Change 'South China Sea' to 'Southeast Asia Sea'

Here we go again, another South China Sea entry after I'd written about the issue in recent months [1, 2, 3]. I am of two minds about this new petition circulating among those of us from Southeast Asia to change our term for the 'South China Sea' to the 'Southeast Asia Sea'. (This one comes from the US-based Nguyen Thai Hoc Foundation named after the Vietnamese nationalist executed by French imperialists.) It comes amidst new quarrels between China on one hand and the Philippines and Vietnam on the other over dominion over these strategically important waters. To be sure, Southeast Asia is emerging on the global stage in its own right not just as an appendage of China. Geographically speaking, 'Southeast Asia Sea' is also more accurate given the rather sweeping claims China has on the region.

Should I sign on to the many who've added their names to the petition? The Spratly Islands issue continues to be a highly visible demonstration of how the 'Chinese Communist Party' is not a monolithic entity. Different ministries often do not act in a coordinated fashion. While the People's Liberation Army (PLA) is very gung-ho on the matter, other bodies alike China's trade ministry is more cautious, likely preferring that the matter would go away altogether. For, China has in recent years become Southeast Asia's largest trading partner, and those who have built up such linkages would be understandably reluctant to strain these ties as the PRC seeks to consolidate its backyard. So, in this interpretation, the PRC would lose next to no sleep if Southeast Asians began calling it whatever they wish.

But, the other thing to remember is that China would likely annihilate whatever navies the Philippines and Vietnam could muster if push comes to shove. On the open seas, insurgency tactics against superior forces are not usually effective. Would it act so rashly as to violate the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea?I surely hope not.

In any event, those promoting this petition generally believe that a change of terms can affect the tone of the debate. There are arguably better reasons for calling it the 'Southeast Asia Sea' than its current name. Aside from removing the parochial Sinic overtones--it's called the South China Sea, so it must 'belong' to China--it also has the potential to improve Southeast Asian identity at a time when its countries are also emerging alike Indonesia being included in the G-20.

The Philippine Star has an article briefly describing the petition:

A petition to change the name “South China Sea” to “Southeast Asia Sea” has been launched, with 43,109 signatures posted online so far for its approval. According to online social network www.Changeorg., the Nguyen Thai Hoc Foundation, a group of volunteers campaigning for “a modern and civilized attitude” around the world, started the petition in November last year.

In its petition, the group said the United Nations has officially recognized Southeast Asia as a region encompassing almost the entire South China Sea. The South China Sea has a coastline of about 130,000 kilometers (81,250 miles) while Southern China’s coastline measured only about 2,800 kilometers (1,750 miles), it explained. “The freedom of navigation on the sea is not restricted to a specific country and is a common heritage of mankind,” the group said. “It has actually been used by the international community for centuries as the second most important water channel in the world, and therefore must be considered a common ground.”

The petition had been sent to presidents and prime ministers of the 11 Southeast Asian countries, the Secretary General of the United Nations, the United Nations Atlas of the Oceans, Geographic Society of 10 countries, including Australia, Canada, European Union, France, Germany, India, Japan, South Korea, United Kingdom, Russia, and the United States, and over 10,000 people from 77 countries around the world.

“In this modern era, as human civilization evolved towards a multi-faceted global collaboration, the international community, since the 20th century, has geographically formed a sub-region in Asia to address mankind’s need,” the group said.

“This region was officially named Southeast Asia and consists of Burma, Brunei, Cambodia, East Timor, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, the Philippines, and Vietnam...Southeast Asia represents approximately 600 million people who have, in a joint effort, made unique and original contributions to modern civilization in culture, science, education, economics, politics.” South China Sea must therefore be named Southeast Asia Sea, the group said.

Decisions, decisions. Sign up if you must. I certainly won't dissuade you, but I am still weighing the pros and cons at the moment. Still, I must admire this show of Southeast Asian unity because there is honestly so little of it that I can observe.

India Needs Jets: Sweden's Saab, US Overstretch

[NOTE: This still is the IPE Zone, not Jane's Defence Weekly. Still, you may want to pull the bomber jacket out of the closet and groove to Steve Stevens for old time's sake.] Here's an interesting IPE angle on the machinations of defence procurement that I came upon totally at random alike much of the most interesting blog fodder. It's funny how time flies when Top Gun is 25 years of age this year. Back then the Cold War was still very much in full swing with Maverick and Goose encountering the (fictional) MIG-28. As late as 1986, India was still more sympathetic to the Soviet Union than the United States in the belief in central planning and a mistrust of unfettered markets. This was before Manmohan Singh started loosening the reins of the infamous "Licence Raj" that kept India on the infamous Hindu rate of growth.

So it will be of no surprise to anyone that aside from the custom of writing five-year plans, the Indians also purchased a lot of their military hardware from the Russians. They Still do--but even that may change. Manmohan Singh, now prime minister, famously signed a nuclear technology sharing agreement with the Yankees in 2006, causing his then-Communist allies great consternation. In the commercial realm with India becoming perhaps the offshoring destination of choice for Western firms, the globalization game was well and truly on.

Now resurgent India is flush with cash as its aging fleet of MIG-21s reaches the end of the red brick road. To be sure, the nation has a fair need for military hardware. India's main security concern remains nuclear-armed Pakistan--the suspicion is mutual--while its border dispute with China remains a point of contention. In geopolitical terms, it is troubled by both US-Pakistan and China-Pakistan military cooperation. Internationally, there is now a massive race to see who can get India's signature for a multibillion dollar deal that is arguably the most eagerly anticipated one in the international arms bazaar. Aside from the Soviets and the Americans, the French and the Swedes are also vying for this lucrative contract.

For comprehensive information on India's Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft(MMRCA) competition, let us turn to Defense Industry Daily for the first time ever:

“It’s the biggest fighter aircraft deal since the early 1990s,” said Boeing’s Mark Kronenberg, who runs the company’s Asia/Pacific business. India’s planned multi-billion dollar, 126+ plane jet fighter buy became a contest between Dassault, Saab, MiG, American competitors and EADS’ Eurofighter...

The original intent of India’s fighter purchase was to replace hundreds of non-upgraded MiG-21s that India will be forced to retire, with a complementary force of 126 aircraft that would fit between India’s high end Su-30MKIs and its low-end Tejas LCA lightweight fighter. While plans to develop a “fifth generation fighter” in conjunction with Russia have received a lot of press, they are uncertain at best, address a different requirement, and offer no solution to the immediate problem of shrinking squadron numbers as existing aircraft are forced into retirement.

Let us now segue into Saab's story. Unlike ill-fated Saab Automobile AB which was bought by GM in 1990, Saab Aerospace--maker of sleek fighters and other defence gear--has remained in Swedish hands. The Swedes are a go-it-alone sort, preferring not to join the Eurozone while keeping the krona, for instance. So it has been in defence: its jets are not Eurofighters but homegrown designs. Through persistence and individuality, Saab is now in the frame with the world's top defence concerns in a race to replace India's MIG-21s even if its name recognition handicaps it somewhat:

The biggest contract that everyone is fighting for at the moment is an anticipated $11bn (£6.7bn) Indian order for 126 fighter jets, set to become one of the biggest export orders in the history of the defence industry. Saab was recently told it had not been shortlisted for the Indian contract, due to be awarded in March 2012, but remains hopeful nevertheless...

Saab is convinced its lightweight single-engine multirole fighter aircraft is both as capable as and much cheaper to buy and operate than larger, twin-engined jets such as the Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault's Rafale and Boeing's Super Hornet - not to mention Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which has suffered from cost overruns running into billions of dollars. By contrast, [Saab's] Mr Sindahl observes: "We made the Gripen demonstrator at 40% of the original budget because we introduced new ways of working.

At any rate, there are other customers for the Swedes even if India doesn't sign on:

Saab's gain is a commercial product that is marketable across the world, according to Lennart Sindahl, head of Saab Aeronautics, the largest of the group's five divisions. The Saab JAS 39 Gripen has so far been bought not only by Sweden, but also by the Czech Republic, Hungary, South Africa and Thailand, and the UK is using it as its advanced fast jet platform for test pilots worldwide...

Saab is convinced it can extend its list of customer countries considerably over the next decade or so, as some 5,000 of the 13,000 fighter jets currently in operation are scheduled for retirement, and as emerging nations prepare to gear up their air forces. "For the Gripen, there are new markets and market possibilities coming along all the time," Mr Sindahl tells BBC News in an interview.

Those crafty Swedes have used the oldest trick in the book, industrial policy, of keeping its defence industries competitive:

The Gripen project has emerged from Sweden's desire not to rely on foreign companies for its defence capabilities. The programme has been further strengthened by the country's supportive industrial policy.

Sweden has realised that targeted investment in hi-tech sectors, such as the military aircraft industry, can be hugely beneficial for the nation as a whole, according to Gunnar Eliasson of Sweden's Royal Institute of Technology and the Ratio Institute, a free-market think tank. "Long-term competitive sustainability of an industry requires the local presence of one or more technology-leading firms for the rest of industry to learn from," he says in a book on advanced public procurement as industrial policy. Investment in the Gripen project "has generated an additional social return to society on the order of magnitude of at least 2.6 times the original development investment", according to Mr Eliasson.

Now let us turn to the Yanks. Lockheed's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme has famously been beset by delays and cost overruns. Like America itself, US defence contractors are seldom on time or on budget. That figures. While it is certainly one of the more advanced and highly rated designs in the race to replace the ageing MIGs, it is beset by--you probably guessed it--industrial policy, this time on both sides. On one hand, while the Indian economy has certainly liberalized compared to the pre-Manmohan Singh days, it seems they are still keen on not just being paying customers by availing of technology transfer and accompanying "offsets" that benefit local industry:

The vendor who finally wins will be required to undertake 50% offset obligations in India. That’s a boost from the usual 30%, which is required for Indian defense purchases over $70 million. The additional 20% was added because India is looking for a large boost to its aerospace and defense electronics industries, and understands that the size of their purchase gives them additional leverage. The Indian MoD’s RFP release adds that “Foreign vendors would be provided great flexibility in effecting tie up with Indian partners for this purpose.”

On the other hand, you also have American defence firms alike Lockheed being obliged to keep proprietary knowledge in-house that are not keen on sharing this knowledge--even at a price:

India has been invited to F-35 events. With potential US [domestic] order numbers dropping, India might even be accepted into the program if they pushed for it. The F-35’s killer weakness was timing that coudn’t deliver the fighters in India’s timeframe, and India’s pursuit of its FGFA program with Russia offers it a semi-indigenous alternative. Even if India changed its mind, the F-35’s advanced systems, established industrial partnership structure and program procurement policies could also make it nearly impossible to meet India’s technology transfer and industrial offset rules.

Just as international trade policy largely fashioned on American preferences as exemplified by the WTO discourages subsidies, so does US foreign military sales (FMS) procurement policy discourage "offsets":

The general policy of the Department of Defense with regard to offsets is that they are market distorting and inefficient. In accordance with an April 16th, 1990, Presidential Policy statement, the decision whether to engage in offsets, and the responsibility for negotiating and implementing offset agreements, resides with the companies involved. The Presidential Policy mandates that "no agency of the U.S. Government shall encourage, enter directly into, or commit U.S. firms to any offset arrangement in connection with the sale of defense goods or services for foreign governments."

Let's be honest here: Americans have BS artists from here to eternity, and the defence industry certainly isn't free from them. Even when the US military cannot afford jets due to overstretch--broke America probably has more pressing priorities--it still turns up its nose to countries that can actually pay for these killing machines.

Security matters often receive less IPE attention, but we have an interesting triple comparative political economy here depicting countries on different trajectories. India is definitely shining with many keen on sharing design know-how with it. Sweden is maintaining its reputation for engineering through well-applied industrial policy. And the US is, industrially speaking, a beggar being a chooser that is flushing itself down the toilet of history through overstretch. That's about par for the course as far as the global pecking order is concerned.

Modern American defence policy isn't up there with the best of the best, to put it mildly. It's funny what a difference a quarter of a century makes.

Georgia, Still Russia's Roadblock to Joining WTO

I just wanted to add this update to my ever-growing collection of posts pertaining to Russia joining the WTO [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. The gist of it is that Georgia remains the main obstacle to Russia joining the international trade body. Given Georgia's outright conflict and continuing troubles with Russia over access to its erstwhile breakaway republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the final blocking party was obvious. Imagine having another country controlling access to what you rightfully can claim as your own territory. It's not fun stuff. When we last had dispatches from this front, Switzerland had offered to mediate WTO entry among the quarrelling factions. Many months later, perhaps Swiss efforts haven't been enough. From Bloomberg:

Georgia and Russia haven’t made any “substantial” progress in three months of talks on Russia’s bid to join the World Trade Organization, Prime Minister Nika Gilauri said. “We don’t see any substantial progress yet even though there are some steps,” Gilauri said today in an interview with Bloomberg News at the World Economic Forum on Europe and Central Asia in Vienna. “So far the talks are going very much in the same mode.”

Switzerland in March started mediating negotiations between Russia and Georgia, which fought a five-day war in 2008 over the breakaway Georgian region of South Ossetia. Georgia has cited disputes over customs checkpoints in South Ossetia and another breakaway region, Abkhazia, as reasons to withhold its approval for Russian WTO membership.

Russia, the largest economy outside the WTO, has been seeking to join the Geneva-based trade arbiter since June 1993. The U.S. announced last year it had resolved most issues necessary for Russia’s accession. “The only request from Georgia’s side is for transparency on border crossings, on customs checkpoints,” said Gilauri. “If there is no transparency on checkpoints, how can Russia become a member of the WTO?”

Russia rejects “politicization” of WTO accession talks by Georgia, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in March. The “political window of opportunity” for Russia to enter may “start to close down” at the end of the year as the U.S. and Russia enter election years, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov said in an interview with Bloomberg in Miami in April, adding that he is hopeful an agreement will be reached before then.

Like me, do you find it odd that the US election cycle would put off the Russian bid for WTO membership? Despite the usual paeans to equal membership status, some may be just that bit more equal than others--alike the country that was instrumental in creating it. Some things never change, but you have to wonder if US presidential elections really matter that much in an ostensibly multilateral organization.

Meanwhile, As Clausewitz said, war is the continuation of politics by other means--a perfect explanation of the aforementioned conflict. What better way for Georgia to contest Russian checkpoints located in its breakaway republics but to create roadblocks to Russia joining the WTO? Strictly speaking it's not a trade issue being debated, but how does the "free movement of goods and services" sit alongside your neighbour fencing you out from your own territory? Strange but true.

Mark McCullers' Jack-Booted Thugs Export Their Brutality to Jefferson Memorial

Former Crew Stadium Security Officers apparently have landed jobs with the U.S. Park Service Police.

As El Luchador has previously reported, the goons who staff security at Crew Stadium look for reasons to throw people out and otherwise interfere with our God-given inalienable rights to public drunkenness.

El Luchador has now learned that this same approach to suppressing freedom has been exported to the U.S. Park Service, who this week arrested several friends of the Luchametric Institute for doing nothing other than dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, ironically a place enshrined to celebrate the value of freedom of expression.

Watch the incredible footage here:



To join the Jefferson Dance Party planned for this Saturday at the memorial in Washington, click here.

US Free Trade Lies, PRC / Pentagon Bids Edition

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel - Samuel Johnson

Is it just me or is the United States fast becoming a nation of scoundrels? I've long pointed out the hypocrisy of bankrupt America continually posing as the world's free trade champion when, in reality, it has been distinctly protectionist when it comes to its funders wishing to purchase assets that yield better returns than lousy Treasuries. The case of the Chinese firm Huawei is very well-known as it has been discouraged from buying the tangential defence contractor 3Com. Ditto for 3Leaf. It has also been discouraged from bidding on US government contracts with "security" related concerns. Before that you had CNOOC being similarly discouraged from purchasing Unocal over even more dubious grounds. And these examples are just the tip of the iceberg.

So, it continues to boggle me what lengths Americans will go to in order to prevent the Chinese from taking their due. After all, if you continually run up such a monstrous tab, you would expect those footing your bill to have some input in governance matters, right? Well no. In yet another affront to the idea of free trade, American lawmakers have just decided to effectively freeze out Chinese firms with Communist Party affiliations from bidding on US defence contracts. Given the increasing sophistication of PRC hardware, this restriction comes as quite a blow:

The US House of Representatives has broadened the type of Chinese entities barred from receiving Pentagon contracts amid growing unease in Washington over China's expanding military might. Under the amendment, passed by voice vote Wednesday, all entities owned by or affiliated with the Chinese government are prohibited from providing defense articles to the United States and the US secretary of defense must report to Congress 15 days before any planned waiver of the ban.

"With China making significant progress in the defense and aerospace industries it is critical that we ensure US national security is protected and that the highly skilled jobs and associated technologies in these industries are not outsourced overseas," Representative Rosa DeLauro said in a statement. The Connecticut Democrat said the measure "will help guard American interests, not only for our national security, but also the innovation, job creation and long-term economic growth in Connecticut and across the country that will allow the United States to remain competitive globally."

Yes, protectionism it is, red in tooth and claw. There's also this tendency to conflate increasing Chinese technological prowess with goals of militarily dominating other countries--like its prospective customers. As I've pointed out before, this crude realism so favoured by certain Americans doesn't really follow Chinese history since even at the height of their technological advantage over the West, China did not go around the world colonizing and enslaving other people--unlike certain Westerners. But here they go again:

Chinese state-controlled firm China Aviation Industry Corp, or AVIC, is said to be weighing a bid for the contract to produce the next US presidential helicopter, prompting concerns in Washington about the possibility that Beijing may obtain US military secrets.

DeLauro's measure, also sponsored by Republican Representative Frank Wolf, was among dozens of proposed amendments to a $690 billion defense budget bill the House passed on Thursday. The amendment allows the defense secretary to waive the procurement restrictions if a good or service is both critical to the Defense Department and not otherwise available.

Companies affected by the amendment include any commercial firm "owned or controlled by, directed by or from, operating with delegated authority from, or affiliated with, the People's Liberation Army or the government of the People's Republic of China or that is owned or controlled by an entity affiliated with the defense industrial base of the People's Republic of China."

"Over the last several years, so-called 'commercial' Chinese companies have sought to compete for DoD contracts. In fact, these Chinese 'companies' are very much arms of Beijing and the People's Liberation Army," said Wolf. "That is why we believe Congress must act quickly to make clear that it will not support any contract that involves a Chinese state-controlled company for the highly sensitive presidential helicopter program or any other defense system."

As mentioned above, an immediate precursor of this move was Chinese firm AVIC considering a bid to replace ageing US presidential helicopters with a more advanced design despite utilizing American (Pratt & Whitney) engines. Worse, AVIC is also being frozen out from bidding on replacing America's ageing jet trainers in a far larger contract. From an earlier article:

Could the US president's helicopter be made in China in the future? It's a possibility, as China Aviation Industry Corp (AVIC) is aiming to win US aviation contracts. The Wall Street Journal has reported that AVIC, the maker of China's new J-20 stealth fighter, has teamed up with a tiny California company, US Aerospace Inc (USAE), to try to launch bids for US defense contracts, possibly including one to supply Chinese helicopters to replace the aging Marine One fleet used by the president, people involved in the partnership were quoted as saying. Two AVIC officials previously confirmed that the company signed a strategic cooperation agreement with US Aerospace in September last year,

The AVIC's AC-313 [helicopter], which demonstrated its first flight last year, is powered by three engines made by Pratt & Whitney and can seat up to 27 passengers and two crew members. The model is capable of replacing the aging Marine One. Insiders expect the contract to be awarded in the next two to three years.

AVIC and US Aerospace have also held talks over the suitability of AVIC's new L-15 trainer jet [see picture above] as a candidate to replace the US Air Force's fleet of Northrop T-38s which have been in use for 50 years and on which American fighter pilots learn skills such as flying at supersonic speeds. That contract is expected to be one of the most lucrative [American] military aviation contracts this decade. The United States is likely to buy about 400 aircraft and other allied countries about 600 more as the jet will become the standard model for training pilots to fly the US F-22 and F-35 stealth fighters.

Like a lot of Yankee blather, I think it's utter rubbish to single out Chinese defence contractors thusly. First, it would not be difficult for the US to discern if the Chinese are deliberately providing substandard equipment not living up to specifications. That would be grounds for contract termination, period. Second, why are we to assume that the Chinese would riddle their equipment with spying software and hardware--bugs, cameras, the works? It would again be very easy to spot these devices and, in the process, terminally hurt China's prospects of exporting similar wares to other countries.

Truly, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel--and a rather dumb one at that. Free trade means selling off chunks of American equity, not just debt. It also means opening up bidding processes to all comers. But when you instead treat others so shabbily, is it any wonder why paeans to "free trade" fall upon deaf ears?

On Serbian EU Accession: Ratko Mladic Caught

A few months ago I "offered" to hasten the process of Serbian EU accession by removing one of its principle obstacles--bringing war criminal Ratko Mladic to justice. By engaging in Soldier of Fortune-inspired bounty hunting to pick up multimillion rewards for his capture, I thought it was a pretty good financial prospect as well. Nothing became of that unsurprisingly--academics are timid rather than action-ready. With Slobodan Milosevic long gone and Radovan Karazdic behind bars, Mladic was the only left at large among the triumvirate of Balkan evildoers. (I also had a previous commentary on the interesting political economy angle of the IMF recognizing Kosovo at America's behest when most UN members do not.)

But lo and behold: after years of Mladic supposedly being hidden in plain sight, the Serbian authorities have now turned him in. The timing is interesting. To me, there are shades of tolerance of bin Laden running out. And with that, he is now off to the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. This is what that body had to say along with a brief backgrounder at the end:

The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia welcomes the arrest today of Ratko Mladić, General Colonel and former Commander of the Main Staff of the army of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina/Republika Srpska. He was indicted by the Tribunal on 25 July 1995 and was a fugitive from justice for almost 16 years.

In relation to the arrest, Prosecutor Brammertz stated the following: “I welcome the arrest of Ratko Mladić today in Serbia. We await arrangements for his transfer to The Hague where he will stand trial before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.

We recognize the work done by the Serbian authorities, specifically the National Security Council and Serbia’s Action Team, in apprehending Ratko Mladić. We thank them for meeting their obligations towards the Tribunal and towards justice. We also acknowledge the efforts of the international community in supporting measures to secure Ratko Mladić’s arrest.

With the news of the arrest, we think first and foremost of the victims of the crimes committed during the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. These victims have endured unimaginable horrors – including the genocide in Srebrenica – and redress for their suffering is long overdue. Ratko Mladić’s arrest is also significant for all people in the former Yugoslavia. We believe that it can have a positive impact on reconciliation in the region.

Today is also an important day for international justice. Ratko Mladić’s arrest clearly signals that the commitment to international criminal justice is entrenched. Today’s events show that people responsible for grave violations of international humanitarian law can no longer count on impunity.”

BACKGROUND

Ratko Mladić, Colonel General, former Commander of the Main Staff of the Bosnian Serb Army (VRS) is charged with genocide, crimes against humanity and violations of the laws or customs of war against Bosnian Muslim, Bosnian Croat and other non-Serb civilians in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the 1992-1995 war.

As set out in the Indictment, Ratko Mladić together with Radovan Karadžić was a key member of a joint criminal enterprise to permanently remove Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats from the territory in Bosnia and Herzegovina claimed by Bosnian Serbs. To achieve this aim, Ratko Mladić, acted in concert with others to commit crimes in the locations and at the times alleged in the indictment.

As the most senior officer of the Bosnian Serb Army during the war, Ratko Mladić was the superior of Bosnian Serb Army members and other Serb forces integrated into or subordinated to the Bosnian Serb Army. As such, he had effective control over the forces who participated in the crimes alleged. Ratko Mladić is charged with planning, instigating and ordering each of the crimes.

Ratko Mladić is charged with crimes that include:

* the murder of close to 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys in Srebrenica in 1995.
* the murders, persecution, forcible transfer, detention and mistreatment of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats during the campaign to permanently remove such persons from the territory under the control of the forces of Republika Srpska.
* the terror campaign and the shelling and sniping of civilians in Sarajevo by Bosnian Serb forces under his command and control which resulted in the killing and wounding of thousands, including many women and children;
* the taking of UN military observers and peacekeeping personnel as hostages in May and June 1995.

Nineteen years have passed since the first crimes listed in this indictment were committed. Sixteen years have passed since Ratko Mladić was indicted. Today he is in custody and will be brought to stand trial in The Hague.

Indirectly, it shows you how removing the main obstacle to EU accession--Mladic himself--means quite a bit to the Serbs. Although the matter of Kosovo's independence remains undecided, questions of national jurisdiction have seldom proven to be terminal hindrances to accession. Witness Cyprus. Demonstrating that there remain any number of countries that view joining the Eurozone as an attractive proposition aside, the grunt work lies ahead in meeting various EU chapters on accession.

It's not an easy task, and I daresay that the Greek experience--ironically, current Greek PM Paprendreou helped draft a plan for achieving Serbian membership--makes the supranational body more wary of fudges and kludges to meet targets alike those mandated by the Stability and Growth Pact. In that earlier post, I also mentioned how its neighbours were farther along the process. For now, however, it's truly game on and I wish our Serbian friends the best of luck.

American Hypocrisy on Libya & Int'l Criminal Court

I read with no small amount of amusement the grandiosely titled op-ed "Libya's Pathway to Peace" by Barack Obama, David Cameron, and Nicolas Sarkozy. One way or another, none are free from hypocrisy to keep things lively. When the Libya mess erupted, Cameron was on a junket to the Middle East selling arms. Meanwhile, Sarkozy in the not-too-distant past was encouraging Western defence firms to hawk their wares in Libya.

As usual, though, the Americans take the grand prize in the hypocrites' sweepstakes. Sometime ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had the chutzpah to suggest China and the Southeast Asian countries disputing islands in the South China Sea resort to "international law" when the US was famously not even a signatory to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). In the grand American tradition of paying international cooperation lip service but flouting the United Nations' various conventions and instruments, the lead author and president of a country that hasn't signed up to the International Criminal Court had this to say:

Our duty and our mandate under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove Qaddafi by force. But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Qaddafi in power. The International Criminal Court is rightly investigating the crimes committed against civilians and the grievous violations of international law. It is unthinkable that someone who has tried to massacre his own people can play a part in their future government. The brave citizens of those towns that have held out against forces that have been mercilessly targeting them would face a fearful vengeance if the world accepted such an arrangement. It would be an unconscionable betrayal.

That's pretty rich stuff, Obama. Why don't you get Congress to sign up to the ICC, then you can talk about it investigating "grievous violations." Indeed, US policy concerning the ICC is built around non-signatories being free from its jurisdiction. From a rather helpful article comes this summation of US policy concerning this very issue:

This article examines the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) over nationals of states not party to the ICC Statute. The article first addresses the US argument that the exercise of ICC jurisdiction over nationals of non-parties without the consent of that non-party would be contrary to international law.

As I've said, one reason for UN dysfunction is its ill treatment at the hands of its hosts. As for Obama's obvious vexation with international law and the ICC, let's just say he's even worse than Clinton. Clinton's hypocrisy was wanting to subject others to laws the US itself did not follow. Obama's hypocrisy is claiming that Libya should be investigated by the ICC in accordance with international law when the unrevised US position is that the ICC exercising jurisdiction over citizens of non-signatories is a contravention of international law.

These US foreign policy statements are strictly amateur nite.

Philippine-PRC Spratly Islands Spat + PR Spin

In politics, joining up seemingly unrelated issues is a frequent occurrence. Sometimes it goes by the name horse-trading, other times logrolling. Whatever it's called, there's no escaping it. A few months ago I penned a feature for LSE IDEAS that neatly encapsulates my ideas about China's territorial conflicts with its Southeast Asian neighbours over islands in the South China Sea. So many months after that Hillary Clinton-fuelled diplomatic row, we have another one on our hands. Last week, a Philippine-flagged vessel it calls a seismic surveillance ship was confronted by Chinese vessels in these troubled waters. The PRC calls the surrounding islands Nansha, while the Philippines calls them the Kalayaan ("freedom") islands. In geographic terms, the Red Bank where the incident took place shows you the vastness of China's claim given how much nearer it is to the Philippines (see map point). Feeling aggrieved, the Philippine armed forces scrambled a few planes and boats to look into what was going on, but the Chinese boats had already left the scene when they got there:

Two Chinese Navy gunboats reportedly harassed a vessel owned by the Department of Energy (DOE) that was conducting maritime research off the disputed Spratly Islands last Wednesday. Armed Forces Western Command (Westcom) commander Lt. Gen. Juancho Sabban confirmed that the Air Force deployed bombers and an Islander reconnaissance aircraft while the Navy dispatched three vessels to intercept the two Chinese vessels. “But they did not catch the Chinese vessels that already left when the planes arrived. The DOE ship just resumed their research in the area,” Sabban said in a telephone interview.

Sabban said the incident occurred at around 9:30 a.m. in the vicinity of Reed Bank, 250 kilometers west of Palawan. He said Reed Bank is well within Philippine territory and Navy gunboats were deployed to secure the DOE [Department of Energy] research vessel M/V Venture...

Initial exploration of the Reed Bank by the DOE revealed that the area contains about 3.4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 440 million barrels of oil. Sabban said two white Chinese gunboats with the markings No. 71 and No. 75 tried to drive away the DOE research vessel from Reed Bank. The Navy and the Air Force reported that the two Chinese vessels conducted a side-by-side maneuver, virtually “sandwiching” the DOE research vessel, prompting its alarmed personnel to radio for help.

The incident also prompted the Philippine government to file a protest with the PRC:

Manila has filed a formal protest with Beijing after two Chinese patrol boats allegedly harassed a government-authorized seismic survey ship near the disputed Spratly Islands "We have already brought the matter up [with China]. We handed them a protest [letter] on the incident," President Benigno S. C. Aquino III told reporters in an interview after attending a multisectoral dialogue here.

Mr. Aquino also said the country will send to Beijing an expert on the issue to discuss the matter. Pending resolution of the issue, he said a Philippine Coast Guard vessel has been deployed to the area to assist the survey ship. "The Coast Guard ship will ensure that our rights are protected by making sure that this survey ship [authorized] by our government would finish its job," said the President.

The Chinese embassy got a ring from the president's office shortly thereafter:

Meanwhile, "peaceful negotiations" are the way to "solve the dispute, if there is indeed a dispute" over the incident last March 2, said Ethan Y. Sun, deputy chief of political section and spokesperson of the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China in Manila. Mr. Sun said China has always been "committed to maintaining the peace and stability in the South China Sea...If there is dispute between China and the Philippines, this should be made up by peaceful bilateral negotiations," said Mr. Sun in an interview on Friday.

"Aggressive" is not a word he would use to describe any of the recent the actions from the Chinese and the Philippines side, as "it does nothing beneficial to peace and stability in the region." Nevertheless, he maintained that "ever since ancient times, China has indisputable sovereignty over Nansha Islands and their adjacent waters." Nansha is the Chinese name for the Spratlys.

China, Mr. Sun added, has been consistent in upholding the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea [signed in 2002]. He reiterated a statement made by the Department of Foreign Affairs that the lines of communication between the Philippines and China remain open.

A consideration is that Chinese Ambassador to the Philippines Liu Jianchao will likely return to Manila next week from an annual home office reporting to discuss the matter with the government. "Sometimes it is necessary and more than appropriate to have a high-level exchange," Mr. Sun said.

And now for the joining up of issues. It is well-known that 8 million Filipinos are economic migrants working abroad. As it so happens, some of them just happened to work in Libya. The Philippine press has been critical of what it perceives to be slow government evacuation of its nationals from Libya. While visiting the China Daily, still our favourite official publication, I came across an article which boasts of how China is facilitating the evacuation of other countries' expatriates. As you would expect, including those of the Philippines:

China, in conducting its largest overseas evacuation, helped more than 1,100 foreigners leave Libya over the past two weeks, transporting them on chartered Greek vessels, said China's Ambassador to Greece Luo Linquan. Calling it an act of humanitarianism, Luo said the foreigners were mainly from Greece, Italy, Poland, Bangladesh, the Philippines and Vietnam. A total of 35,860 Chinese citizens had been evacuated from Libya as of Wednesday night, according to the Foreign Ministry. Of these, 20,745 had already returned to China, Vice-Foreign Minister Song Tao said...

Once the maritime evacuation commenced on Feb 22, three Greek ships undertook six voyages from the Cretian capital, Heraklion, to Benghazi and Misurata, two port cities in eastern and western Libya. By Wednesday, more than 13,000 Chinese citizens had been transported to Crete. So far, eight chartered flights have been arranged to take Chinese citizens home...

On the morning of Feb 22, the Chinese government leased two Greek ships to sail to Libya and the vessels departed at 6:50 pm that same day. "The efficiency was unimaginable," as in normal circumstances the process should take days, said Luo.

These seemingly unrelated but ultimately linked occurrences demonstrate a couple of things. First, China would waste the Philippines if hostilities broke out given the former's vastly superior resources. Second, China is still canny in using other diplomatic avenues to win over Philippine friends such as by helping the evacuation of RP nationals from Libya. Third, the Spratly islands issue is not yet out of the limelight, though you'd wish they'd come up with a lasting diplomatic solution sooner or later.

BTW: There is video footage available of the Philippines' modest installation in the disputed islands.

UPDATE: The Philippines is thinking of sending an envoy to China to discuss things. The Reed Bank itself is not being contested according to reports, but the waters in which the incident took place are, hence the entanglement.

US Air Force Tanker Wars: Boeing Upends EADS

Here is another instance where waving the red, white, and blue seems to have paid off for an American firm. I have made a lengthy earlier post on US Air Force efforts to replace it ancient, 50-some-year-old fleet of KC-135 air refuelling tankers. To make a long story short, the world's two largest purveyors of commercial jets, Boeing and EADS (the parent company of Airbus), have played rough in pursuit of the lucrative $35 billion contract.

Round one of the bidding process went to Boeing in 2003, but it turned out that Boeing's former CFO promised the concerned Air Force procurement officer a lucrative job afterwards, resulting in both being sent to jail and the reopening of the bidding process. Round two then went to EADS in conjunction with its then-US partner Northrop Grumman. Understandably, this result provoked a political backlash Stateside, with Boeing and many self-serving politicians claiming a compromise of national security and a loss of jobs by buying jets from the European consortium (nevermind that Europeans are American allies last I checked and that EADS had a US partner).

EADS has since continued pursuing the DoD contract alone. Meanwhile, Boeing has stepped up the "Buy American" angle while also claiming unfairness in the bidding process...and has now won. However, EADS may yet contest this result, further delaying the replacement of ancient aircraft. Meanwhile the rationale for the winning bid was as follows:

"Boeing was a clear winner," Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn III said at a brief Pentagon news conference announcing the decision. The first 18 of 179 planes, to be called KC-46A tankers, are to be delivered by 2017. Considerations in the award, Lynn said, were "warfighting requirements, price and life-cycle costs." He and Air Force Secretary Michael Donley emphasized that both manufacturers had demonstrated they could deliver on 372 requirements specified in the contract.

"What that means is that, in the end, Boeing won on price," said Loren B. Thompson, a defense policy analyst for the Arlington-based Lexington Institute. "Price consists of the cost of producing the plane, plus the cost of operating it over 30 years. The Airbus plane is so much bigger and burned over a ton more fuel per flight hour...Multiply that by 179 planes, times 30 years of service life and it becomes very big," Thompson said.

"These are fixed-price contracts," Donley said. The decision "reflects our efforts to deliver better value to the warfighter...in a budget process that we realize is not going to give us more money every year."

The Europeans are understandably crestfallen, as are politicians from states that lost out in producing the EADS tanker:

But the decision to award the work to Chicago-based Boeing disappointed the European Aeronautic Defence and Space company (Eads) and Germany which had made a rival bid. They vowed to discuss the decision with the US military. Their disappointment was shared by workers in America's Gulf coast and Alabama, where Eads hoped to assemble its aircraft at a former military base in Mobile...

Politicians from Alabama suggested politics played a role. "I'm disappointed but not surprised," Senator Richard Shelby said. "Only Chicago politics could tip the scales in favour of Boeing's inferior plane. Eads clearly offers the more capable aircraft." Chicago is the political home of President Barack Obama, while his new chief of staff, William M Daley, resigned last month from the Boeing board where he had served since 2006. The White House said Mr Daley had no role in the decision.

Representative Jo Bonner vowed to get a full account of why Eads lost out. "This competition has been challenged before and it's not unlikely it will be challenged again," he said. Mr Lynn said the losing bidder could appeal, but believed there was no grounds for protest. Eads chairman in North America Ralph D Crosby Jnr said: "This is a disappointing turn of events, and we look forward to discussing with the USAF how it arrived at this conclusion."

In true American fashion, they've already held victory parades in honour of Boeing vanquishing EADS. Boeing surely can't stop gloating. Nor did it appear to spare any expense with the online propaganda. Still, it ain't over till it's over as EADS may mount a challenge. Given the history of this transatlantic trade dispute, maybe those KC-135s will be in the air after China has overtaken the US as the world's largest economy ;-)

Bad Timing: PM Cameron in Mideast Selling Arms

The British press is having a field day with the coalition government's apparent delay in retrieving its citizens from Libya. Delay aside, let's say there are a lot of incidents suggesting the government was caught unawares. Foreign Secretary William Hague made a gaffe a few days ago in suggesting Moammar Qadhafi was on his way to Venezuela to join his good friend Hugo Chavez. Meanwhile, Deputy PM Nick Clegg forgot he was in charge while Cameron was away on...an interesting business trip.

As it turns out, part of the reason for the slack government response has been PM David Cameron being away on business in the Middle East. Among the wares he was hawking on behalf of British industrialists included, er, weaponry. While the UK decries what's happening in Libya with the ruling Qadhafi clan in last stand mode, it's probable that arms the current government continued to sell to Libya figure into Qadhafi's current repression. From Defence Management [!]:

Prime Minister David Cameron has defended the decision to bring arms industry representatives with him on a trade mission to the Middle East. Cameron has been criticised for taking BAE Systems chief executive Ian King and representatives of Thales, Qinetiq and Rolls-Royce on his current Middle East trade mission. Weapons sold by the UK had reportedly been used to suppress civilians in Libya and other countries affected by civil unrest in recent weeks.

Speaking in Kuwait, Cameron said: "A properly regulated trade in defence is nothing we should be ashamed of.,,The fact that there are British defence companies on this visit – BAE, Thales and others – is perfectly right in this regard...We have probably the toughest set of export rules probably anywhere in the world. It is obviously difficult to get it right on every occasion."

Defence Secretary Liam Fox earlier said the UK should get "a healthy slice" of arms exports in the Middle East within certain ethical limits.Speaking after a speech at thinktank Civitas, Fox said that there were always a "great deal of unknowns" and that each export should be dealt with on "a case-by-case basis."

"We have to recognise that countries have a right of self-defence and not all of them have a defence industry so they will always buy externally," he said. "I want to make sure the United Kingdom - within the limits that we set ourselves ethically on defence exports - is getting a healthy slice of that."

The New Statesman juxtaposes matters thusly:

In his speech to the Kuwaiti National Assembly on 22 February, David Cameron appeared to acknowledge the limits of the policy so far when he declared that "denying people their basic rights does not preserve stability, rather the reverse". But the Prime Minister's laudable words were undermined by his decision to travel to the region with eight of Britain's leading arms manufacturers [out of 30 concerns]. To his critics, Mr Cameron replied: "A properly regulated trade in defence is nothing we should be ashamed of." Yet the presence of Gerald Howarth, a defence minister, at an arms fair in Abu Dhabi - where British companies sold tear gas, stun grenades and rubber bullets for the purposes of "crowd control" - was something to be ashamed of. Rather than delaying action until the moment governments open fire on their own people, as happened in Bahrain and Libya, ministers should declare an immediate arms embargo.

Talk about corporate social responsibility issues galore. It's a hard decision to make on several levels. Defence industries provide employment. Oftentimes, they also lie at the forefront of research and development that are crucial to enhancing much-ballyhooed international competitiveness. How do you channel these two positively without selling these wares to such regimes? This balancing act is certainly a difficult one.

UPDATE: Sarkozy too was keen on selling arms to Libya.

Yanqui Protectionism: CFIUS, Huawei, and 3Leaf

Here's another entry in the seemingly non-stop catalogue of US-China dustups. Given America's chronic external deficit, it must attract at least an equivalent amount of capital inflows to compensate. To date, the Chinese have been willing to purchase US Treasuries (perhaps more reluctantly in recent years). However a natural misgiving given the rock-bottom near-zero interest rate policy (ZIRP) being pursued Stateside is that the yields China receives may not adequately compensate for the risk China takes. First, there are local grumbles that so much money is better spent at home where many problems alike poverty and pollution remain endemic. Parking huge sums of money in the US has dubious moral consequences, and domestic unrest can be a manifestation.

Second, there is the valid complaint that while the US is perfectly willing to let China buy Treasuries of dubious worth, it generally doesn't allow it to purchase more valuable parts of America such as its enterprises. On the balance sheet, China can purchase US debt--no problem--but not much equity by owning businesses that have the potential to create large revenue streams for the Chinese unlike Treasuries with their miserly yields. The reason? To me, it's always been naked protectionism. For obvious reasons, Chinese firms have been keenest on purchasing US firms with technological know-how. However, the US government has always baulked under "security" grounds via the Commission on Foreign Investment in the US (CFIUS), a multi-agency body headed by the Treasury.

Hence, there are two asymmetries at work. China can buy lots of America's debt but not equity (or ownership) in America. Also, while US firms have been (usually) welcome to invest in China, the obverse does not neccessarily hold--especially for Chinese technology firms.

I have made many posts [1, 2, 3, 4] on the Chinese telecoms gear manufacturer Huawei being--let's be honest here--harassed by American authorities. There's a longstanding insinuation that Huawei is affiliated with the Red Army. Insofar as it's a claim Huawei has not wholly refuted, it's given the Chinese concern endless grief. As it turns out, Huawei tried a somewhat different tack in approaching yet another US technology outfit. Assets of privately-held 3Leaf Systems (no relation to 3Com which Huawei famously tried to purchase before) were bought on the sly without informing CFIUS. Let's just say CFIUS was not very happy about this after finding out. Recent news suggests government pressure [surprise!] has resulted in Huawei's hand being forced into divestiture:

China's Huawei said it would back away from its acquisition of U.S. server technology company 3Leaf's assets, bowing to pressure from a U.S. government panel that had suggested it should divest the assets. The U.S. government has been concerned about Huawei, China's largest telecommunications equipment maker, for years because of uncertainty over its relationship with the Chinese government. Huawei was founded by a People's Liberation Army soldier, and opponents say it retains links with China's security services. Huawei has denied the links.

Huawei bought certain 3Leaf assets for $2 million last May but did not file with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which reviews deal for possible national security implications, until November. According to Huawei, CFIUS suggested that the Chinese company voluntarily divest the assets.

As recently as February 14, Huawei said it would wait for a decision from the White House rather than divest. Now it has changed its course. "This was a difficult decision, however we have decided to accept the recommendation of CFIUS to withdraw our application to acquire specific assets of 3Leaf," Huawei said in a statement issued late on Friday night in the United States.

"Huawei will remain committed to long-term investment in the United States. The significant impact and attention that this transaction has caused were not what we intended. Rather, our intention was to go through all the procedures to reveal the truth about Huawei."

Huawei is the world's No. 3 mobile gear maker behind Ericsson and Nokia Siemens Networks, which is a joint venture of Nokia and Siemens. Alleged links with China's security services, which Huawei has denied, have torpedoed its U.S. deals in the past. The company gave up a bid for 3Com in 2008 due to security concerns. In 2010, a group of Republican lawmakers raised national security concerns about Huawei's bid to supply mobile telecommunications equipment to Sprint Nextel Corp.

Meanwhile, China's Ministry of Commerce flags up the obvious:

China's Ministry of Commerce (MOC) said Monday it regrets Huawei Technologies Co.'s withdrawal of its agreement to buy the assets of 3Leaf Systems while under pressure from a U.S. panel. The MOC said in a statement on its website that it hopes "relevant parties" in the United States would "abandon prejudice, avoid protectionist measures and treat properly investments from China and other countries" with a fair, just and open attitude.

The MOC statement came after the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) last week recommended opposing the Chinese telecommunications equipment manufacturer's agreement to acquire assets and technology from 3Leaf Systems, on "national security" concerns.

In the statement, the MOC called Huawei's planned acquisition of 3Leaf's technological assets "a normal business move" based upon market economy rules and its own development needs...In recent years, some relevant parties in the United States have used various reasons, such as national security, to hamper Chinese firms' trade and investment activities in the United States," the MOC statement said, adding: "Such obstructions have already had an impact on the Sino-U.S. economic and trade cooperation."

"We believe an open, just and transparent trade and investment environment is good for economic growth for both China and the Untied States and can help facilitate the world economic recovery," the MOC statement said.

Free trade as core American policy? Yeah, right.

Climate Apartheid? The India-Bangladesh Superfence

My friend came to me, with sadness in his eyes
He told me that he wanted help
Before his country dies

And so begin the lyrics to "Bangla Desh" from George Harrison's Concert for Bangla Desh held on 1 August 1971 in Madison Square Garden. Well before we had Sir Bono and Sir Bob Geldof, Live Aid and Live 8, we had the late, great Beatle setting the template for all there was to follow. This forerunner of all benefit concerts was held to support the victims of the 12 November 1970 Bhola cyclone in which an estimated 300,000 lost their lives in the region then called East Pakistan--today's Bangladesh. Just as Pakistan emerged from India, so did Bangladesh in turn emerge from Pakistan, declaring independence on 26 March 1971. It was a very difficult time for Bangladesh to say the least as it faced both the aftermath of a devastating natural calamity and the teething woes of becoming a nation--hence the lyrics above.

Now, politics on the Indian subcontinent are usually as contentious as they are interesting. Back then, Pakistan tried hard to keep Bangladesh from becoming a country, and India offered support. Among other things, India opened its border with East Pakistan to help refugees from the disaster cope. Unfortunately, environmental pressures on Bangladesh have hardly ebbed in the intervening years. Obviously, it hasn't gained any elevation while global warming has taken further effect. What more if sea levels continue to rise? With a population of over 160 million, Bangladesh is far from a tiny country population-wise.

The Commonwealth Secretariat has a new publication called Global: the international briefing that looks at global policy issues from the perspective of member states in the British Commonwealth. I highly recommend Robin Cohen's essay on why migration is a boon to globalization, though there are obviously strong interests opposed to it. In particular, the border between Bangladesh and India has become more fractious. To those following migration issues, such episodes are unsurprising given that about half of migration is, contrary to popular perception, South-South or between developing countries. I was thus struck by Cohen's description of a massive fence India is putting up:

As for South–South migration, there remain many tensions and important fault lines. The data are disputed, but there are probably about 3.5 million people born in Bangladesh living in India, with 1 million born in India and living in Bangladesh. With the Ganges Delta prone to periodic flooding, further population movements from Bangladesh to India are likely, but are inhibited by an Indian-built fence, stretching for nearly 4,100 km.

2011 is 40 years after 1971, and let's just say that the Indians are no longer as welcoming of Bangladeshis pouring over their borders. Moreover, even the effects of a major cyclone are time-bound, while permanently higher sea levels aren't. It's a security issue, they say. Aside from preventing those affected by flooding to seek refuge in neighbouring India, Brad Adams of Human Rights Watch asserts that Indian border guards have been overzealous while this massive fenestration project has become underway:

Do good fences make good neighbours? Not along the India-Bangladesh border. Here, India has almost finished building a 2,000km fence. Where once people on both sides were part of a greater Bengal, now India has put up a "keep out" sign to stop illegal immigration, smuggling and infiltration by anti-government militants.

This might seem unexceptional in a world increasingly hostile to migration. But to police the border, India's Border Security Force (BSF), has carried out a shoot-to-kill policy – even on unarmed local villagers. The toll has been huge. Over the past 10 years Indian security forces have killed almost 1,000 people, mostly Bangladeshis, turning the border area into a south Asian killing fields. No one has been prosecuted for any of these killings, in spite of evidence in many cases that makes it clear the killings were in cold blood against unarmed and defenceless local residents.

Shockingly, some Indian officials endorse shooting people who attempt to cross the border illegally, even if they are unarmed. Almost as shocking is the lack of interest in these killings by foreign governments who claim to be concerned with human rights. A single killing by US law enforcement along the Mexican border makes headlines. The killing of large numbers of villagers by Indian forces has been almost entirely ignored.

It gives one reason to pause about the consequences of global warming if the threats identified are real. Not being a climate change denier (or a deficit denier for that matter; these paleolithic tendencies tend to run together), the prospect is scary indeed. It pits higher-lying areas against adjacent lower-lying ones in a manner that seems not to build on the goodwill evident in past times, like say 1971. While the Guardian op-ed may overstate shootings on the border, the likelihood of rising sea levels and the continuing construction of this fence do not bode well for relations on the Indian subcontinent concerning borders. Also consider the economic effects of artificial separation.

Since George Harrison is no longer with us, perhaps it's up to his forebears to draw attention to a worthy cause. Is it climate apartheid, then? If migration restrictions increase further, I doubt whether this instance will be an isolated one, sadly.

Thinktank Titans: Chatham House at 90; CFR at 88

For you international relations junkies out there, the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) recently held its 90th anniversary event here in London. In the United States, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) came into being shortly thereafter in 1922. Both are the product of the same idea. Aside from Chatham House Director Robin Niblett, CFR President Richard Haass was invited to participate. The podcast is available from Chatham House and traces the history of these two notable thinktanks:

In 1919, British and American delegates to the Paris Peace Conference conceived the idea of an Anglo-American Institute of foreign affairs to study international problems with a view to preventing future wars. In the event, the British Institute of International Affairs was founded in London in July 1920 and received its Royal Charter in 1922 to become the Royal Institute of International Affairs. American delegates developed the Council on Foreign Relations in New York as a sister institute and both are now among the world's leading international affairs think-tanks.

This special members event to mark the founding of the Chatham House in 1920 will assess how both Chatham House and the Council on Foreign Relations have evolved over the past 90 years in order to live up to the goals of their founders. Dr Haass and Dr Niblett will also discuss the key themes of international affairs for the future that are driving the two institutes' current research agendas.

Lobotomarkets, Korea and the US Dollar Edition

As 2008 demonstrated, there is little rhyme or reason to financial markets. Today, however, I must being your attention to an example of the seeming brainlessness of foreign exchange markets that defies explanation. Literally, forex is a lobotomarket. When a lobotomy is performed, you just don't know how the patient (victim?) will respond. In the current situation, the operation in question was the recent fatal attack by North Korea on South Korea. While certainly a headline-grabbing event, I am utterly bemused by the subsequent response from the foreign exchange market. In particular, the US dollar has rather inexplicably strengthened. Here is a typical explanation care of Reuters:

The euro languished at two month lows early in Asia on Wednesday, threatening to deepen its losses, while the euro zone debt crisis and heightened tensions in the Korean Pennisular helped underpin the dollar.

Longtime readers know that I am perma-bearish on the US dollar. Notably, there have been occasional dead cat bounces: whenever the Eurozone is in trouble such as now, for instance, or when repatriation flows back to the US increase given "political risk" abroad. Clearly, we have both at the moment with the troubles of Ireland and the Koreas resuming intramural proceedings. However, it's odd that other currencies besides the euro--not all of them, mind you--have followed it down (for now).

Simply put, forex dunderheads, why exactly would European countries--or many others for that matter--be at greater downside risk than the US from North Korean attack?

• The United States, not Europe, has nearly 30,000 troops stationed in South Korea;
• The United States, not Europe, is immediately obliged to defend South Korea in the event that war resumes on the Korean peninsula;
• The United States, not Europe, most strenuously raises the hermit kingdom's ire over nuclear weapons development;
• The United States, not Europe, has a massive Pacific Fleet whose main objective is to keep open the flow of commerce in the Asia-Pacific.

If full-scale hostilities emerge, the one on the hook for expending much blood and treasure should be clear to all:

OPLAN 5027-00

According to the 04 December 2000 South Korean Defense Ministry White Paper, the United States would deploy up to 690,000 troops on the Korean peninsula if a new war breaks out. The United States apparently had considerably increased the number of troops that would be deployed in any new Korean conflict. The figure had risen from 480,000 in plans made in the early 1990s and 630,000 in the mid-1990s. The latest Time Phased Forces Deployment Data for any contingency on the Korean Peninsula is comprised of 690,000 troops, 160 Navy ships and 1,600 aircraft deployed from the U.S. within 90 days.

So why would the currency of a country that's deeply involved in East Asia's security architecture be less vulnerable to recent events than that of an economic union that isn't? The commitments being touted above make Iraq and Afghanistan look like walks in the park; that much is obvious. Beats me, pal. Then again, if logic dictated forex movements, I'd be a wealth man instead of a mere blogger, right?

Cam Ranh Bay, Now Open for Business

Here's another story that has failed to get much play in Western media for one reason or another. Being a Southeast Asia scholar, however, I believe that I should point out its implications. I probably needn't explain the importance of Cam Ranh Bay in the Asia-Pacific (above is a picture of it in its Soviet-era prime). This Vietnamese port has been a gateway to Indochina in particular and Southeast Asia in general for centuries. Very recently, the Vietnamese government declared that it would reopen Cam Ranh Bay for business to undertake ship repairs and other services to passing vessels--both commercial and military [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. The timing, of course, is suspicious since it coincides with Vietnam's contretemps with China over the South China Sea that it's been more vocal about this year as the rotating chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). See my previous scribblings on the curious efforts of the US to re-involve itself in Southeast Asia via the South China Sea issue [1, 2]

To make a long story short: the ostensibly "commercial" motives in opening Cam Ranh Bay for business since it fell into disuse when the Russians left in 2002 need to be considered in light of emerging security concerns about a more assertive China. Among ASEAN members, Vietnam has the most strained relations with China--especially over Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia and China striking back when the Khmer Rouge was still a PRC client.

For kicks, let's try a different Q&A format. The answers are mine:

1. What is Vietnam’s plan to reconstruct Cam Ranh Bay? Does Vietnam indeed have an economic stake in reopening this port?

The Vietnamese leadership has not established a definite plan yet. Instead, they are signalling their intention to create a maritime service centre at Cam Ranh Bay to provide repair and maintenance services to both commercial and naval vessels. Also, they want to create shopping opportunities onshore catering to crews of passing ships. Cam Ranh Bay is a fine deepwater port, and so Vietnam has naturally considered its use for commercial purposes. A notable regional example of a former US naval installation being converted for commercial purposes is the Subic Bay Freeport in the Philippines. Plans to reconstruct Cam Ranh Bay may lead it in this direction.

2. Why is Vietnam's motive in reviving Cam Ranh Bay?

Overall, there are two likely reasons. The first is the one mentioned above of it being an excellent deepwater port with revenue-generating possibilities given its prime location near commercial sea lanes traversing the South China Sea. The second relates to Vietnam’s interest in limiting perceived Chinese aggression over contending claims to islands in the South China Sea. If Cam Ranh Bay becomes established as a regular port of call for vessels of different naval powers--including China--then Vietnam may feel more secure. For instance, having American or Russian vessels regularly use these facilities can remind China that Vietnam has increasingly good relations with other powers. Vietnam itself has limited naval capabilities compared to China’s.

3. It seems there is a great opportunity for Russia to come back to Vietnam. It is said Vietnam will hire Russian consultants and buy Russian technology for the new repair facilities in Cam Ranh Bay. What is Russian interest in this region now?

The Russians left Cam Ranh Bay in 2002 prior to completing the 25-year lease Vietnam had given Russia in 1979. Vietnam tried to raise the rent charged to the Russians and this action hastened the Russian withdrawal. Now in better financial condition than in 2002 due to the elevated energy prices, Russia is said to express interest in using Cam Ranh Bay as a staging area for combating maritime piracy in the Horn of Africa as opposed to any geopolitical interest. However, the Vietnamese indicate that they will not tolerate use of the port for military purposes. The Russian Pacific Fleet has not seen major upgrades in recent years, suggesting that re-establishing a visible regional presence is not a key Russian objective at the current time.

4. How has the Vietnam/Russia relationship fared in the recent years? What will Vietnam get from its cooperation with Russia?

Russia left Cam Ranh Bay in 2002. Prior to their departure, however, the Soviet Union was an important benefactor of the Vietnamese. It was with Soviet support that Vietnam was able to maintain its presence after the invasion of Cambodia from 1979 to 1989. However, the collapse of the Soviet Union meant that it could no longer afford to keep funding Vietnam. Additional pressure was applied when the Chinese made Vietnam’s withdrawal from Cambodia a precondition for normalizing PRC relations with the Soviet Union.

Today, the Vietnamese and the Russians maintain cordial relations. Stated plans to refurbish Cam Ranh Bay for commercial purposes will be primarily economic in nature such as providing jobs to the Vietnamese.

5. This time around, Vietnam does not say it will rent the bay to any individual country. Do you think it is a ploy towards multilateral diplomacy and to make sure Vietnam can get benefits from several powers include the US and Russia?

Vietnam would create a serious political problem for itself and ASEAN if it were to lease Cam Ranh Bay to a foreign power. Like all ASEAN members, Vietnam is a signatory to ASEAN’s Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) that emphasizes principles of non-interference. Additionally, all ten ASEAN members have signed the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon Free Zone (SEANWFZ) treaty that came into effect in 1997. Among other things, SEANWFZ bans stationing of nuclear devices in member states. Still, as I mentioned as a response to the second question, Vietnam may be more comfortable welcoming the presence of other power’s vessels to counteract China’s increasingly sophisticated naval capabilities.

6. Cam Ranh Bay has been a very attractive place for major powers for a long time. What makes it so important in politic and military strategy? How do you evaluate Vietnam's role in Southeast Asia against the backdrop of current regional and global geopolitics?

Cam Ranh Bay’s features as a deepwater bay with a 14-meter deep harbour make it very attractive since it can easily accommodate large vessels. Its strategic position at the heart of sea lanes in the South China Sea also make it very attractive. Accordingly, many foreign powers—the French, the Japanese, the Americans, and the Russians—have used it as a key staging area to facilitate their interests in Indochina and Southeast Asia more generally.

Vietnam’s role in Southeast Asia—particularly ASEAN—has been growing since joining the organization in 1995. As the current rotating chair of ASEAN (which changes annually), Vietnam has been very active in bringing up its interests this year. With regard to China, these include territorial disputes in the South China Sea as well as Chinese construction of dams upstream on the Mekong River that poses difficulties for countries lying downstream like Vietnam.

Ratko Tales + IMF is America's Stooge, Kosovo Ed

Something that I enjoy at the LSE is attending presentations I know relatively little about. To paraphrase a certain song, I need to know a little bit about a lot of things lest I blog about the same topics over and over again. Variety is the spice of life. At LSE IDEAS, we have just held the well-received launch event of our sister Balkan International Affairs programme featuring Serbian Foreign Affairs Minister Vuk Jeremić and his Bulgarian counterpart Nickolay Evtimov Mladenov. This is a post in two parts:

I. When I last wrote about Serbia in these parts, I was planning my adventure to aid Serbia's EU accession by going on "Ratko Hunt 2010." Strangely enough, I've had no takers despite bounties worth millions of euros for his capture (since you'd probably wind up dead as a doorknob prior to enjoying any fruits of your mercenary work). That is, one of the preconditions for Serbia's process of joining the EU, among other things, is handing over the remaining one of the big three war criminals to the war crimes tribunal in the Hague. With Ratko still at large and rumoured to move around freely in Belgrade, let's just say things are not going swimmingly. Slobodan Milosevic is dead and gone, while Radovan Karazdic has long since been corralled. This, of course, leaves Ratko Mladic somewhere out there:

Serbia is still not co-operating fully with the United Nations war crimes tribunal in the hunt for fugitive former general Ratko Mladic, the chief prosecutor said yesterday, a key condition for eventual EU membership. Serbia’s past inability or unwillingness to find Mladic has long delayed its progress towards the EU, deterring foreign investment and diminishing EU accession funds. A UN war crimes court has indicted Mladic for genocide in the 1995 massacre of 8,000 Muslims in the Bosnian town of Srebrenica and the 1992-1995 siege of Sarajevo.

“While recognising a number of people are really doing an excellent job, we say at the same time there is room for improvement and in a number of areas, more can be done, and in a more professional way,” said Serge Brammertz, the chief UN war crimes prosecutor. In October, EU foreign ministers asked the bloc’s executive commission to consider starting entry talks with Serbia, but warned Belgrade any further progress would depend on its full co-operation with the war crimes tribunal. Mr Brammertz said he would send his latest six-month report on Serbia’s efforts to apprehend Mladic to the UN tomorrow, and the Security Council would discuss it on December 6th.

The bottom line for this story? Serbia's efforts towards joining the EU are lagging behind those of other former Yugoslavian entities:

The Mladic issue is the most prominent factor that has left Serbia lagging behind many other former Yugoslav republics. Slovenia is already an EU member; Croatia is close; and both Macedonia and Montenegro are further along than Belgrade. Even Albania, the region’s most isolated state under communism, is ahead of Belgrade. Only Bosnia and Kosovo, which remain international protectorates, trail Serbia in progress towards the EU.

II. And here's another titbit I picked up that I missed earlier. The matter of Kosovo being recognized as a nation is one of the remaining free-for-alls in terms of acknowledging new states. During the presentation there were some fireworks in store when a representative from Kosovo's consulate in London had a beef about the generally upbeat talk by the Serbian foreign minister. Let's just say they have...unresolved grievances. The UN will probably not recognize Kosovo as a nation after it declared independence in 2008 for as long as China and Russia remain in the P5. After all, they still have major issues with the way Western powers intervened.

As it stands, about a third of UN members recognize Kosovo, while two-thirds don't. Let's just say its membership in international organizations remains, erm, skimpy. Fascinatingly, however, I overlooked (sorry about this) Kosovo formally being made a member of the IMF at midyear 2009. As if we needed more proof that the IMF is an American bootlicker camp, well here you go:

Kosovo said the International Monetary Fund voted to accept it as a member, an important step in the former Serbian province's efforts to secure global recognition as an independent state -- and international aid. Kosovo's bid was actively opposed by Russia and Serbia, Russian and U.S. officials said. Serbia, for instance, wrote to all of the IMF's 185 members, asking them to reject Kosovo's bid. The fledgling Balkan nation of some two million unilaterally declared independence from Serbia in February 2008.

The U.S., France, Germany and the U.K. pressed for Kosovo's IMF membership. But admitting Kosovo has been a contentious issue at the IMF, a body that likes to work by consensus. Kosovo's deputy foreign minister, Vlora Qitaku, said Tuesday that -- as required -- a vote by more than half the IMF's member countries had produced a majority in favor of Kosovo's membership. IMF officials declined to comment Tuesday, because the results hadn't yet been made public.

The issue was pushed ahead partly by the weakness of Eastern Europe in the global crisis, as one economy after the other was forced to call for IMF aid. Pressure grew to bring Kosovo under the IMF umbrella so it could make sure of the same resource. Kosovo is widely expected to ask the IMF for financing.

Because the IMF is an international club, joining also is an important step on an arduous road to acceptance as a member of the international community, say government officials in Kosovo. A spokesman for the government said it expects to join the World Bank in early June, after a similar vote.

Other would-be nations have found the going tough as they sought membership in international bodies. Taiwan was booted out of the IMF in 1980 when China was admitted, and it hasn't applied to return since. Unlike Kosovo, Taiwan isn't recognized by the U.S. and most other major nations as a fully independent state, and an IMF application would be unlikely to succeed.

Unlike the United Nations, the World Trade Organization and some other international groups, the IMF's weighted-majority voting rules allowed Kosovo to join over the objections from Serbia, Russia and other countries that don't recognize Kosovo's independence. So far, 58 of the U.N.'s 192 member states have recognized Kosovo's independence.

Bratislav Grubacic, a veteran political analyst in Belgrade, said Serbia realized it wouldn't be able to block Kosovo's IMF membership and is focusing more on blocking Kosovo from the U.N. Serbia effectively lost Kosovo in 1999, after its troops were driven out of the mainly ethnic Albanian enclave by an extensive bombardment by the U.S.-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Serbian officials couldn't be reached to comment Tuesday evening. A Russian official in Washington said Tuesday that Russia was against Kosovo's IMF admission. Russia has opposed Kosovo's independence bid, saying it breached international laws guaranteeing territorial sovereignty and that it would create a precedent for other breakaway regions. Russia has since recognized the breakaway enclaves of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in neighboring Georgia...

Kosovo's future prospects for joining the European Union, which its government wants to do, are uncertain, as that requires unanimity. Five of the EU's member states -- Greece, Cyprus, Spain, Romania and Slovakia -- don't recognize Kosovo.

Would Kosovo have squeaked into the IMF had voting reform been in progress prior to Kosovo's bid for membership? It's an interesting question. Note that Kosovo was cleared to join the World Bank at roughly the same time with the sponsorship of a certain North American nation.