanese soldiers, and a live-action performance depicting actors dressed as Japanese troops sticking samurai swords in plainclothes Eighth Route Army soldiers and then shooting them. This past August, the county held its first Eighth Route Army Cultural Festival, when eighty retired soldiers were invited to attend.

Some Chinese war veterans are supportive of the theme park, believing it shows an important part of China’s history and reveals the horrors of war.  Other Japanese commentators have dismissed the park as mere government propaganda, stating the theme park is disrespectful to both Japanese and Chinese troops.

Whatever the true motive of the local government was in opening this war theme park, the depiction of violence as play between warring nations is in extremely poor taste, especially during these times of heightened tensions between China and Japan.  Some Chinese may liken the play violence to that of American children playing cowboy and Indian, but these playful games are neither promoted at the local or national level nor are these animosities carried into adulthood.  Others may try to compare the war theme park to the mock Civil War battles held in the U.S.  But those mock battles depict events internal to the U.S. and do not offend other nations.  Other Chinese may complain of the war games taking place every year among the U.S. troops and their allies in the region – but these war games are between professional soldiers and are necessary to maintain troop fitness should their services be needed.  War is a serious matter and has serious consequences, depictions of which should be confined to museums portraying the gruesome price paid by both sides.

It is difficult to fathom the parents of Chinese children bringing their child to the theme park so he can “play-kill” other children dressed as Japanese soldiers. Imagine for an instant the Germans opening a theme park where visitors can dress up as Nazis and “pretend-kill” their enemies!   What are Chinese parents who bring their children to the park teaching them?  Are their children really learning the horrors of war in a proper fashion or is the local government attempting to stoke patriotism and nationalism among the young?

“It’s all psychological. You yell barracuda, everybody says, ‘Huh? What?’ You yell shark, we’ve got a panic on our hands on the Fourth of July.” In the summer of 1975, the budding auteur, Steven Spielberg, created a virtual panic at America’s beaches with ingeniously crafted screen images of a certain Great White Fish. The top Chinese official of the People’s Liberation Army, General Fang Fenghui, created his own Jaws effect when he recently announced that the consequences of a major cyber attack “may be as serious as a nuclear bomb.” You yell cyber everybody says, “Huh? What?” You yell nuclear, we’ve got a panic on our hands.

While I do not want to accuse General Fang Fenghui of a plot to manipulate public perception and trigger a cyber hysteria, his remarks are symptomatic of the global uncertainty surrounding the results of a ‘major cyber attack.’ The simple truth is we do not know the likely consequences of such an attack as there has not been a full-scale cyber war to trigger major strategic cyber attacks. Even if total cyber war should break out, cyber weapons, while destructive, “appear to have nowhere near the ability to inflict catastrophic destruction along the lines of a major nuclear attack,” as Andrew F. Krepenevich stated in a report on cyber warfare.

For example, U.S. power grid systems (SCADA systems) are highly centralized, divided into three separate power grids–the Eastern Interconnection, the Western Interconnection, and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas Interconnection. Ninety percent of the Defense Department’s critical infrastructure is dependent upon power from these networks. Military exercises have indicated that even a single cyber strike could disable any of the three grids not to mention the myriad consequences for civilian life. One expert spelled out the potential fallout in congressional testimony in April 2012:

When transformers fail, so too will water distribution, transportation, communications, and many emergency and government services. Given the 12-month lead time typically required to replace a damaged transformer with a new one, the local and regional economic and societal disruption caused by cyber attacks that that disable or destroy the mechanical functioning of key components of the power grid would be devastating.

The possible consequences of such an event combined with cyber attacks on the financial and transportation sector have been mapped out in various scenarios demonstrating the crippling ripple effect of such an assault. But even the most extreme predictions do not approach the human catastrophe of a nuclear detonation in Manhattan and the instant incineration of a million or more people. Comparatively, a major cyber attack might be dramatized as the menacing threat of a Giant Squid, which would require all of the cinematic artifice of the mature Spielberg to effectively magnify the danger in a screen spectacle dubbed “Tentacles.”

History provides us a vivid example about the impossibility of determining the impact of a new dimension of warfare on the outcome of a conflict. Contrary to some current thinking, the contemporary technological context of war does not so much resemble the 1950s as the 1930s and the evolution of air power and air power strategy.

In 1921, Guilio Douhet argued in his The Command of the Air that air power was revolutionary because it operated in the third dimension setting of a decade long debate about the impact of airplanes on warfare. He argued that since aircrafts could fly over ground forces, they would relegate land soldiers to secondary importance. The vastness of the sky made defense almost impossible, so the essence of air power was the offensive. The only defense was a good offense (similar to the United States Cyber Command active defense doctrine). The psychological effect of German bombing on France and Great Britain during the First World War led to an exaggerated fear of the capabilities of air power in Western Europe. British Prime Minister Baldwin stated in 1932 that “the bomber would always get through,” and the fear of Germany’s “knockout blow” against Paris or Britain led to a frenzied search for solutions.

The actual course of the war showed however that much of the fear of airpower was exaggerated. As a matter of fact, “the bombers did not always get through.” The German air force lost the Battle of Britain and the air war over Germany and Japan — although important and lethal–was not decisive in the outcome of the war. The British Royal Force, the German Luftwaffe and the United States Air Force did not achieve their strategic or operational objectives; air power supported, but could not replace, boots on the ground.

The true strategic impact of cyber weapons also may fall below expectations in a future war. Any historical analogy has its limits however. General Fang Fenghui’s rhetoric expresses the palpable fear in both China and the United States of the intrinsic vulnerability of their respective economies and critical information infrastructures to strategic cyber strikes.

Some long-time students of Chinese military policy take Fang’s warning very seriously, although not at face value. Dr. Greg Austin, a Professorial Fellow at the EastWest Institute, reminds us that in 1996 Professor Joseph Nye and Admiral Bill Owens together warned that the advent of information weapons and infrastructure may affect strategic deterrence. Says Austin, “those who relegate information warfare to an artificial and compartmented construct similar to air power are ignoring how overarching strategies for information dominance, held both by China and the United States, have altered the calculus of risk for use of a nuclear missile strike.” The trouble with this view, credible as it maybe, is that we can’t see the physical evidence in the public domain. We need to be able to access some part of the substance of this new and evolving theater of cyber warfare before we can see more clearly what will land “on the beach” of our fears.

A version of this article has appeared on China-U.S. Focus.

Yesterday, I mentioned in a blog post that Eimskip, the Icelandic shipping company, recently moved its North American hub from Norfolk, Virginia to Portland, Maine. This will be the American port’s first direct connection to Europe in 33 years, according to an excellent, fact-filled article in the Press Herald, a local newspaper. Eimskip’s decision is in line with its mission to “provide outstanding transportation services through a dependable transport system in the North Atlantic, as well as offering extensive worldwide network of reefer logistics services.” Eimskip will also open an office and warehouse in Portland. According to the Press Herald, Eimskip has also been in discussions with Pan Am Railways to achieve freight access to North American markets. Pan Am plans to extend its railways 1,500 feet to reach the port, creating much-needed intermodal capabilities. Building on the momentum of the new port activities, Icelandic President Olafur Grímsson will give the keynote presentation at the Maine International Trade Day on May 31.

Eimskip containers being loaded in northern Norway, January 2013. (c) Mia Bennett

The Green Line route. (c) Eimskip

The move to start calling in the ice-free port of Portland twice a month builds upon Eimskip’s recent opening of services to northern Norway. The company’s Green Line will now connect Portland with Sortland, Norway, not too far from Tromso. That city is home to the new Arctic Council secretariat and a city that’s positioning itself as the “capital of the Arctic.” I sailed through Sortland on the Hurtigruten ferry in January, and it’s a stunning port. It is incredible to think that soon, Maine’s famous lobsters and blueberries could be on people’s plates not only in Tromso, but even Nuuk, Greenland and Murmansk, Russia, other destinations that Eimskip services with its fleet of 17 ships.

Eimskip’s network. (c) Eimskip

The United States’ most northeastern state will benefit in that its forestry and fishing products, among other goods, will have new export markets, particularly in Europe. Iceland will benefit, too, as its resources, such as aluminum exports, will have easier access to North American markets. Those containers bringing Icelandic goods to the U.S. and Canada can then bring back electronic circuits, civilian aircraft, lobsters, and paper pulp – the state’s top four exports in 2012 according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Other items that will likely be shipped from Portland include materials needed for Exxon-Mobil’s $14 billion oil drilling project off the coast of nearby Newfoundland, Canada, thereby connecting Maine to resource developments up north.

On the other side of the planet, the Rongcheng Shenfei shipyard in China is constructing two container ships for Eimskip. China has been eying Iceland as a transshipment hub in the Arctic for some time now. So perhaps we could see a Maine-China connection eventually develop via the transshipment hub of Iceland. The Portland-Sortland route could then extend to Beijing and Shanghai. In future years, should Maine take after China’s lead, perhaps it will position itself as none other than a near-Arctic state. This would be rather fitting, as after all, it was only 1,000 years ago that Leif Ericson and his band of explorers are believed to have reached the coasts of Nova Scotia and possibly even the Pine Street State. Watch out, Alaska!

McLobster: Coming soon to Mcdonald’s in Murmansk?

A new era in Icelandic politics. (c) Mia Bennett

On Saturday’s parliamentary elections in Iceland, two center-right parties seized power from the incumbent Social Democrats. Iceland Review states that the Independence Party won a reported 28.5 percent of the vote, while the Progressive Party won 25.2 percent. What does this mean for Iceland’s Arctic strategy and the region at large?

The EU dimension

First of all, EU membership is now likely off the table. Both the Progressives and Independents oppose acceding to the union. In fact, it was the Progressive Party which promoted the idea of replacing the Icelandic króna with the Canadian dollar. In 2012, the party’s leader, Sigmundur Gunnlaugsson, said, “If we are going to adopt another currency, then the Canadian dollar looks very promising.” Yet they’re still pro-króna more than anything. For the EU, the fact that Iceland will not be joining the union any time soon means that at least for the near term, Brussels has lost the chance of gaining an Arctic coastal state. The EU’s website states that it has three (and potentially four) Arctic Council member states among its members, but the number will now probably remain at three. The Arctic Dialogue, a high-level summit between EU and Iceland officials regarding Arctic energy activities, such as Iceland’s hydrothermal industries and oil and gas in the Arctic at large, took place on April 15. The dialogue was part of the accession talks for Iceland to join the EU. With the new government in power, it’s unclear whether these talks will even continue. This could affect Iceland-EU cooperation, which might occur now on a more limited level now that membership is not in its crosshairs. Yet in an April 8 press release, Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy Štefan Füle emphasized that the “European Commission remains fully committed to continuing the work with the government of Iceland after the elections.” Whether this commitment will be mutual has yet to be determined. In any case, Iceland supports EU’s bid for permanent observer status in the Arctic Council and will probably continue to do so. Talks may also still go on regarding a joint maritime service center oriented towards economic development and monitoring of activities in the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans. So just because EU membership is shelved doesn’t necessarily mean that all talks and cooperation with the EU will be put on hold.

Domestic issues

Either Gunnlaugsson or Bjarni Benediktsson, leader of the Independence Party, will become prime minister. Regardless of who takes the top office, it’s likely that Iceland will refocus on growing its primary industries. In March, Gunnlaugsson stated in an interview with Bloomberg, “There are great growth opportunities in the fundamental industries of Iceland.” The center-right parties’ express interests in resource development could cause Iceland to continue to rely on export-oriented industries such as fisheries, aluminum processing, and potential oil and gas development to fuel its economy. This, in turn, would help stabilize the króna, which plunged in value against foreign currencies during the crisis. Thousands of Icelanders are basically underwater with their mortgages, as many have a principal that varies based on the króna’s exchange rate.

With the Althingi’s possible increased emphasis on natural resource development, Icelanders are naturally concerned about environmental protection. Members of the Progressive Party answered the following question from Grapevine, an Icelandic newspaper:

Will your party do something to protect the land and its resources? Is a more stringent regulative framework needed to ensure conservation of the environment?

“The Progressive Party believes that it is important to include an article in the constitution that puts resources within Icelandic territory into the national ownership.”

No mention was made of conservation, but the fact that the Progressives want to emphasize Icelandic ownership over natural resources is interesting. I think this has more to do with offshore fisheries and potential oil and gas resources rather than land (recall the Anglo-Icelandic Cod Wars), but let’s not forget that land, too, is a hot-button issue in Iceland. When Chinese businessman Huang Nubo expressed interest in buying land in eastern Iceland to turn into a $200 million tourist resort, it stirred up a lot of controversy. Gunnlaugsson was rather supportive towards Huang’s plans, while Benediktsson was more opposed. In 2011, he said that foreign purchases of land would need to be “carefully considered.” He did add, however, “I think there lies a very high chance of cooperating with this man who seems to want to go in tourism and other such things.” (A great blog post about Huang’s saga can be found here.)

Huang seemed to be quite positive about his chances with the elections. In March, he commented to the China Daily, “There will very likely be a favorable turning point on the deal in April…But if I get nothing clear and final from the Icelandic government by the end of May, I’ll no longer be interested in pursuing the project, and I’ll let it go.”

So perhaps given the election results, we will see a continued strengthening of the Iceland-China connection from parliamentary quarters, particularly if Huang’s development plans are approved (although this is a private business venture rather than a government-backed deal). Iceland may continue to look to Asia, the Nordic countries, and nearby North America for business opportunities rather than continental Europe. The country may also continue to position itself as an Arctic coastal state strategically situated in the North Atlantic, emphasizing its Arctic identity over a European one. By consequence, the U.S., which had an air force base in Keflavík until 2006, could soon have to contend with Chinese investment not just in the Pacific, Caribbean, and Indian Oceans, but the Atlantic, too.

The U.S. doesn’t need to worry too much at this stage about losing out in the competition for Icelandic business. Eimskip, the Icelandic shipping company, moved its North American hub from Virginia to Portland, Maine in March 2013 in order to shortern North Atlantic shipping times – a decision I’ll write more about in my following post.

Mr. Grimsson goes to Beijing

President Grimsson: Still the face of Iceland in the Arctic.

All in all, things probably won’t change too much in the Arctic with the new parties in power in Reykjavik. Iceland’s most visible face in the circumpolar north has not been the prime minister, but rather President Olafur Grimsson, a political independent. As his office is elected separately, he will continue in his position. The longest serving president in Icelandic history, he has held office since 1996. Long terms, however, are not unusual; the previous president, Vigdís Finnbogadóttir, served for 16 years. The Grapevine says that opposing a sitting president is considered “bad form,” so it’s unlikely that we’ll see any real challengers to Grimsson. For a long time, the president was also not supposed to become mired in politics, as the position is more akin to a head of state than a political leader.

Yet Grimsson changed that with his involvement in the financial crisis in Iceland in 2008. A high-flying president comfortable in front of reporters and cozy bankers, many thought he was partly responsible for the country’s economic collapse. But Grimsson managed to save face by vetoing a bill passed by the Parliament, then led by the Social Democrats, that would have required Iceland to pay back some of the $5 billion lost in Dutch and British Icesave accounts. After the veto, the bill went to the people in a referendum, and Icelanders voted against it. Grimsson became the first president to use the power of the veto, symbolically transforming the office into a very political — and powerful — one.

Grimsson, former leader of the socialist People’s Alliance party, betrayed the wishes of the Social Democratic prime minister and her party. In 2012, the main opponent against Grimsson, Thora Arnordsdottir, ran on a platform calling for the president to stay out of politics. Now that the Independence and Progressive Parties will take power, Grimsson will have political allies in the Althingi. Grimsson, whom blogger Heather Exner-Pirot has called a “known Sinophile,” will probably continue building ties with the snow dragon and other Asian states interested in the Arctic. The Chinese-Iceland attraction is mutual, too: earlier this year, a popular television show on CCTV about the Arctic featured Iceland, showcasing the country’s natural beauty, geothermal energy and aurora. If that attraction is confirmed by parliament’s new leading parties, then the Iceland-China connection stands to grow stronger in the coming years while the island nation expands into new markets as well. This time, shipping — not banking — will provide the way forward into far-flung corners of the globe.

Years of patient diplomatic efforts by China with its belligerent neighbor North Korea seemed to be coming to an end on Saturday, following Beijing’s public announcement of an agreement with the U.S. on ridding North Korea of nuclear weapons. The action comes after last Sunday’s early warning shot by China’s President and CCP Secretary General Xi Jinping, in a keynote speech at the Boao Forum for Asia.  During the speech, Xi noted, “No one should be allowed to throw a region and even the whole world into chaos for selfish gains.”   These latest comments from Beijing are particularly significant, as China is North Korea’s only major ally and has long subsidized the regime’s existence as a buffer state through large amounts of fuel and food aid.

Beijing’s latest action comes in response to the most recent round of threats to the region, warning foreigners to leave South Korea due to an impending “thermonuclear” war, with claims that it had “powerful striking means” on standby for a launch. According to the latest intelligence from Seoul and Washington, North Korea has positioned as many as five medium-range missiles on its east coast, possibly in readiness for a test launch of its Musudan medium-range missile.  A new American intelligence analysis, disclosed Thursday at a hearing on Capitol Hill, says the Defense Intelligence Agency (or DIA, the Pentagon’s intelligence wing) has “moderate confidence” that North Korea has nuclear weapons capable of delivery by ballistic missiles, but that the weapon was unreliable.

With a potential range of 2,180 miles, North Korea’s Musudan missile reportedly has the potential to hit U.S. bases on Guam (which has been identified as a potential target by North Korea), and although several successful ballistic missile launches have been conducted, it is unknown whether the Musudan can fly that far.  Last year, North Korea failed in an attempt to send a satellite into space aboard a long-range rocket. North Korea has also barred its South Korean workers from entering the Kaesong Industrial Region, which generates $2 billion a year in trade.

Many analysts have downplayed the threats coming from North Korea as the typical rhetoric emanating from Pyongyang at this time of year.  The nations’ biggest holiday, the birthday of North Korea founder Kim Il Sung, is celebrated on April 15, and this week marked the anniversary of leader Kim Jong Un’s appointment to the country’s top party post. Some analysts estimate that the 30-year old Kim is driving the rhetoric given his need to establish himself as a strong leader before his comrades and people.

Others are not so sure, including North Korea’s neighbors.  Seoul has deployed three naval destroyers, an early warning surveillance aircraft and a land-based radar system, and Japan has deployed PAC-3 missile interceptors around Tokyo.  The U.S. forces in the region are also reportedly on high alert and prepared to intervene, “We have every capacity to deal with any action that North Korea would take, to protect this country and the interests of this country and our allies,” U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel recently told reporters at the Pentagon.  The U.S. Navy has moved two missile defense ships closer to the coast of the Korean peninsula, and the Pentagon announced it will place a more advanced land-based missile defense on Guam.  The Pentagon has also moved a sea-based X-band radar, designed to track warheads in flight, into position in the Pacific.

Naturally, China would like the problem settled peacefully, with tensions relaxed on all sides and a renewed dialogue among North Korea’s neighbors, and perhaps this will be the end result once again.  Pyongyang’s strategy has long been to escalate tensions in order extract concessions, in other words, to be rewarded for bad behavior.  But this strategy is becoming increasingly tired and should be called into question.   Regardless of whether Pyongyang’s latest provocative boasts are the new leader’s establishment of his authority, playing to a domestic audience or whether the missiles are actually fired, Beijing has long needed to discover a new approach to dealing with its neighbor.  Acknowledging North Korea’s nuclear weapon potential and seeking to curb their progress in developing these weapons is a first step.  But how Beijing decides to play their cards and apply pressure to rid North Korea of its weapons is unclear.  Withholding economic and food aid is one of their strongest hands, but could easily exacerbate the situation and cause a humanitarian crisis, with the potential flood of refugees into China.

Refugees have long wandered back and forth between China and Korea.  From 1865 the Qing dynasty officially allowed Koreans to live and farm in Manchuria.  In 1920, the number of those migrating from Korea into China surpassed 450,000, most of which were escaping poverty and Imperial Japan’s attempts at smothering Korean culture.  By 1945, the number of Korean migrants in China totaled 2.1 million, and in 1952 China established the Yanbian Autonomous Prefecture, which is now home to over 800,000 ethnic Koreans.  Nowadays, there is an established underground network of South Korean churches and non-governmental organizations which shuttles refugees from China to South Korea — tens of thousands of North Koreans have fled since the famine of the mid-1990s.  Some activists estimate that between 30,000 and 40,000 North Korean refugees are living in China, procuring food for their relatives or waiting for a chance to escape to Laos or Thailand, where the South Korean authorities are able to help.  These networks could be further strengthened through additional multilateral assistance and funding.

Of course, Beijing is worried of a humanitarian crisis developing on its territory should the floodgates open for a potential 24 million North Koreans – but it is unlikely an overwhelming number of refugees could escape.  Whether or not Beijing decides to play this hand, its policies toward North Korean refugees should be loosened – many who do manage to escape are hunted in China, and once discovered, taken back to North Korea where they may be tortured and jailed.  Whether or not loosening the border controls has any impact on preventing further rounds of tension, it should be undertaken by Beijing as a purely humanitarian gesture.

U.S. Congressman Mike Rogers chairs the House of Representatives’ panel on intelligence, which this week overwhelmingly approved a new cyber security bill designed to enhance data sharing between the government and private industry to protect computer networks and intellectual property from cyber attacks.

Yet the day before it passed, Rogers had a more novel idea on how to deal with those stealing information from U.S. firms and government entities: name names.

Rogers noted that nations like China have little for the U.S. to steal back since, to paraphrase him, they stole everything of value they have from the United States.  The one thing the U.S. could – and should do – is make public compromising communications and other materials, Rogers said.

“We are in a cyber war and we just don’t know it,” Rogers, R-Mich., said at an event on the cyber threat sponsored by the American Center for Democracy. “We had better do something now” or cyber terror will ruin the U.S. economy.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/politics/house-cyber-bill/

In the colloquy, the cyber policy experts offered a frank, in-depth montage about threats to the U.S., saying it is past the time to act and imperative to put someone in charge of the effort.

“We got lots of work to do,” said James Woolsey, former CIA director. “Who is in charge? No one really.”  He noted that the American dog food industry spends more on research than individual U.S. firms spend on researching the hacking problem.

The experts fretted at the stagnation by the U.S. while its enemies become more skilled, daring and determined to steal intellectual, economic and national security data across the spectrum. That said, the U.S. still can both counter and pro-actively deal with cyber threats if it seeks new ways of government-private sector, among other things, they said.

http://blog.heritage.org/2013/04/10/cybersecurity-harnessing-the-power-of-the-private-sector/

The discussions were detailed, pointed and real – and yet the idea of cyber war seems elusive to many. Blood and guts in places like Syria can be grasped yet the potential danger of a true cyber attack – greater than nuking a city – seems to generate no forceful, focused action.  U.S. security hinges greatly on cyber security, yet U.S. foreign policy has no guide points to act.

“It is very inexpensive to create a better offense than defense” in cyber security,” said former FBI Deputy Assistant Director Steven Chabinsky. “The private sector can do a lot hand in glove with the FBI, CIA, and the military and that’s not (retribution).”

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/budget-plan-doles-out-more-cash-for-cybersecurity-89898.html

The largest cyber attack in history struck during the last week in March. The theft of U.S. intellectual property and scientific innovations have already cost billions of dollars and severely damaged the U.S. economy. An 18-month study from the Pentagon’s Defense Science Board, which formed a task force to review the vulnerability of American military networks, found that during war-game exercises “red team” adversaries were able to hack into the networks with “relative ease.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/a-conservative-cybersecurity-framework-89877.html

“We cannot continue to treat security as a bolt-on afterthought.” Department of Homeland Security Under Secretary for Cyber Security Mark Weatherford said.  “We are backing into a situation … like we’re in with the war on terror,” said former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey. “We are (only resorting) to retaliation.”

Cyberspace has quickly become the central arena for hostile actions launched by a broad spectrum of adversaries, ranging from nation states and aligned and non-aligned terrorists and criminal groups and individuals. Cyber attacks come in many forms—denial-of-service, intellectual property theft, and disruption or manipulation of financial transactions, transportation, the electric grid and other critical infrastructure.

And not just in the U.S.  The president of Estonia, hit hard by a cyber attack from Russia, said nations must act now. “Genuine cyber security should not be seen as an additional cost, but as an enabler, guarding our entire digital way of life,” Toomas Hendrik Ilves said on Friday.

http://www.acus.org/natosource/president-estonia-cyber-allows-enemies-paralyze-country-without-attacking-its-defense-for

Woolsey said there are 18 critical structures in the U.S. and that 17 of them are dependent on the 18^th – electricity. A cyber strike against the fragile grid would render the U.S. helpless, with a prolong loss of electricity possibly leaving 200 million American dead in a year. Yet nothing has been done to protect the grid, he said.

http://freebeacon.com/taking-cybersecurity-seriously/

The experts had some ideas, but the only live action is Rogers’ bill (the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act or CISPA); privacy advocates worry its provisions will allow companies to share consumers’ personal information with intelligence and law enforcement agencies without permission. The bill was introduced last year; the House passed the measure, but it went no further after a veto threat from President Obama.

http://www.americanbanker.com/issues/178_70/congressional-efforts-to-address-cybersecurity-heat-up-1058217-1.html

Rogers said he expects the bill, or a version of it, to be before President Obama for signature this fall.

(Photo credit: U.S. Air Force)

SAUL LOEB/GETTY IMAGES

By Sarwar Kashmeri

It would be a mistake to view President Obama’s visit to Israel as just a fence-mending exercise. It is in fact part of a planned redesign of U.S. foreign policy that will change the face of American leadership around the world.

The redesign began with the appointment of John Kerry as Secretary of State and Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense. Both complement Vice President Joe Biden, and the president’s new chief of staff, Dennis McDonough. All of them, I believe, share a keen understanding of what it means to live in a world of seven billion interconnected people, in an age where the basic equation of geopolitics, that superpower equals ultimately getting one’s way, no longer holds.

The next stage of the redesign is now being rolled out with strategies to deal with today’s five key foreign policy issues: Syria, Iran, North Korea, the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, and the end game of the U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan. Each is a ticking time bomb loaded with unforeseen consequences for U.S. national interests around the world, for America’s fragile economic recovery, and for a military still recovering after a decade of non-stop wars.

None of these issues lends itself to an America-only resolution. All five require the support and active cooperation of Russia, China, Israel and Turkey. That is why the president has moved aggressively in the last two weeks to remove impediments to better relations with each of these countries.

Russia is Syria’s benefactor and also the key to unlocking an alternative route for the removal of U.S. military assets from Afghanistan. Although the Pakistani port of Karachi is the shortest route out of Afghanistan the United States cannot afford to predicate its military exit solely on the on-again, off-again goodwill of Pakistan.

American-Russian relations have suffered because of the U.S. plans to deploy an anti-missile system on the borders of Russia. To be set up in four phases through 2020, this battery of anti-missile weapons is being rolled out to protect Europeans from Iranian missiles. But the Russians have never seen it that way. They see it as an American attempt to weaken the deterrent effect of Russia’s long range nuclear arsenal. Although the Russians object to the entire anti-missile project it is the project’s fourth phase, in which sophisticated interceptors would be deployed in Poland and perhaps Romania, that is of particular concern to them.

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced last week that this phase will now be abandoned. There were technical and funding reasons that also contributed to the decision, but a major irritant to American-Russian relations is now off the table.

Relations with China, already tense, plummeted with the announcement two years ago of America’s “pivot to the East.” The Chinese interpret this phrase as a signal that the United States views China as a potential military competitor. The United States has tried to explain that the pivot is not really a pivot citing America’s century old presence in the Pacific and Asia. But to no avail.

To bridge this credibility gap with China the Obama Administration cited cuts to the Defense Department’s budget in announcing a study to review the “pivot” of U.S. forces to Asia. This buys time to try and fine tune the “pivot” to allay Chinese concerns

Finally, In spite of his very strong support for Israel, the president has been perceived as being wobbly in recognizing the uniqueness of the U.S.-Israeli relationship. These perceptions have now been put to rest by the president’s visit to Israel during which he delivered unequivocal statements like this one reported by CNN,

“You are not alone,” Obama said in both English and Hebrew, prompting a standing ovation when he declared that “those who adhere to the ideology of rejecting Israel’s right to exist might as well reject the earth beneath them and the sky above, because Israel is not going anywhere.”

President Obama’s visit has already borne fruit. Before Obama left the country Israel had apologized to Turkey for the 2010 killing by the Israeli military of Turkish citizens on the flotilla headed to Gaza to break the Israeli-imposed blockade. Within hours, the apology led to the re-establishment of diplomatic relations between Israel and Turkey, two of America’s closest Middle-Eastern allies are again its partners in dealing with Syria and Iran.

I predict that a thaw in the Palestinian-Israeli relationship will be the next result from the Obama visit to Israel. Is this wishful thinking? Perhaps it is. But if I am correct in believing that both Israelis and Palestinians are finally convinced that nothing can shake the bond between the United States and Israel, reality will drive both sides to a bargain. To increase the odds of this thaw Vice President Biden, who accompanied the president to Israel, has stayed on to strengthen the initiatives launched by his boss.

If this be the first act of the McDonough-Biden-Kerry-Hagel foreign policy team’s debut, all I can say is bravo! Pedal to the metal gentleman, and God speed!

Sarwar Kashmeri is a fellow of the Foreign Policy Association. He is adjunct professor of Norwich College, and a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Brent Scowcroft Center for International Relations. His most recent book was NATO 2.0: Reboot or Delete? You can find the original article at the Huffington Post, which was reposted with the author’s permission.

Photo: John Lukuwi, AFP/Getty Images

Incoming Chinese president Xi Jinping’s first trip as head of state took him to Russia, Tanzania, South Africa and the Republic of Congo late last month.  His inaugural trip was much heralded back in China as an assertion of Beijing’s growing soft power, and its ability to develop friendly relations with resource-laden nations. Xi began his trip in Moscow, where he spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin about China’s desire for oil and gas, as well as expanding trade in high-tech industries and tourism.  His first stop on the African continent was Tanzania, where Xi outlined China’s foreign policy toward all African nations — of putting forth China’s best efforts toward African development and insisting on equality among all countries, irrespective of size, strength and wealth.

Last year, China’s charm offensive in Africa led to the announcement by former President Hu Jintao of US$20 billion in loans to African countries over the coming three years, part of what China insists is a no-strings-attached aid policy.  Xi’s follow-on visit to the region emphasized his commitment to honor that pledge, and Xi signed more than a dozen trade and cooperation agreements with Tanzania, including plans to jointly develop a port and trade complex, a loan for telecom development and an interest free loan to the Tanzania government.  China is already contributing $3 billion to develop Tanzania’s iron ore and coal reserves and one of its state owned energy companies is paying $4 billion for a minority stake in the world’s biggest off-shore natural gas field near the Mozambique-Tanzania border.  During his trip to the Republic of Congo, Xi signed a series of deals which included a river port in Oyo and a sea port in Pointe-Noire for the export of mineral ores.  China and Congo have already launched projects worth several billion dollars, including a power plant and a 300-mile motorway between Brazzaville and Pointe-Noire.

According to a report in Xinhua, China’s news agency, Xi stated “China will continue to offer, as always, necessary assistance to Africa with no political strings attached.”  Xi was reportedly praised for this approach in each of the African countries he visited, though his itinerary was likely chosen carefully beforehand. China’s no-strings attached aid policy also plays well with the locals, who have show some of the highest levels of support for the Chinese leadership, according to a Gallup World poll of global attitudes conducted in 2011.  According to the results of the poll, sub-Saharan African states showed the greatest levels of support, filling the top 20 positions in the worldwide survey.

China’s growing trade and energy relationship, however, has caused alarm bells to ring in Washington. Beijing’s no-strings attached aid policies are seen as undermining the aid efforts of the U.S. and other nations, who attach such strings as good governance, poverty reduction, democratic change, greater human rights, and rooting out corruption.

And the recent charm offensive undertaken by Beijing is also not playing well in some African countries.  Last month, Botswana’s President Ian Khama cautioned against further Chinese investment, stating “There’s no point in having a huge power investing in a country if those investments at the end of the day don’t do you any good”.  Nigeria’s central bank governor, Lamido Sanusi, also came out against China’s increasing investment role in a recent column in the Financial Times, writing that the current trade relationship – Nigeria providing oil and China selling consumer goods – resembled the old colonialism.  “It is time for Africans to wake up to the realities of their romance with China,” Sansui wrote, “China takes out primary goods and sells us manufactured ones.  This was the essence of colonialism.” Their comments are nothing new, for anti-Chinese sentiment has existed in Africa since the first Chinese workers arrived on the continent.  In 2008, some 500 Zambian mine workers were fired after rioting and attacking a Chinese manager at the Chambishi copper smelter in northern Zambia, apparently a result of low wages and poor working condition imposed by Chinese management.  And way back in 2006, during the elections in Zambia, opposition candidate (and now current President) Michael Sata ran on an anti-China ticket, calling for “Zambia for Zambians.”

Though foreign investment coming from China has for many years been criticized for representing economic colonialism, undermining Western aid efforts, using Chinese workers instead of local labor, and displacing small manufacturers, little attention has been paid to the environmental consequences of further investment from China. Given the homegrown problems of pollution China is facing now, with its polluted city skies and fauna-infested waterways, should Africans really seek the Chinese style of development?

(Photo: David Trilling)

Depending on whom you listen to, Central Asia could be 1) the next mass target of Islamic insurgents; 2) on the verge of a client-state battle between Moscow and Beijing; or 3) fated to authoritarian leaders for the next generation.

Nestled between Russia and China, and bordering Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan, a glance at the map shows us why any one or all of these are possible.

Porous borders with southern neighbors have long offered insurgent groups unfettered mobility. Kazakh oil and Turkmen gas are irresistible for a growing China, while Russia, lost mother to the region, will not take lightly any marriages outside the family. And patronage politics, whether Soviet or clan legacy, continue apace.

Most residents of the region — Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan — are descendants of nomadic Turkic tribes, with traditions that evolved from the combination of Mongol hordes and the Persian empire. Little known before the Soviet Union’s demise, these states have had a crash course in geopolitics, through Western concern about radical Islamists, and great powers’ thirst for natural resources.

A handful of scholarly publications and conferences have recently underlined international attention to the region. I profile some of these below.

1) In January 2013, Jeffrey Mankoff of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) released his report The United States and Central Asia after 2014.

In this unabashed policy memo, Mankoff characterizes the relationship of the U.S. and Central Asian states and discusses U.S. options after 2014, including the State Department’s much-touted New Silk Road. One of the pillars of his argument is that “stabilizing Central Asia requires connecting to the global economy, which in turn can only be done with Russian and Chinese support.” Most instructional is how each state has its own ideas, from power generation to great power alliance, which fosters suspicion and regional competition, which complicates U.S. policy choices. Any “New Silk Road” linking regional commerce with Pakistan and India, Mankoff argues, depends on Central Asian states’ cooperation, which is lacking. It would also, as written, compete with China, which Mankoff deems unrealistic.

2) In February 2013, International Crisis Group (ICG) released a study, China’s Central Asia Problem.

This 29-page report examines China’s relationship to Russia in the region, economic ambitions, and view of regional security. China’s priority is its western Xinjiang province, where ethnic Uighur groups challenge Beijing’s writ and occasionally join extremists in neighboring states. Drawing on Chinese (and Russian) expert sources, ICG shows how China shares the West’s concerns about political and security unpredictability, especially in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. On the other hand, the China-based Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which includes Russia and several Central Asian states, has appeared toothless as a mediator. China also risks being an imperialist/expansionist with the influx of its own workers and willingness to fund massive projects without concern for local corruption, the report states.

3) On February 27, 2013, a U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC) hearing, “Islamic Militants in Central Asia.”

Robert Blake, the State Department’s Assistant Secretary, Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, and four other regional experts discuss their views of groups that threaten the region, their provenance, and the current governments’ capacities for addressing these threats. Ironically, Chairman Rohrabacher, just back from Uzbekistan, emphasized the risk posed by “hate-filled” Islamic groups, while witnesses warned of authoritarian leaders’ tendency to over-exaggerate insurgent threats as a way to gain Western aid and security materiel (which Ranking Member Keating also pointed out). Bizarrely, Rohrabacher goes on to suggest that the U.S. could sell weapons to Uzbekistan. Aside from the risk of instability in Central Asia from imminent leadership handovers, and some comments on the North Caucasus, generally testimonies did not view militant groups as serious current threats to host governments. [Video and submitted testimonies at the HFAC site.]

4) Released February 18, 2013, “Challenges to Security in Central Asia,”  a Russian-language report from the Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO), Russian Academy of Sciences.

Highlighting views from a November 2012 conference that includes participants from China and Afghanistan, this report showcases Russian and Central Asian experts’ intimate knowledge of the region, with dissections of political movements (e.g., the U.S. courting a pro-Western Islamist Tajik leader, not his party colleague who tends toward Iran) and insight on the tinderbox that is mixed ethnic communities, nationalism, and ambiguous borders. It also details Russian discomfort with U.S. and NATO bases in the region; a representative of IMEMO even charges that the U.S. uses Bishkek as both a transit hub for Afghanistan and a covert listening base. The report concludes with comments on the relationship of the EU and U.S. with each republic, and the role of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), a Russian-led institution, as a regional facilitator. So much is made of the advantages of the CSTO, versus its Chinese rival, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), one wonders whether the conference itself was a CSTO vehicle. Still, most views — such as those of Arkadii Dubnov, a correspondent for Moscow News, and Muzaffar Olimov, who heads the Sharq Center in Dushanbe — are healthy variants to those on a steady diet of U.S. and European sources.