Category Archives: United States

New US peace initiative for Israel and the Palestinian Territories unlikely to yield quick gains, if any

Leave a reply

By Anders Corr, Ph.D.

A new Israeli-Palestinian peace initiative promoted by Secretary of State John Kerry today in Israel is unlikely to bear fruit, especially in the short-term. Secretary Kerry unveiled the plan, which is purposefully non-specific. It includes meager US-funded economic incentives, and a call for supporting the Arab League’s 2002 proposal for Israel to accept the pre-1967 border in exchange for recognition (WSJ).

Israel will not accept the 1967 borders, and any proposal for the same is an attempt to solicit Arab nations on other issues. Likewise, Palestinians will not be influenced by scarce development funding available from the Department of State. Such development funding is the price of admission for a new peace initiative, another in a string of de rigueur Israeli-Palestinian peace processes led by successive US Secretaries of State. Continue reading →

Risk of NATO overstretch in Syria

Leave a reply

By Anders Corr, Ph.D.

The Obama administration is currently under pressure by certain US lawmakers, as well as Britain, France, and Israel, to take limited military action in Syria. These actions could include securing a humanitarian corridor into the country, providing military equipment to the non-Al Qaeda affiliated Free Syrian Army (FSA) and Syrian Opposition Coalition (SOC), and destroying the Syrian Air Force (WSJ).

Such measures might remove a bit of pressure from rebels and provide a public opinion boost to current participating governments in the US, France, and Britain, in that voting publics in those countries would feel that their governments were doing something positive to end the Syrian crisis. However, due to the limited nature of the proposed military measures, they would not alter the balance of forces on any side of the complex conflict and could lead to notable negative consequences. Continue reading →

Deterrence pro tem: increase South Korean control of US nuclear assets targeted against North Korea

Leave a reply

By Anders Corr, Ph.D.

Recent negotiations initiated by South Korea with the United States to obtain acquiescence for South Korean production of nuclear fuel show that South Korea is serious about improving its energy and security independence from the United States. Such moves are a response to growing public opinion pressure in South Korea, which perceives the need for a stronger and more independent counterweight to North Korean threats. Such steps in the fuel production cycle could eventually lead to an independent South Korean nuclear weapons capability (WSJ).

The United States seeks to assure its ally verbally, and with military training exercises, overflights, advanced fighter presence, and naval destroyer movements. But relying on an outside deterrent has become increasingly unnerving to the South Korean public. While the United States and its allies won the Cold War against the Soviets, the United States appears to be overstretched on the global stage from a South Korean perspective. Eleven years of war against terror have not yielded a clear victory. China is ascending. Nuclear proliferation edges forward, with recent proliferators being India, Pakistan, Israel, and as recently as 2006, South Korea’s belligerent neighbor North Korea. Deterrence pro tem would increase deterrence of North Korean belligerence. Continue reading →

Movement of missile defense ship to North Korean box signals increased probability of conflict

Leave a reply

While the probability of conflict on the Korean peninsula is still quite low, the latest military and diplomatic movements signal a greater likelihood of an outbreak.

The US moved missile defense ships to a zone near Korea that is optimal for defending against North Korean missile strikes, and South Korean President Park Geun-hye called for a swift military response without concern for politics. Both events demonstrate that the mood of the South Korean public is more bellicose than prior to the 2010 North Korean attacks. The South Korean response, according to public opinion polls, was weak. The South Korean Defense Minister of the time was forced to resign as a result (WSJ).

However, the probability of conflict is still low. The North Korean government and China know that given this history, any new attacks by North Korea would almost certainly result in a strong and potentially fatal US counter-attack. China will have already counselled its client state in North Korea to lay low for the time being.

The Chinese are Playing Us on North Korea, Again

Leave a reply

The United States Treasury Department claimed on March 22 that it was confident that China would back new United Nations’ financial sanctions against North Korea. The sanctions punish North Korea for the nuclear tests of February 12. An anonymous Chinese official — almost certainly speaking at the direction of his government – on March 22 revealed that China halted oil exports to North Korea.

Unfortunately, the pro forma Chinese punishment of North Korea for its most recent nuclear test will be intentionally lightweight. China had a similarly weak response to the first North Korean nuclear test on October 6, 2006, and it proved an insufficient disincentive to further nuclear and missile development. It increased backing to UN financial sanctions, and ceased oil exports to the country for a short period. As in 2006, China knows that Iran is likely to supply the energy shortfall to North Korea resulting from any loss from China’s embargo. Without a much stronger set of sanctions and enforcement mechanisms, a network of embargoed, rogue, and failed states have the outside option of trading with each other, and regaining overt Chinese and Russian support when international attention fades.

Anything more than a slap on North Korea’s wrist would chill Chinese relations with authoritarian regimes across the globe. For this reason, China can ill-afford any drastic action against North Korea. China is a long-time supporter of authoritarian governments worldwide, from Uzbekistan to Syria. This support is concretized in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. China is the key diplomatic supporter of North Korea, and can dictate many North Korean policies based on China’s economic power and physical proximity. Other authoritarian states will watch the magnitude of Chinese reaction to North Korean behavior to calibrate the trust they can place in their own relations with China. These global relations between China and authoritarian regimes are crucial for China to obtain relatively inexpensive raw commodity imports that fuel its present top priority of economic growth. It is inconceivable that China would risk slowing its own economic growth because of a recent uptick in threats to the West from North Korea.

Short-term sanctions, however, will occur. China believes the young Kim Jong-Un, the new leader of North Korea, has overstepped his bounds with recent tests and threats towards the United States and South Korea. The increased Chinese support to sanctions and a decrease in North Korea’s access to oil markets serve China as both a message to Kim Jong-Un to follow a slightly quieter path, and a tool to stave off criticism of China at the United Nations were it not to support sanctions. Time is currently on the side of China and North Korea, leading to a trend of which China is well aware. China’s economy is growing much more rapidly than Western-allied economies, which strengthens China’s military and diplomatic position with respect to the West. North Korea continues tests of its nuclear and missile technology, with no effective response from the West. With the latest sanctions, China is telling North Korea not to rock the boat because the race is being won.

Watch for China’s long and short-term strategies to have an immediate effect on Kim Jong-Un by decreasing his public belligerence. Also watch for China to ease pressure on North Korea as soon as it either complies or public attention goes elsewhere. Without a Chinese-supported embargo on imports and exports to North Korea, plus enforcement by international naval vessels deployed to the East China Sea and Sea of Japan, the latest round of financial and oil restrictions will be ineffective; North Korea will continue to progress in developing and proliferating nuclear weapons and missile technology.

North Korean WMD terrorism as much a threat as nuclear-tipped missiles

Leave a reply

Today North Korea put their medium-range missiles on combat alert and repeated threats against US military bases including in South Korea, Guam, and Hawaii. The US Defense Department sent a strong signal by flying two nuclear-capable B-2 Stealth Bombers over South Korea in training exercises, and through comments to the press by the Defense Secretary that indicate a readiness for conflict should that be necessary. A Defense Department spokesman softened those comments by reiterated that the US seeks to deescalate tensions, and that the important goal is to stay ahead of North Korea in terms of its capability to marry a nuclear warhead with a missile delivery vehicle (CNN). However, a potentially greater threat from North Korea is an unconventional or terrorist delivery of nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Were a nuclear device to explode in a major port city, for example, it would likely cause up to one trillion dollars of damages, 500,000 deaths, and $40-70 billion in trade losses  (Bloomberg. Congressional Research Service).

It is unlikely that the North Koreans would follow-through on their most recent threats, and unlikely that were they to try, a missile strike would be effective. The North Koreans are having difficulty with the technical challenges of component miniaturization that would allow them to place a nuclear warhead on a missile. To stave off such an attack in the future, the US must nevertheless maintain robust intelligence, deterrent, and preemptive strike capabilities. North Korea could provide us with an unpleasant surprise. Saddam Hussein surprised the world in 1990 with the progress he had made towards achieving nuclear status, and there is much more technological improvement in rogue state nuclear capabilities twenty years later.

China and Russia are likely sharing, to a limited extent, nuclear technologies with Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea. These rogue states are likely sharing with each other as well. This sharing does not necessarily have to be state-sanctioned. A poorly-supervised agency within a rogue state would have the capability to proliferate nuclear or other WMD technologies without the knowledge of its government. Many individual scientists or government officials in these corrupt countries, if offered sufficient incentive, would likely be willing to share technological expertise or hardware necessary for the making of blueprints or reverse-engineering.

Staying ahead of North Korean improvements is a challenging task, and risky. As Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld famously said,  “There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say, we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know.” (Press Briefing, February 12, 2002)

The risk is not only that North Korea has a nuclear delivery capability about which we are unaware, but that they could be considering unconventional approaches to delivery. These approaches could include smuggling a nuclear weapon into the United States, Japan, or South Korea. Radiation detection used on all containerized cargo coming into the United States does not effectively detect nuclear materials encased in lead. X-ray scanning, which might detect such encased materials, is only used on 4% of the highest-risk cargo inbound to the United States. The Department of Homeland Security has found it impractical to implement a 2007 Congressional mandate to scan 100% of incoming containerized cargo  (Bloomberg). Implementation of scanning and detection technologies is currently insufficient to guard against nuclear terrorists or rogue states that use containerized cargo as a delivery vehicle.

North Korea could also simply drive nuclear materials and components across the Canadian or Mexican borders, or smuggle them on fast boats from a nearby Latin American country. Such components can be reassembled once in the United States.

Finally, North Korea is in a unique position to use biological weapons of mass destruction. Often referred to as a hermit kingdom, North Korea has the world’s strictest restrictions on immigration and emigration. This makes them relatively invulnerable to blowback from a biological WMD. The most dangerous biological weapons are highly contagious. Contagion through humans is the delivery vehicle. Thus a strong disincentive for use of biological weapons by non-secluded states is the danger that the contagion will spread to one’s own country. This applies to a much lesser degree for North Korea. Biological weapons have the advantage over nuclear weapons in that they cannot be detected by radiation detectors or x-ray scanners, can be produced by small teams of bio-chemists with relatively ordinary lab equipment, and would be easily smuggled in containerized cargo. North Korea certainly has the capability to construct such weapons, and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s “unknown unknowns” applies. Finally, unconventional delivery of WMD has the advantage over missile delivery for North Korea in that its origin is less traceable.

The United States came close to a preemptive strike against North Korean nuclear capabilities in the 1990s. While there are certainly risks of retaliation against regional US bases and allies, such a strike is still on the table as a policy option. It could have a salutary demonstration effect for other rogue states and proliferators, including Iran and Pakistan. The option of waiting, and continued technological development by a belligerant and immature North Korea, could make it impossible to take such actions in the future.

 

North Korean closure of Kaesong Industrial Complex is no signal for increased likelihood of military conflict with South Korea

Leave a reply

The Wall Street Journal reported today that a North Korean closure of the Kaesong Industrial Complex would be a signal of increased probability of hostilities with South Korea. North Korea hosts the industrial complex a few miles within its boundary, where approximately 50,000 North Koreans work for 123 South Korean companies. On an average workday, about 120 South Korean managers cross the border into the complex. South Korean companies operating in the complex pay $80 million in cash wages directly to the North Korean government, and conduct approximately $2 billion worth of North Korean trade. This is a significant amount considering North Korea’s largest trading partner, China, yields only $6 billion worth of trade. The complex is a source of inexpensive labor for South Korea, rare US dollars for North Korea, and a foundation for pan-Korean economic and political cooperation (Reuters, WSJ).

North Korean threats and provocations are primarily bluster and bluff meant to elicit talks and appeasement payouts from the west. North Korean closure of the Kaesong Industrial Complex would be no different.

More informative signals would be: 1) South Korean closure of the border crossing, or 2) North Korean capture of South Korean complex workers by abruptly closing the border. The first of the two scenarios would indicate that South Korea believes hostility is imminent. The hostility could include the second scenario, or more seriously but less likely, a North Korean attack on South Korea. The capture of South Korean complex workers would be the most serious Korean crisis since 2010, when North Korea sunk a South Korean naval vessel and shelled a South Korean island. It would likely lead to US and Chinese-mediated negotiations, a payout to North Korea, and a definitive end to North Korea’s access to trade through the Kaesong Industrial Complex. Not North Korean, but South Korean closure of the border, is the signal to watch.

 

Public support for action against Syrian regime

Leave a reply

On March 15, 2011, popular protests erupted in Syria as part of the Arab Spring. The Syrian regime brutally suppressed the protests, which grew into armed opposition and civil war. President Bashar Hafez al-Assad’s Ba’athist government fought against a splintered but militant opposition. The United Nations tracked atrocities committed on both sides, including more than 70,000 killed (CNN).

Assad obtains most of his political support from the authoritarian regimes in China, Russia, and Iran. The Arab League previously supported him, but as the atrocities mounted, now supports the opposition. There is substantial public support for action against the Syrian regime in the United States, France and Britain. The types of action palatable to the voting public in the United States and Britain, weary of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, do not include intervention. The public in newly-interventionist France does support deploying United Nations troops to Syria. All three countries support economic sanctions, and there is increasing support for supplying opposition groups with military materiel  (Council on Foreign Relations). Political leadership in the United States, France and Britain are responding with proxy war proposals consistent with this public opinion.

Expect limited military materiel support to Syrian rebels from the US, Britain and France in the near future. Due to insufficient public support, this will not include deployment of troops, and will only be sufficient to prolong — not win — the war. Over time, limited and therefore ineffectual military support may lead to increasing public support for deployment. If deployment occurs, expect a quick apparent win by the opposition, which turns into a long (5-15 years) and expensive period of nation-building and civil war as in Iraq and Afghanistan. Increased western military expenditures will improve yields in the defense sector, but increase government debt and taxes. Expect lower economic performance overall as defense expenditures aimed at Syria increase.

Opposition groups that will immediately benefit from western intervention in Syria will solicit such intervention in the short term. However, public opinion in Islamic countries find western intervention highly disagreeable, as do China, Russia and Iran. Expect increased global tensions and Islamic terrorism from western intervention in Syria. Expect Syrian opposition groups to quickly spurn their western benefactors as soon as military and other aid ends.

Effect of European political disunity on the Euro and global economy

Leave a reply

Today, France joined the UK in publicly threatening to rupture a common approach to European Union (EU) foreign policy by sending arms to Syrian rebels (Bloomberg). This, on the heels of the January 11 unilateral French intervention in Northern Mali. Since the May 2012 election of French President François Hollande, France has increased its political independence with respect to the EU. This distresses Germany, which wants closer political union. Without seeing gains in political unity, Germany could decrease its financial support to the European project (Council on Foreign Relations). This augurs poorly for European monetary union, the value of the Euro, and global economic stability.

Lack of German financial support to Europe would increase the probability that Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, or Spain would be forced out of the Euro. Were this to happen without prior agreement from the rest of the eurozone, the cost to the dropout would be catastrophic in terms of trust and with it, access to money markets. The cost to the remaining eurozone countries would be an increase in eurozone per capita money supply and resulting inflation of the Euro. Confidence in the Euro would fall, and the chance of further dropouts would be reflected in the foreign exchange market. Decreasing confidence and loss of value increases incentives for other EU countries to be the next to leave the Euro, with spiraling downward effects on its value. The massive investment in the Euro — and the amount that could be lost given failure — explains why Germany is willing to prop up the currency through stabilization of economically ailing eurozone members. Ailing eurozone countries milk their wealthier neighbors with the threat of Euro collapse.

Euro collapse is not just a European problem. It would have a disastrous effect on the global economy, including major European trading partners such as the United States and China. Thus, all trading partners with Europe have — at least for economic reasons — a stake in the success of a European common foreign policy. This should be considered when jockeying for short-term diplomatic goals such as arming the opposition in Syria.

Increasing European political integration and unity should give the investor increased confidence in the Euro; decreased integration and unity will have downward effects.  In part because of understandable historical differences based on the subjective experience of World War II, Germany is profoundly leery of military intervention. France and Britain frequently see intervention as an obligation to stop massacre, genocide, and civil war, especially when such intervention involves ancillary benefits such as removing a rogue or terrorist threat. Increased institutional power to overcome foreign policy differences in Europe would assist common foreign policymaking, and thereby improve market confidence in the Euro. Public pronouncements of Britain and France asserting foreign policy independence from the EU are geared towards influencing Germany and other recalcitrant EU states to take the UK-France-Italy approach on Syria. They show that for the moment at least, short-term foreign policy goals are trumping aspirations of a common EU foreign policy, stability of the Euro, and mitigation of risk to the international economy.

Watch for any hedge by the German government against the Euro, which will precede rapid loss of confidence in the Euro and a decrease in German monetary support to the currency union.

 

South Korean public opinion shifts towards independent nuclear capability

Leave a reply

Gallup opinion polls conducted following North Korea’s third nuclear weapons test found that approximately 64% to 66.5% of South Koreans believe South Korea should develop an independent nuclear weapons capability. They want the capability to defend against North Korea if the United States unexpectedly withdraws its security commitment to South Korea (New York Times).

The United States is fully committed to the defense of South Korea, and North Korea is well aware of this fact. For this reason, South Koreans should not be overly concerned with the latest North Korean antics. The United States stands firmly with its ally South Korea.

Nevertheless, South Koreans are understandably uncomfortable having an unpredictable and highly belligerent nuclear-armed neighbor to the North. South Korean nuclearization would be a major blow to nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The nonproliferation regime works because member countries show self-restraint by not developing independent nuclear weapons. Rather, they entrust their defense to a close security partnership with the United States, NATO, and other friendly alliances.

If the strength of the alliance is not apparent to the voting population of a non-nuclear country — in this case South Korea — then it is incumbent upon the stronger member of the alliance to take greater measures to display that commitment. These measures should include improved specification of treaty obligations, greater numbers and quality of forces deployed to South Korea, higher levels of South Korean inclusion and diplomatic collaboration in U.S. foreign policy decision-making, and improved diplomatic relations overall through improved trade relations. Deepening all facets of the relationship between South Korea and the United States will enhance the trust required for South Koreans to place the security of their nation in the hands of the United States.

Not taking proactive measures to improve the trust of South Koreans in the United States risks nuclearization of South Korea, which by example, will exponentially increase the risk of further global WMD proliferation. South Korea is a highly respected member of the international community. South Korean nuclearization will erode the taboo against proliferation, making it seem a respectable option for many small and medium-sized nations. We cannot afford the increased risk of nuclear war that this entails.