Reaction to the President’s West Point Speech (w/ Update 1)

by SWJ Editors

Reaction to the President’s West Point Speech

At West Point, President Obama Binds America’s Hands on Foreign Affairs - Washington Post Editorial


President Obama has retrenched U.S. global engagement in a way that has shaken the confidence of many U.S. allies and encouraged some adversaries. That conclusion can be heard not just from Republican hawks but also from senior officials from Singapore to France and, more quietly, from some leading congressional Democrats. As he has so often in his political career, Mr. Obama has elected to respond to the critical consensus not by adjusting policy but rather by delivering a big speech.

President Obama Misses a Chance on Foreign Affairs - New York Times Editorial


President Obama and his aides heralded his commencement speech at the United States Military Academy at West Point on Wednesday as a big moment, when he would lay out his foreign policy vision for the remainder of his term and refute his critics. The address did not match the hype, was largely uninspiring, lacked strategic sweep and is unlikely to quiet his detractors, on the right or the left.

Obama's Vision of U.S. as 'Empowering Partners' - Christian Science Monitor Editorial


Obama quoted President Kennedy about peace needing to be based upon “a gradual evolution in human institutions.” As more people and nations evolve toward shared ideals, the task of maintaining international order also becomes more of a shared one. The U.S., which was so instrumental as a military leader in the 20th century, can take on a new role in bringing nations and people closer.

America Can't Ignore Military Muscle of Russia and China - Washington Examiner Editorial


President Obama told West Point's graduating cadets Wednesday that “some of our most costly mistakes came not from our restraint, but from our willingness to rush into military adventures without thinking through the consequences.” Apparently the nation's commander-in-chief is unaware of -- or perhaps unconcerned by -- the more pressing reality that bad things happen when America's real and potential adversaries don't fear U.S. strength.

Obama’s Unclear Foreign Policy Path - Richard N. Haass, Council on Foreign Relations


President Barack Obama has laid out a vision for U.S. foreign policy calling for the need to avoid both unnecessary military entanglements and isolationism. CFR President Richard N. Haass said the speech at West Point on May 28 appeared too focused on what the president opposed and less on what he favored. "It was an attempt to essentially carve out a form of involvement in the world that avoided any and every excess," Haass said. "But with one or two exceptions, it didn't provide any specifics." Obama's call for ramping up support for non-jihadist rebels in Syria is welcomed, Haass said.

Four Disappointments in Obama’s West Point Speech - Thomas Wright, Brookings


President Obama’s commencement speech at West Point was intended to reboot his foreign policy for the rest of his administration but it is likely to raise additional concerns in the United States and allied nations. He presented it as a speech that seeks to strengthen the international order but unfortunately I believe it fell short in at least four respects.

Doubling Down on a Muddled Foreign Policy - John Bolton, Wall Street Journal


At West Point on Wednesday, President Obama told the graduating seniors that he had discovered a middle way in foreign policy between isolationism and military interventionism. To the White House, this was like "the dawn come up like thunder outer China," in Kipling's phrase. Others were less impressed, especially since it took five-plus years of on-the-job training to grasp this platitude. Of course the United States has options between war and complete inaction. Not since Nixon has a president so relished uncovering middling alternatives between competing straw men.

The Obama Defense - Michael O’Hanlon, Foreign Affairs


U.S. President Obama -- increasingly accused of having a listless foreign policy that, in the eyes of some, made Russian President Vladimir Putin believe he could get away with stealing Crimea -- is doing much better on the world stage than his critics allow. But he does still have to address one significant problem. If he does not, he will likely find himself increasingly harangued over a supposed decline in American influence and power on his watch. His West Point speech on May 28 will probably fix some of the problem, but not all of it.

Obama’s Foreign Policy Repeats Some Avoidable Mistakes - David Ignatius, Washington Post


President Obama’s measured defense of his foreign policy at West Point on Wednesday made many cogent points to rebut critics. Unfortunately, the speech also showed that he hasn’t digested some of the crucial lessons of his presidency.

Obama Just Accidentally Explained Why His Foreign Policy Hasn’t Worked - Elliott Abrams, Washington Post


At West Point today, President Obama marched out his army of straw men and continued his ungracious habit of taking credit for successful actions attributable to his predecessor. But at bottom, the policy he outlined will be of little comfort to our allies and to the cause of freedom in the world.

Obama at West Point: A Foreign Policy of False Choices - David Frum, The Atlantic


On the evidence of President Obama’s commencement address at West Point on Wednesday, he’d have made an outstanding State Department memo-writer. The president outlined a Washington policy debate occurring in three corners. Over in Corner 1 are those who believe in “a strategy that involves invading every country that harbors terrorist networks.” Huddled in Corner 2 are those who insist that “conflicts in Syria or Ukraine or the Central African Republic are not ours to solve.” Between these obviously stupid extremes is a sensible third way, which happens to coincide perfectly with the policy of the Obama administration.

What Obama Didn't Explain in His Foreign Policy Speech at West Point - Doyle McManus,Los Angeles Times


President Obama’s foreign policy speech at West Point on Wednesday didn’t break any new ground, not even rhetorically. But it wasn’t intended to. It was meant as a rebuttal, an answer to critics who have harried Obama for months complaining that America’s adversaries (Russia, China and Syria, for example) are pursuing their goals with more success than the United States has found in stopping them. The criticisms have gotten under Obama’s skin. He gripes about them frequently, in public and in private. So, with a speech already promised for West Point’s graduation ceremony, he seized the opportunity for a longer, more considered version of his side of the argument.

Obama Says Goodbye to American Hubris - Peter Bergen, CNN News


What Obama did in his West Point speech was to chart a course that balances two natural, and contradictory, American national security impulses -- isolationism and interventionism -- and points to a hybrid approach that avoids some of the pitfalls of either of these strategic approaches.

A Sad, Half-hearted Address to the Wrong Audience - Bing West, National Review


Before a silent graduating class at West Point, Mr. Obama monotonically delivered a defensive foreign-policy address empty of substance. He failed to connect with an audience that responded with polite but tepid applause to a vapid speech more suitable for the United Nations than for the United States. He put forward four points that he asserted comprised the bedrock of American leadership in the world.

Obama vs. His Imagined Critics - Max Boot, Commentary


In his much ballyhooed West Point address, President Obama employed what in the 1990s was known as “triangulation”–but not an effective or convincing form of triangulation, rather one that appears to be mainly rhetorical instead of policy oriented.

The New World Disorder - Richard Parker, McClatchy-Tribune


The president’s speech Wednesday at West Point was, as all of his speeches are, a fine speech. But it did not advance the ball. He did not move the locus of American attention and energy out of the Middle East and northern Africa, where he continued to focus on the fragments of the remnants of al-Qaida. For a president who correctly noted that “not every problem is a nail,” he focused chiefly on the nails of terrorism and the hammer of the judicious use of force.

Obama's Small Ball Foreign Agenda - Steve Huntley, Chicago Sun-Times


A strategy of singles and doubles is how President Barack Obama recently characterized his foreign policy. Anyone looking for more than small ball in what the White House billed as a major speech at West Point on Wednesday was bound to be disappointed. No big agenda or ambitious goals were pronounced. It was more a steady as we go on the more modest role Obama has chartered for America in world affairs.

Obama’s Foreign Policy Speech Sounds Familiar - Michael Crowley, Time


Obama's foreign policy address at West Point won't satisfy his critics, but it might reassure anxious supporters. For all the hype, President Barack Obama’s foreign policy speech at West Point on Wednesday didn’t break much new ground.

The Goldilocks Speech - Eric Cantor, ABC News


Today's address at West Point was a goldilocks speech. Trying to find the lukewarm bowl of porridge will not likely reassure those who worry about our lack of leadership, and will not concern those who fear its return.

Commentators Break Down Obama Foreign Policy Speech at West Point - U.S. News & World Report Roundup


Views You Can Use: Staying the Course on Foreign Policy - Obama's West Point speech didn't break much ground.

Did Obama Make His Case? - New York Times Debate


In his address to graduating West Point cadets on Wednesday, President Obama laid out his administration’s foreign policy goals. His speech was directed at his critics who have suggested “that America is in decline” and “has seen its global leadership slip away.” Did it work?

US Lawmakers React to Obama Speech at West Point - Michael Bowman, Voice of America


One of Barack Obama’s top congressional critics in foreign policy matters has responded forcefully to a speech in which the president mapped out his vision for U.S. engagement around the globe.

Full transcript of President Obama’s commencement address at West Point

President Obama delivered the following remarks at the United States Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., commencement ceremony on May 28, 2014. Transcript courtesy of Federal News Service.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you, General Caslen, for that introduction. General Trainor, General Clarke, faculty and staff at West Point, you have been outstanding stewards of this proud institution and outstanding mentors for the newest officers in the United States Army.

I’d like to acknowledge the Army’s leadership -- General McHugh -- Secretary McHugh, General Odierno, as well as Senator Jack Reed who is here and a proud graduate of West Point himself. To the class of 2014, I congratulate you on taking your place on the Long Gray Line.

Among you is the first all-female command team: Erin Mauldin and Austen Boroff. In Calla Glavin, you have a Rhodes Scholar, and Josh Herbeck proves that West Point accuracy extends beyond the three point line. (Laughter.)

To the entire class, let me reassure you in these final hours at West Point, as commander in chief, I hereby absolve all cadets who are on restriction for minor conduct offenses. (Laughter, applause.)

Let me just say that nobody ever did that for me when I was in school.

I know you join me in extending a word of thanks to your families. Joe DeMoss, whose son James is graduating, spoke for a whole lot of parents when he wrote me a letter about the sacrifices you’ve made. “Deep inside,” he wrote, “we want to explode with pride at what they are committing to do in the service of our country.” Like several graduates, James is a combat veteran, and I would ask all of us here today to stand and pay tribute not only to the veterans among us, but to the more than 2.5 million Americans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as their families. (Applause.)

It is a particularly useful time for America to reflect on those who’ve sacrificed so much for our freedom, a few days after Memorial Day. You are the first class to graduate since 9/11 who may not be sent into combat in Iraq or Afghanistan. (Cheers, applause.)

When I first spoke at West Point in 2009, we still had more than 100,000 troops in Iraq. We were preparing to surge in Afghanistan. Our counterterrorism efforts were focused on al-Qaida’s core leadership -- those who had carried out the 9/11 attacks. And our nation was just beginning a long climb out of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Four and a half years later, as you graduate, the landscape has changed. We have removed our troops from Iraq. We are winding down our war in Afghanistan. Al-Qaida’s leadership on the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan has been decimated, and Osama bin Laden is no more. (Cheers, applause.) And through it all, we’ve refocused our investments in what has always been a key source of American strength: a growing economy that can provide opportunity for everybody who’s willing to work hard and take responsibility here at home.

The fearful asymmetries of Modi’s world

Published: May 29, 2014 

Praveen Swami

Narendra Modi must plan for the looming battles of the future — not prepare to fight yesterday’s wars again. To do that, he will have to give India new tools of political, economic and military persuasion

Raymond Poincaré’s aide delivered the news during the break between the third and fourth course of his languid Sunday lunch at the Longchamp racecourse: “the Archduke, heir to the throne of Austria and his morganatic wife were just assassinated.” The sun was shining down on the Paris elite that afternoon in June 1914; the flowers were in full bloom. France’s President chose not to skip dessert. The Times of London, historian Sean McMeekin records, thought the event insignificant compared to the looming civil war in Ireland. Paris media mostly ignored it, transfixed by the shooting of a newspaper editor by the Foreign Minister’s mistress.

The shot that was to claim 37 million lives was barely heard next door — but unexpected consequence followed improbable cause in lockstep, as Europe marched towards Armageddon.

Contours of Modi’s world

For Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the events that transformed the world a century ago hold out some important lessons. Large swathes of text have been written about how he ought to face the next 13/12, or 7/7 or 26/11; by probes across India’s eastern borders or skirmishes on the western one. Each of these might indeed prove to be grave challenges. His true tests, however, will be made up of the unforeseen: events that will be forged in fearful new asymmetries of power that are remaking our world.

Mr. Modi’s foreign policy debut — his invitation to South Asian leaders for his swearing-in — has demonstrated that he has a flair for glittering theatrical gesture. His aides know, though, that while audiences will likely applaud a good act, other actors aren’t so easily impressed.

For much of his 10 years in office, former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh looked out on a benign world, built around one, singular circumstance: the direct engagement of the United States, then the world’s undisputed superpower, in Asian wars.

Fearful that regional conflict could undermine its position, the U.S. worked hard to defuse regional crisis. In Kashmir, following the 2001-2002 India-Pakistan crisis, violence levels fell dramatically each year. India, in turn, was compelled to moderate its responses to events like 26/11. Dr. Singh’s energies, though, were largely left free to pursue India’s overarching strategic objective: getting as close as was possible to double-digit economic growth.

Later this year, though, all but small numbers of U.S. troops will leave Afghanistan — marking the end of this benign decade. India’s lesser concern is that the U.S. will strike a deal with Pakistan, allowing its military to resume low-level warfare against India in return for ensuring the stability of the Kabul regime. The greater concern is that the withdrawal will mark a turning-inward of the U.S., leaving Asia without a great power to enforce the rules of the global system.

Changing balance of power

Perhaps the biggest fact of the new world is this: U.S. supremacy is no longer uncontested. Even as the U.S. implements deep cuts to military spending, China’s naval power is growing. China’s DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) poses the first credible threat to the U.S.’ once-invincible Pacific fleet. Its blue water, submarine and littoral naval capabilities are increasing dramatically, along with its air force, helped by its massive economic resources.

The end of American world order

Published: May 29, 2014

APUNIPOLAR TO MULTIPLEX: Encouraging institutions like G20 would lead to stability of the multiplex world. Picture shows U.S. President Barack Obama at the G20 summit in South Korea in 2010.

The unipolar moment in international relations is over, and we are now entering a multiplex world

Domestic critics in America blame the Russian annexation of Crimea on Obama’s weak foreign policy. Republican Senator John McCain calls Obama the “most naive [U.S.] president in history.” But outside the beltway, a different perception is rapidly emerging, which sees Ukraine not so much a failure of Obama’s foreign policy, but as a sign of general U.S. decline. As Maleeha Lodhi, a former Pakistani ambassador to the U.S. says: “Much of this criticism [of Obama] shows wilful ignorance of the limits of U.S. power in a transformed international environment where no single state is able to achieve outcomes by itself or prevail over others, even by using overwhelming hard power.”

In his January 2012 State of the Union address, U.S. President Barack Obama asserted that that “anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned doesn’t know what they’re talking about.” But in a December 2012 report, the U.S. National Intelligence Council argued that while America will remain the “first among equals with the rapid rise of other countries…the era of American ascendancy in international politics that began in 1945 is fast winding down.” Ukraine offers further evidence of that.

Rising powers

And the report of the World Bank-supported International Comparison Program — that China is set to overtake the U.S. with India coming third by the end of this year — sends the same message. It means that for the first time since World War II, the leading military power is not the largest global economy.

Perhaps the most important lesson of Ukraine is that U.S. cannot co-opt the rising powers to support its own strategic vision and approach. In his influential 2010 book, Liberal Leviathan, American political scientist John Ikenberry argues that whether America is in decline or not, the liberal world order it had created and dominated since World War II would persist and might even co-opt its main challengers including China. As he put it, “The rise of non-Western powers and the growth of economic and security interdependence are creating new constituencies and pressures for liberal international order.”

FIRE ALARM IN EUROPE

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1140529/jsp/opinion/story_18390477.jsp#.U4Z1avmSzyQ 

Old-style EU politics and politicians will not satisfy the needs of the rainbow coalition of the Unhappy, writes Timothy Garton Ash 

A new Louis XVI, so to speak 

On the day the Bastille was stormed in 1789, the king, Louis XVI, wrote in his diary “rien”. Few European leaders will have typed “nothing” into their iPads yesterday, but there is a real danger that, in response to the revolutionary cry across the continent, they will in effect do nothing. Today’s rien has a face and a name. The name’s Juncker. Jean-Claude Juncker.

A disastrous “the same only more so” response from Europe’s leaders would be signalled by taking Juncker, the Spitzenkandidat of the largest party grouping in the new European parliament, the centre-right European People’s Party, and making him president of the European Commission. The canny Luxembourgeois was the longest-serving head of a European Union national government, and the chair of the Eurogroup through the worst of the euro crisis. Although he has considerable skills as a politician and deal-maker, he personifies everything protest voters from Left to Right distrust about remote European elites. He is, so to speak, the Louis XVI of the EU.

The danger also lies in what now seems likely to happen inside the European parliament. The most probable development is a kind of unspoken grand coalition of the current mainstream party groupings, centre-right, centre-left, liberal and (at least on some issues) greens, to keep all the anti-parties at bay. If another six of the more xenophobic, nationalist parties accept the lead of the triumphant Marine le Pen of France’s National Front, papering over their differences to form a recognized group within the parliament, that will give them funding (from European taxpayers’ pockets) and a stronger position in parliamentary procedure, but still not enough votes to overpower such a centrist grand coalition.

Surely that is a good thing? Yes, in the short term. But only if that grand coalition then supports decisive reform of the European Union. It should start, symbolically, by refusing ever again to make its absurd regular commute from its spacious quarters in Brussels to its second luxurious seat in Strasbourg — the EU’s version of Versailles — at an estimated cost of 180 million euros a year. If, however, the unspoken grand coalition does not deliver more of what so many Europeans want over the next five years, it will only strengthen the anti-EU vote next time round. For all the mainstream parties will be held responsible for the failure.

The one silver lining to this continent-sized cloud is that, for the first time since direct elections to the parliament began in 1979, overall voter turn-out has apparently not declined. Turn-out varies greatly from country to country — in Slovakia it was estimated to be 13 per cent — but in France, for example, significantly more voters showed up than last time. What pro-Europeans preached for so long has finally come to pass: European citizens actively engaging in an EU-wide democratic process. But, irony of ironies, they do so to vote against the EU.

India Is Trying to Get Serious About Carrier Air Power New Delhi struggling to field two modern flattops

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/302a38164b78

Since China’s aircraft carrier Liaoning began sea trials in summer 2011, naval and air power observers have been closely watching the development of Beijing’s once-secretive carrier program.

Meanwhile, India—an established flattop operator—has also been making important progress deploying air power at sea.

The first official deployment of India’s latest carrier, INS Vikramaditya, passed almost unnoticed by foreign media in early May. Adm. Robin Dhowan, who took over as boss of the Indian navy in April, told reporters that the carrier was “operationally deployed,” together with the Russian-supplied fighters that comprise the sharp end of the vessel’s capabilities.

The former Russian navy carrier arrived in India earlier this year after a protracted refurbishment costing more than $2 billion. Vikramadityarepresents just the first phase of a large-scale carrier program that New Delhi hopes will allow it to keep up with China.

Both navies now plan to build at least two indigenous carriers to eventually replace their former Russian equipment.

India’s largest and most costly warship to date, Vikramaditya is now sailing under a naval ensign with MiG-29K fighters flown by Indian pilots. The carrier is home-ported at Kadamba, close to Karwar in southwest India. 

Problematic history

The 45,000 ton-displacement Vikramaditya has had a troubled path to service. Built in Soviet times and originally named Baku, the carrier was meant to operate a mix of anti-submarine helicopters and short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing Yak-38 fighters.

Baku entered service in 1988. With the demise of the Soviet Union, the Kremlin renamed the vessel Admiral Gorshkov … and withdrew her from service in the mid-1990s to save money.

As long ago as December 1998, officials from Moscow and New Delhi signed a memorandum of understanding to transfer the ship to India. The plan was for Russia to refurbish the vessel and convert her for use by non-STOVL carrier fighters, using the short-takeoff-but-arrested-recovery method.

STOBAR meant that the carrier would be able to operate far more capable jet fighters. It also demanded the addition of restrainers for powering up aircraft on deck, a ski-jump at the bow for takeoff and arrester gear for landing. All these modifications should have taken two years.

As of the summer of 2001, negotiations between the two parties were ongoing. The Indians were supposed to pay for the cost of modifications and refurbishment, but were increasingly alarmed at the poor condition of the ship.

As the two parties squabbled over price, the carrier languished at Russia’s Sevmash shipyard in Severodvinsk. At long last, the parties signed a contract in March 2004 that covered Baku’s purchase, overhaul and refit—all at a cost of $750 million. Development and production of MiG-29K fighters was also included.

Delivery was scheduled for 2008.

By the end of the 2000s, however, cost disputes were again on the agenda, and in March 2010 the contract had to be renegotiated, pushing up the price to $2.35 billion. Handover would now take place at the end of 2012.

Trials of the remodeled carrier began in June 2012. Between June and September, the renamed Vikramaditya was at sea for just over 100 days with some Indian crew on board. Then the Russians announced further troubles, the trials having uncovered malfunctions relating to the steam boilers.

Handover was postponed again, slipping to the end of 2013. In late 2012 and early 2013, Vikramaditya got a modified propulsion plant and underwent what officials described as “cosmetic repairs” at Sevmash.

By the time Vikramaditya set sail for her final trials in the White Sea in the summer of 2013, the carrier was five years behind schedule.

After being officially handed over at Sevmash last November, Vikramadityafinally arrived in India this January. The first Indian-piloted MiG-29K trapped on the carrier on Feb. 7.

Reforming India’s Energy Policy

Sunjoy Joshi

OP-ED MAY 20, 2014

India’s policymakers are fond of defining the country’s energy security in terms of three As: availability, access and affordability. However, the three As appear at increasing risk in the face of four formidable barriers: energy subsidies, systemic management inefficiencies, competition from a resource-hungry China and climate change.

What makes these barriers even more daunting is the recent emergence in public discourse of a misplaced debate regarding the ownership of natural resources, which has hamstrung the country’s ability to frame long-term policies to help harness its energy potential.

Securing energy supplies for Indian citizens therefore is set to be a tall order for the new government.

ENERGY SUBSIDIES

India’s energy subsidies represent a significant portion of its budget. The government spends roughly $25 billion on fuel subsidies, $7 billion on electricity, and $10 billion on fertilizer. One of the justifications given for subsidies is to increase fuel availability to the least empowered. However, regardless of the billions spent on subsidies, modern fuels remain a privilege limited to a few. National Sample Survey data for 2011-12 reveal that despite claims of increased penetration of modern cooking fuels, such as liquefied petroleum gas, 70% of rural households still use biomass.

Guaranteeing access and affordability are also arguments advanced for energy subsidies. However, price controls have failed to expand supplies and services, and rather ended up diminishing both access and affordability. Diesel-fuelled sport-utility vehicles of the super-rich romp on city roads while farmers struggle to run their pumps. Access to electricity remains directly proportional to per capita spending—the poorest decile, constituting 40% of all households, still use kerosene to light their homes. Rather than enhancing energy security, subsidies, by interfering with markets, are putting the three As at risk.

SYSTEMIC INEFFICIENCIES

Contrary to popular perceptions, India is not a resource-poor country. It contains the world’s fourth-largest coal reserves, its thorium supplies are practically limitless, potential solar power is particularly abundant, and its 3.14 million sq. km of sedimentary basins have not been even moderately explored, though most of these are deep offshore. India’s problem is one of management rather than scarcity.

The management challenge is best understood by the deficiencies in the coal sector. Coal is India’s single biggest fuel source, accounting for half of the country’s total energy use and producing two-thirds of its electricity. Estimates are that the country has enough coal to last for the next 100 years. However, environmental clearances, land availability and evacuation constraints restrict access to huge swaths of coalfields, halving its extractable reserves. Meanwhile, the state-owned Coal India Ltd, which supplies over 80% of India’s coal needs, has struggled to raise output and meet supply commitments. In 2012-13, coal shortages of 165 million tonnes affected the availability of power. Power plants dependent on imported coal suffered because of highly volatile international prices.

AN INCOMPETENT WAR: BRITAIN IN HELMAND

http://warontherocks.com/2014/05/an-incompetent-war-britain-in-helmand/

George Vlachonikolis

May 22, 2014 · in Book Reviews

Mike Martin, An Intimate War: An Oral History of the Helmand Conflict, 1978-2012 (Oxford University Press, 2014)

“Fury Over MOD’s bid to ban Book”, “Captain resigns over Afghanistan book.”

These are just some of British newspaper headlines that preceded the publication of An Intimate War: An Oral History of the Helmand Conflictlast month. If you don’t know the story, here it is in brief: a former Territorial Army Captain, Dr Mike Martin, was actually commissioned by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) to read for his PhD at King’s College, London. In his final thesis he was to provide them with an independent view of the Afghanistan campaign; that thesis has since become this book.

Whilst the MOD’s official objections concern the alleged use of classified information in the book, one can’t help but presume that this is a mask for the real source of anger, which is just how far Martin goes in criticizing the Ministry’s involvement in Afghanistan. ‘Killing the wrong people’, ‘complicity in corruption’, ‘indirectly funding their enemies’ and ‘sponsoring some of the most despicable people in Helmandi society to rise to the top’ are just a few of the charges being levelled at their door. Perhaps most cutting of all, however, is the underlying suggestion that this was all the result of a conceptual void which did not allow British military leaders to understand the type of conflict they were engaged in.

An Intimate War tells the story of the last 34 years in Helmand. Based largely on 150 interviews conducted by the author, in Pashto, it is stuffed with detail – for example, there are a lot of names (people, tribes and locations) and a lot of anecdotes about the sorts of things that those named individuals got up to over the years. As a result, it doesn’t have the readability of Frank Ledwidge’s Losing Small Wars and instead it feels very much like the PhD dissertation it is. On the other hand, it is precisely because there is such a wealth of detail that it makes it is hard to disagree with Martin when he argues the case of the U.K.’s incompetence in Afghanistan. The evidence is simply overwhelming.

India-Pakistan: The China Factor

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/india/articles/20140525.aspx

May 25, 2014

The Pakistani government describes the five days of military operations in North Waziristan as retaliation for recent Taliban terror attacks. Some Pakistani officials are describing the operation as directed only at those Taliban factions making the attacks and opposed to peace talks with the government. The senior Taliban leadership and most of the factions back the talks, which have been going on since February. The military leaders do not believe these peace talks are meaningful as the Taliban have violated several past peace deals and the Taliban speak openly about making peace for a while so the Pakistani Taliban can support the Afghan Taliban in taking over the Afghan government again. This is supposed to be possible once most of the foreign troops are gone by the end of 2014. To most Afghans this is a fantasy because less than 20 percent of Afghans support the Taliban in any way. But it is an article of faith for the Taliban on both sides of the border that Taliban domination of Afghanistan, Pakistan and beyond is inevitable. It is God’s will and this belief cannot be debated or opposed within the organization. What disputes do exist (mainly within the Pakistani Taliban) have to do with tactics, not ultimate goals. Meanwhile the army operations in North Waziristan have killed nearly a hundred Islamic terrorists so far and appear to be limited in scope. Troops seem to be going after Chinese, Central Asian and al Qaeda factions. China has been pressing Pakistan to do something about Chinese Islamic terrorists (Turkic Uighurs from northwest China) based in Pakistan and this appears to be it. It appears that the air strikes and ground operations are concentrating on these “bad Taliban” and majority of the Islamic terrorists in the area alone. The military is proceeding very slowly and cautiously in an effort to minimize army casualties. The army is also trying to minimize civilian casualties by warning local officials up to day before of where the attacks are planned so civilians can get out. Refugees are then carefully screened to detect any disguised Taliban. 

Islamic conservative groups are trying to get the largest TV station (Geo) in Pakistan shut down for criticizing the military and to do that has accused Geo of blasphemy. The military has been trying to shut down Geo for over a month, without success (or cooperation from the courts or other government agencies). The military is angry with the Geo’s TV news channel for accusing the military of being behind an April 19th attack against a prominent TV journalist (Hamid Mir) who frequently criticized the ISI and the army during his Geo show. Mir survived the attack and the army denied it had anything to do with it. Similar attacks have been traced back to the army and ISI in the past. In Pakistan it’s understood that openly criticizing the ISI or army can have unhealthy consequences. The army is using jammers to block Geo from being received on military bases and is also banning newspapers that are also making these accusations. The military is also mobilizing its political and media allies to back this attack on Geo, which has resulted in the blasphemy charges. 

China and Pakistan are nervous about rhe newly elected Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi. The new Indian leader is expected to shake things up across the board. A long-time state governor Modi has a track record of economic growth and effective efforts to suppress corruption (the most common cause of economic stagnation). Modi is considered conservative and nationalist in his outlook. That means more support for the Indian military in opposing Chinese and Pakistani aggression. That combination of promoting economic growth and nationalism is also worrisome to China, which is currently leaving India alone (regarding border disputes) but is very concerned about India. That’s because India is the third country (after the United States and Russia) with nuclear armed missiles aimed at China. Corruption has long stalled economic growth in India while China found ways around the corruption and built an economy three times as strong as India’s. Modi might threaten that Chinese advantage. 

Thomas Piketty and the End of Our Peaceful Coexistence With Inequality

Moisés Naím

OP-ED MAY 19, 2014

ATLANTIC

Two years ago, I wrote, “Inequality will be the central theme of 2012. It has always existed and is not going away, but this year it will top the global agenda of voters, protesters and politicians…. In 2012, peaceful coexistence with inequality will end and demands and promises to fight it will become fiercer and more widespread than they have been since the end of the Cold War.”

SENIOR ASSOCIATE

INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS PROGRAM

And that’s what happened. The 1 percent versus the 99 percent became a global catchphrase. In 2012, there were25 percent more academic articles about inequality than in the previous year (and 237 percent more than in 2004).

Notable world figures like Pope Francis and Barack Obama declared inequality the defining issue of our time. And how to fight it became an unavoidable topic in electoral debates everywhere, even in countries like Brazil where, over the past decade, income inequality has steadily declined.

And now comes Thomas Piketty. To say he’s a French economist who recently published a dense, 700-page tome titled, Capital in the Twenty-First Century that quickly became an international bestseller does not do justice to the impact of this book and author. Piketty is a social, intellectual, and media phenomenon as well as an editorial success. His main thesis is that economic inequality is the inevitable collateral effect of capitalism—and that if governments don’t act decisively to contain it (mostly through higher taxes on wealth and incomes), it will steadily grow until it seriously threatens democracy and economic stability. According to Piketty, inequality grows when the rate of return on capital (“r”) is larger than the rate of growth in the economy (“g”); or, in his already well-known formulation, inequality grows when “r > g.”

The ‘Piketty effect’ is greater than the familiar story of academic economists attracting an audience beyond the readers of specialized journals. As an example, consider one recent New York Times article on how to pick a new place to live. The author suggests that people who are considering relocating to a new town assess the literary tastes of their potential neighbors. Go to the local library and find out what books people are reading, she advises. Ask yourself: “Is it a Piketty kind of place, or does it lean toward James Patterson?” Another article explores the thorny issues that arise among couples when a wife makes more than her husband, and concludes with a man whose wife outearns him pointing out that the essence of the problem is “the Piketty debate.” Over at the Financial Times, Robert Shrimsley warns us in a very funny column that “concern is growing that much of the western world is heading into a ‘Piketty bubble’—a social and economic phenomenon that arises when everyone who considers themselves to be anybody feels the need to talk about a new book by French economist Thomas Piketty.” Shrimsly then offers the nine stages in which the Picketty bubble will likely evolve. He calls stage two, for example, “escape velocity”: “A critical mass of enthusiasm sees stock in Piketty rise faster than Bitcoin. Escape velocity is reached as politicians and pundits realize its value in supporting their existing convictions. They observe that his book crystallizes ‘the big issue of our day’. Such references must also always include the phrase ‘in his important work’. Bluffers’ guides spring up on the internet.”

The unexpected popularity of lofty academic books isn’t new—as examples such asThe End of History by Francis Fukuyama and The Clash of Civilizations by Samuel Huntington attest. Published in 1992 and 1996, respectively, they were released at opportune moments when there was already strong interest around the world in the topics they were exploring. Both works emerged after the collapse of the Soviet Union, as the end of communism surfaced fundamental questions about the future of politics and economics. Fukuyama predicted that the coming age would be defined by the triumph of liberal ideas—by democracy and markets. Several years later, Huntington argued that clashes over religion rather than ideology would become the most frequent source of conflicts in the twenty-first century. Now it’s Piketty’s turn. A decade ago, during the economic boom and before the financial crisis, the desire to understand why “r > g” equals more inequality would not have been so intense or widespread.

The truth, however, is that economic inequality has been a serious problem for most of the world’s population for a long time. These inequities are nothing new in Latin America and Africa—the regions with the most unequal income distribution. And in many countries with historically high inequality, the main driver of the divisions is not r > g but rather c > h, where “c” stands for corruption and “h” for honesty.

Inequality became the lightning rod that it is today only when wealth and incomes became as concentrated in the United States as they have been in other highly unequal countries. This superpower has an unrivaled ability to export and globalize its anxieties. In this case, it’s good news that the problem afflicting Americans is also important for people elsewhere who have passively tolerated inequality for too long. One hopes that the debate underway in the U.S. and Europe will result in actions that will effectively improve the ways in which income and wealth are distributed—and not only in wealthy nations.

This article originally appeared in The Atlantic.

Why China will fight for a global climate deal next year

Wang Chunfeng 07.05.2014

China’s leaders know that an effective treaty on climate change in 2015 is essential to the country’s development, says IPCC China expert Wang Chunfeng

China has no choice but to restructure its economy, creating the conditions for aggressive climate-change action, says Wang Chunfeng (Image by Qiu Bo/Greenpeace) 

China is now the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, and so the world will pay close attention to its stance at next year’s climate negotiations in Paris, as well as to the kinds of actions it takes to tackle climate change post-2020.

Despite the fact that China has published a report setting out its policies and actions for addressing climate change every year since 2008, the international community still appears to harbour doubts about its resolve to seek an international deal. But actively tackling climate change is fundamental to sustainable development in China, and this will drive its leaders to push even harder for a new deal next year. 

It isn’t hard to see that China’s motivation is genuine.

First, China is suffering badly from the adverse effects of climate change. Over the last hundred years, the annual average rise in temperatures in China has been higher than the global average. Climate change causes uneven distribution of rainfall and water resources, both temporally and spatially, and intensifies damage from extreme weather events.

Since the 1990s, China has suffered annual average economic losses of over 200 billion yuan (US$32 billion) as a direct result of extreme weather events, and an annual average death toll above 2,000. Climate change continues to impact living conditions – and the ability to achieve sustainable development – in many regions.

The latest reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predict that rising temperatures will grow more pronounced, adverse impacts will intensify and damage from extreme weather events in China will get even more serious. To pursue benefits and minimise harm, China must mitigate the adverse effects of climate change if it wants to achieve sustainable development.

Second, there is no contradiction between the direction of China’s economic development and tackling climate change.

China’s most obvious achievement over the past 30 years has been its rapid economic rise, but the majority of its industries are located at the bottom of the supply chain. Home-grown innovation has been weak and key technologies lacking, while China has struggled with an excess of low-end production capacity.

China and Bretton Woods: Yuan not ready to supplant dollar

23 May 2014

Seventy years ago the world's money-men met at Bretton Woods to redesign the international monetary system. The conference was a battle of two ideas: multilateralism versus unipolarity. Britain, reeling from war, was represented by John Maynard Keynes and his idea of a 'bancor' common global currency. The US dispatched Harry Dexter White, who sought outright dollar dominance. By most accounts, it was a geopolitical mugging; White and his dollar prevailed.

Last weekend, the forum Reinventing Bretton Woods (RBW) convened in Hangzhou, China, together with a high-powered group of Chinese wonks. Is a new global monetary architecture in the offing?

Bretton Woods was a once-in-a-century moment when the overstretched hegemon faced a rising challenger for leadership of the global order. Washington demanded the dismantling of Britain's empire. It also made the US dollar the global currency, anchored to gold, which it then possessed in abundance. This, probably only by good luck, worked for two decades. But by the 1960s the world's money was inflating faster than gold reserves and there had been a decade-long run on Fort Knox. In 1973, the US dismissed the gold linkage altogether. Thereafter, the dollar had no 'anchor' but itself. In a self-reinforcing spiral, it became the dominant safe asset for foreigners and their central banks. This 'Dollar Trap' has actually deepened since the global financial crisis. As the Americans said, the dollar now is 'our currency and your problem.'

China is angry, although its reasons are complex. Chinese policymakers rage against the dollar's 'virtualisation' and the financial trickery of Wall Street. They decry American 'exorbitant privilege.' They rail against the 'spillover' effects of the Fed's monetary policies. For them, the dollar is the embodiment of American hegemony.

In 2009 China's central banker, Zhou Xiaochuan, called for a supra-national global currency, a sort of monetary UN reminiscent of Keynes' bancor idea. Others have repeated the call. The IMF's special drawing rights (SDRs) are about as close as we ever got to a world currency, yet SDRs are merely baskets of other reserve currencies, notably the dollar.

Most Chinese instinctively feel the yuan should be a reserve currency, and it is popular as a settlement currency,booking 17% of its own world-topping trade last year. But in global foreign exchange markets it still ranks only eighth, and to meet the IMF's criteria, it would need to be 'freely useable', which essentially means an open capital account. This is probably years away. Still, most observers view a multipolar world of core reserve currencies (dollars, euros and yuan) as likely, and desirable, in the long run.

Yet China enjoys the status quo. It can fix its exchange rate while the US cannot. China is the world's greatest saver and capital exporter, and it seems far more interested in increasing its claims on the world than vice versa, even as it admonishes Washington for its fiscal laxity. That is why China is not yet ready to displace the dollar as the world's reserve issuer. Meanwhile, it sensibly encourages an offshore yuan market in Hong Kong, similar to the dollar's ownEurodollar market.

Source: South China Morning Post.

There is a deeper truth evident in the RBW forum: this is what a dissatisfied rising power looks like. One fierce fellow from China, a bank chief economist, said: 'we don't dream about the US giving up its power without a major conflict.' But Beijing has not proposed a better architecture to supplant the greenback's hegemony. The Americans smugly indulge the complaints: 'there is no lack of (our) understanding, just a lack of consensus, and no better alternative.' The frustration was summed up by a Chinese SAFE bureaucrat: 'we're not happy with the current system but we can propose no other.'

Full Text: The United States' Global Surveillance Record

(Xinhua) 07:20, May 27, 2014

BEIJING, May 26 -- A Chinese Internet information body on Monday issued a report onthe U.S. intelligence agencies' "unscrupulous" surveillance over the rest of the world.Following is the full text:

• The United States' Global Surveillance Record
• Internet Media Research Center
• The People's Republic of China

May 26, 2014

Contents

I. The United States conducts widespread secret surveillance across the globe

II. The United States sets China as the main target of its secret surveillance

III.The United States' unscrupulous secret surveillance programs

IV. The United States' global surveillance program hit by worldwide criticism

Foreword

In June, 2013, the media in the UK, the United States and China's Hong Kong exposed theNational Security Agency's clandestine surveillance program, codenamed PRISM, usingdocuments released by the former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. The leakedinformation provoked shock and outrage. Subsequently, an investigation carried out byrelevant Chinese authorities over several months confirmed the existence of snoopingactivities directed against China.

As a superpower, the United States takes advantage of its political, economic, military andtechnological hegemony to unscrupulously monitor other countries, including its allies. TheUnited States' spying operations have gone far beyond the legal rationale of "anti-terrorism" and have exposed its ugly face of pursuing self-interest in complete disregard ofmoral integrity. These operations have flagrantly breached International laws, seriouslyinfringed upon the human rights and put global cyber security under threat. They deserveto be rejected and condemned by the whole world.

The U.S. secret surveillance activities directed against China and other nations include:

-- Collecting nearly 5 billion mobile phone call records across the globe every day

-- Spying over German Chancellor Angela Merkel's cell phone for more than 10 years

-- Plugging into the main communication networks between Yahoo's and Google's overseasdata centers, and stealing data of hundreds of millions of customers

-- Monitoring mobile phone apps for years and grabbing private data

-- Waging large-scale cyber attacks against China, with both Chinese leaders and thetelecom giant Huawei as targets

Targets of U.S. surveillance include the Chinese government and Chinese leaders, Chinesecompanies, scientific research institutes, ordinary netizens, and a large number of cellphone users. China sticks to the path of peaceful development, and sees no justification forbeing targeted by America's secret surveillance under the guise of fighting terrorism.

America must explain its surveillance activities, cease spying operations that seriouslyinfringe upon human rights and stop creating tension and hostility in global cyber space.

【1】【2】【3】【4】【5】