Team Trump Cautions Beijing Over South China Sea

Trump’s new administration vowed to prevent China from taking over the contentious South China Sea, Chinese state media hints at assertive action.

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during the Inaugural Law Enforcement Officers and First Responders Reception in the Blue Room of the White House in Washington, U.S., January 22, 2017. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts

US President Donald Trump speaks during the Inaugural Law Enforcement Officers and First Responders Reception. Credit: Reuters/Joshua Roberts

Washington: The new US administration of President Donald Trump vowed on Monday that the US would prevent China from taking over territory in international waters in the South China Sea, something Chinese state media has warned would require Washington to “wage war.”

The comments at a briefing from White House spokesman Sean Spicer signalled a sharp departure from years of cautious US handling of China‘s assertive pursuit of territory claims in Asia, just days after Trump took office on Friday.

“The US is going to make sure that we protect our interests there,” Spicer said when asked if Trump agreed with comments by his secretary of state nominee, Rex Tillerson, on January 11 that China should not be allowed access to islands it has built in the contested South China Sea.

“It’s a question of if those islands are in fact in international waters and not part of China proper, then yeah, we’re going to make sure that we defend international territories from being taken over by one country,” he said.

Tillerson’s remarks at his senate confirmation hearing prompted Chinese state media to say the US would need to “wage war” to bar China‘s access to the islands where it has built military-length air strips and installed weapons systems.

Tillerson, who was expected to be confirmed as secretary of state on Monday, was asked at the hearing whether he supported a more aggressive posture toward China and said: “We’re going to have to send China a clear signal that, first, the island-building stops and, second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed.”

The former Exxon Mobil Corp chairman and chief executive did not elaborate on what might be done to deny China access to the islands.

But analysts said his comments, like those of Spicer, suggested the possibility of US military action, or even a naval blockade, that would risk armed confrontation with China, an increasingly formidable nuclear-armed military power. It is also the world’s second-largest economy and the target of accusations by Trump that it is stealing US jobs.

Spicer declined to elaborate when asked how the US could enforce such a move against China, except to say: “I think, as we develop further, we’ll have more information on it.”

Risk of dangerous escalation 

Military experts said that while the US navy has extensive capabilities in Asia to stage blockading operations with ships, submarines and planes, any such move against China‘s growing naval fleets would risk dangerous escalation.

Aides have said that Trump plans a major naval build-up in East Asia to counter China‘s rise.

China‘s embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the White House remarks.

China‘s foreign ministry said earlier this month it could not guess what Tillerson meant by his remarks, which came after Trump questioned Washington’s longstanding and highly sensitive ‘one-China’ policy over Taiwan.

Washington-based South China Sea expert Mira Rapp-Hooper at the Center for a New American Security called the threats to bar China‘s access in the South China Sea “incredible” and said it had no basis in international law.

“A blockade – which is what would be required to actually bar access – is an act of war,” she added.

“The Trump administration has begun to draw red lines in Asia that they will almost certainly not be able to uphold, but they may nonetheless be very destabilising to the relationship with China, invite crises, and convince the rest of the world that the United States is an unreliable partner.”

Bonnie Glaser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank called Spicer’s remarks ‘worrisome’ and said the new administration was ‘sending confusing and conflicting messages.’

Dean Cheng, a China expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said Spicer’s remarks showed the South China Sea was an important issue for the Trump administration.

He said it was significant that neither Spicer nor Tillerson had been specific as to what actions would be taken and this left open the possibility that economic measures – instead of military steps – could be used against China and firms that carry out island building.

(Reuters)

Clinton or Trump, Tough Task Ahead for Next US President in Boosting Ties With India

A new report outlines six ‘must-do’ tasks to bolster ties, including encouraging India to raise FDI in defence. But geopolitics, counterterrorism and cyber security will need attention too.

A new report outlines six ‘must-do’ tasks to bolster ties, including encouraging India to raise FDI in defence. But geopolitics, counterterrorism and cyber security will need attention too.

A man holds the flags of India and the U.S. while people take part in the 35th India Day Parade in New York August 16, 2015. Credit: Reuters/Eduardo Munoz

A man holds the flags of India and the U.S. while people take part in the 35th India Day Parade in New York August 16, 2015. Credit: Reuters/Eduardo Munoz

Washington: A senior White House official described the India-US relationship this week as one of “friends with benefits” – definitely not treaty allies but more like partners in a joint pursuit of happiness.

The term used by Peter Lavoy, the top official on South Asia in the White House, was half in jest but it describes the situation perfectly. India has always insisted on autonomy in decision-making and even in tough times, maintained a fine balance by tilting a little this way or that. It’s another matter that those signals were missed or misread by the recipients.

“The era of alliances? We are not in that era. Why have that shackle? The ‘friends with benefits’ model is probably satisfactory,” Lavoy said. “I don’t think anyone in the US government or in the Indian government feels a compulsion to form a treaty alliance.” He then pointed to the fact that the US has declared India “a major defence partner” and made significant policy changes to flesh out the concept.

The benefits were close to that of a treaty partner.

Lavoy was speaking at an event to mark the release of a new report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) titled ‘US-India Security Cooperation: Progress and Promise for the Next Administration’. As a keynote speaker, he was there to list the outgoing Obama administration’s achievements on the India front.

The report came just as the leaders of India, China, Russia, Brazil and South Africa were preparing to get together in Goa for a BRICS summit against what can best be described as a confused, contentious and somewhat confrontational setting. Old friendships are on test, new relationships uncertain and we have a multipolar world in spades. The hustle for influence and alignment is unseemly.

India is in a tough spot – the Russian fabric has frayed, the American is still being spun and not quite ready to wear. Some say the interim has left India a bit underdressed for the ball. But the big question in the end: would the new outfit be smart enough to work for all or most occasions?

The CSIS report is an honest take on the persistent difficulties when two fiercely democratic systems try to make things work with asymmetrical abilities and widely different expectations.

Lavoy, as the White House’s chief strategist on South Asia, highlighted the defence relationship as one that had “matured more quickly in the last eight years” and in an unprecedented fashion. With no other country has the US contemplated cooperation on development of an aircraft carrier, he stressed.

The Defence Technology and Trade Initiative is progressing well, defence trade has gone from zero to $15 billion in ten years, the rate of approval for licenses is 99%, Malabar exercises have expanded to include Japan as a regular partner, the maritime security dialogue is a success, Westinghouse is in the process of finalising a contract to build nuclear reactors and the trilateral dialogue on Afghanistan has resumed.

Lavoy began and ended his speech by quoting Jawaharlal Nehru – an interesting choice in these times – and said India mattered and could not be ignored. It has taken time but India has come to “count” in world affairs. The fine sentiment, the good words are welcome but the truth is the Obama people are home happy – they got what they “really” wanted, which is India’s signature on the climate change agreement.

India, meanwhile, hasn’t got what it wanted – entry into the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) or armed drones. Lavoy did say “all efforts” are being made to make the NSG happen before the end of the year.

So what should be the priorities of the next administration vis-à-vis India? The CSIS report offers six “must-do” tasks: the new president should meet Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the first 100 days to stress the importance of the relationship; get India to sign the remaining foundational agreements; establish a quadrilateral dialogue with the US, India, Japan and Australia (earlier known as the concert of democracies); enhance India’s naval capabilities in the Indian Ocean; encourage India to raise FDI in the defence sector to 100%; and expand technology cooperation under the Homeland Security Dialogue.

But there will be hurdles along the way. The “greatest challenge” will be New Delhi’s continued wariness with US support to Pakistan and American concerns about India’s close relationship with Russia, the report says.

But in a twist of fate, Pakistan and Russia are getting closer, presenting new challenges to both India and the US. Russia’s main motivation is to poke America in the eye by embracing its non-NATO ally Pakistan while Pakistan is thrilled to embrace Russia and drive a wedge between old friends.

The report’s writers speculate that with the US planning to reduce its presence in Afghanistan, Pakistan’s importance will also reduce, increasing the possibility that Washington “will cut ties over an incident of state-sponsored terrorism.” But in the meantime, “ongoing US-Pakistan military cooperation creates a brake on India-US cooperation and trust development”.

“The best case scenario for regional peace lies in the potential for an agreement between India and China to cooperate in working for peace in Afghanistan should the United States withdraw,” the report says. But that scenario would require the impossible to happen – China going against the wishes of its all-weather friend Pakistan.

In fact, the opposite may be happening – a China-Russia-Pakistan axis in Asia which poses new challenges to both the US and India. It requires serious attention by Washington but there is no discussion on the implications of the three coming together. Each one is seen as a separate silo.

Taking the metaphor of friends with benefits further, it might be time for the US to think more radically about India as a friend with real benefits. The report cites India’s “sustained interest” in buying US unmanned aircraft such as the Predator. Even though India joined the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), apparently it is not enough because the US “holds a highly restrictive view of its own responsibilities under the MTCR” and result is denial of this technology even to countries within the MTCR.

The US has sold the Predator only to a handful of treaty allies who are engaged in “ongoing operations with the United States,” the report says. This does raise questions about Lavoy’s thesis that the era of treaty alliances is over. India as a friend with benefits is not about to get the Predator anytime soon. The US Congress too always uses India’s unwillingness to participate in American-led military operations as a litmus test of sorts. This is a potential problem in relations down the line.

In terms of increasing FDI in the defence sector, the report talks about Indian government’s concerns about becoming captive to US defence companies who could pull the plug should relations sour for any reason. The Americans also want assurances that the weapons built by US firms in India would be used “in ways consistent with US strategic goals.” One such goal is to ensure “a stable security situation in South Asia.”

Does that mean India must guarantee it will not use those weapons against Pakistan? The report does not clarify but it gives an insight into American thinking on the subject.

The report also cites ongoing problems in the areas of counterterrorism and cyber security cooperation where trust is low. Although signed in 2010 and re-emphasised in 2015, the bilateral counterterrorism initiative has suffered mainly because the shadow of Pakistan falls darkly – Americans are reluctant to act against terrorist groups that mainly attack India, something that doesn’t raise Indian confidence levels.

The US refused to extradite David Headley, one of the main plotters of the 2008 Mumbai attacks. The report says that the US needs to “gain greater clarity on its motivations for counterterrorism cooperation with India”. Does it want to make India safer or is cooperation a means to further cement the relationship and decrease Indian mistrust?

The cyber security dialogue similarly has faced problems since it started in 2001 between both governments and their private sectors. It was dealt “a severe blow” when India arrested three Indian participants on charges that they had been recruited by US intelligence.

The dialogue resumed after a while and the two sides began meeting regularly. In June this year, the two governments finalised a framework for cyberspace cooperation, including a commitment to the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance.

A lot is on the India-US plate and it would help if the next administration can hit the ground running with key officials taking over quickly and efficiently. Many clones of current Defence Secretary Ashton Carter will be needed to push the files and move the behemoth that is the American government and provide benefits to friends.

Israel-Palestine Issue Loses Focus As Obama’s Tenure Nears an End

US Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, said that Obama had no plans to pursue a new Israeli-Palestinian peace initiative before leaving office.

US President Barack Obama listens to applause following his address to the UN General Assembly in New York September 20, 2016. Credit: Reuters/ Kevin Lamarque

US President Barack Obama listens to applause following his address to the UN General Assembly in New York September 20, 2016. Credit: Reuters/ Kevin Lamarque

United Nations: In his first major UN speech eight years ago, President Barack Obama said he would not give up on Israeli-Palestinian peace.

In what was likely his last UN speech, on Tuesday, he spoke little about the conflict beyond voicing the unsurprising sentiment that matters would improve if Israel let go of Palestinian land and if the Palestinians rejected incitement and embraced Israel’s legitimacy.

While US officials have said Obama could lay out the rough outlines of a deal – “parameters” in diplomatic parlance – after the November 8 presidential election and before he departs on January 20, many Middle East analysts doubt this will have much effect.

The result, they say, is likely to be a legacy of failure on an issue Obama made a priority when he came into office in 2009 and declared in his first UN General Assembly address: “I will not waver in my pursuit of peace.”

Obama has little to show for his two efforts – one spearheaded by George Mitchell in his first term and another by US Secretary of State John Kerry, in his second.

“He has not made an impact on this issue at all, and he wants to,” said Elliott Abrams, a Middle East adviser to former President George W. Bush, a Republican. “So I think the question that he is asking is really a legacy question, rather than asking a pragmatic question of what will really help the parties.”

Obama raised concerns about Israeli settlements in the West Bank when he met Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in New York on Wednesday. A senior US official told reporters afterwards those concerns included the “corrosive effect” settlement activity during 50 years of occupation had had on prospects for negotiating peace based on two states, Israeli and Palestinian.

The CIA Factbook online says about 371,000 Israelis live in settlements scattered among an estimated 2.7 million Palestinians in the West Bank, captured by Israel in the 1967 Middle East war. Neither figure includes East Jerusalem, which both sides claim.

After November 8

White House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said earlier that Obama had no plans to pursue a new Israeli-Palestinian peace initiative before leaving office, though he could take unspecified steps.

A US official who tracks the issue said he does not expect the White House to decide whether Obama might make a speech on the issue or seek to pass a new UN Security Council resolution, until Americans elect his successor.

“They are waiting to see what they can get the boss to do after the election pressure is over,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “They have been toying with the idea for months.”

The US presidential election pits Democrat Hillary Clinton, Obama’s former secretary of state and his choice for the top job, against Republican businessman Donald Trump. Several analysts believe Obama will consult Clinton if she wins.

It would not be the first time a US president took action on the Middle East at the end of a term.

In December 1988, weeks before leaving office, President Ronald Reagan broke with Israel to authorise the start of talks with the Palestine Liberation Organisation. George Bush, his vice president and the president-elect, backed the dialogue.

Then in January 2001, just before leaving office, Bill Clinton brought together Israeli and Palestinian negotiators in a failed bid to make peace and laid down his own “parameters” for a solution.

Progress unlikely

The political climate between Israelis and Palestinians makes progress unlikely. Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas have no plans to meet this week at the annual UN gathering of world leaders.

“We don’t expect much from Abu Mazen,” Israeli ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, told reporters on Monday, referring to the Palestinian leader by his nickname.

Palestinians say Israeli settlement expansion in occupied territory is dimming any prospect for the viable state they seek, with a capital in Arab East Jerusalem.

Israel has demanded tighter security measures from the Palestinians and a crackdown on militants responsible for a string of stabbings and shootings against Israelis in recent months. It also says Jerusalem is Israel’s indivisible capital.

With US efforts to broker a deal on a Palestinian state on Israel-occupied land in deep freeze for two years, France has tried to revive interest in the issue, with one senior French diplomat arguing that letting matters drift even during a US election year is like “waiting for a powder keg to explode.”

‘In your dreams’

In his eighth speech before the UN General Assembly, Obama gave little time to the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

“Surely, Israelis and Palestinians will be better off if Palestinians reject incitement and recognise the legitimacy of Israel, but Israel recognises that it cannot permanently occupy and settle Palestinian land,” Obama said in his lone direct reference to the conflict during the 48-minute speech.

The lack of progress has frustrated Arab and Western officials, some of whom were not shy about voicing their dismay.

“On this issue, you hear everything and nothing from the Americans. One says Obama is ready to do something, another says ‘no way’; one says a resolution is the way forward, another says ‘in your dreams,'” said a senior Western diplomat.

Jon Alterman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank in Washington said Obama tends to act as a “mandarin” who offers rational solutions rather than as a politician who moves public opinion.

As a result, merely sketching out the contours of a deal would do little to change the political realities on the ground.

“What the US thinks has never been the missing link,” he said. “The weak link has often been a question of implementation. The White House hasn’t been very good at persuading people to see things their way and act accordingly.”

(Reuters)

India Can Buy Almost All Defence Technologies Now, Says US Official

Inside the bureaucratic system of the US, such a recognition removes a number of major export control hurdles for India.

US defence secretary Ash Carter, left, talks with India's minister of defence Manohar Parrikar. Credit: PTI/File Photo

US defence secretary Ash Carter, left, talks with India’s defence minister Manohar Parrikar. Credit: PTI/File Photo

Washington: India will be the only country outside the US’ formal treaty allies that will gain access to almost 99% of latest America’s defence technologies after being recognised as a ‘Major Defence Partner’, a senior Obama administration official has said.

“India enjoys access to defence technologies that is on par with our treaty allies. That is a very unique status. India is the only country that enjoys that status outside our formal treaty allies,” the official told PTI explaining what ‘Major Defence Partner’ status means for India.

Early this month, after a meeting between US President Barack Obama and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the White House, the US, in a joint statement, recognised India as a ‘Major Defence Partner’.
“We were looking for something unique. This language you would not find in any arms transfer legislation or any of our existing policies. This is new guidance and new language that is intended to reflect unique things that we have done with India under our defence partnership,” the senior administration official said.

“This is intended to solidify the India-specific forward leaning policies for approval that the US President and defence secretary Ashton Carter and our export control system have implemented in the last eight years,” the official said.

Under this recognition, India would receive license-free access to a wide range of dual-use technologies in conjunction with steps that New Delhi has committed to take to advance its export control objectives.

Acknowledging that the impression in New Delhi was that India was not getting access to the kind of technology it needed from the US, the official said it was a constant source of discussion.

“In reality, less than 1% of all exports requests are denied to India. They are not denied because of India. They are denied because of global US licensing policies. We do not share certain technologies with anybody in the world,” the official asserted.

The perception in India that the denial of such technologies is reflective of India-US relationship is far from the truth, the official said.

Inside the bureaucratic system of the US, such a recognition removes a number of major export control hurdles for India. The category of ‘Major Defence Partner’ was created specifically for India, observed Ashley Tellis, of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a top US think-tank.

“It was meant to recognise that although India will not be an alliance partner of the US, the administration seeks to treat it as such for purposes of giving it access to advanced technologies of the kind that are reserved for close US allies,” Tellis told PTI.

“The US expects that bilateral defence ties will only grow in the years ahead. India and the US will continue to work together especially regarding maritime security, and India will eventually be admitted to global non-proliferation regimes, and it will sign the foundational agreements,” he said in response to a question.

“As these developments materialise, India’s access to the US technology will also increase, and the major defence partner moniker is intended to signal to both the outside world and to the US bureaucracy overseeing licensing that India is viewed as a unique collaborator and will be treated as such where access to advanced technologies are concerned,” Tellis said.

Calling India a ‘Major Defence Partner’ is “more a term of art than a technical designation, noted Richard M Rossow, Wadhwani Chair in the US India Policy Studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, another top US think-tank.

“It certainly captures what is emerging as a unique relationship, exhibited by programs such as the defence technology and trade initiative and the establishment of a dedicated ‘India Rapid Reaction Cell’ inside the Pentagon. Neither exists for a country other than India,” he said.

“But the term Major Defence Partner does not automatically trigger a specific process or program in the US system. Our two countries are feeling their way around the contours of our defence relationship,” Rossow told PTI.