On Midrats 24 July 2016 - Episode 342: Turkey, Erdoğan & its Miltary - with Ryan Evans

Please join us at 5pm EDT (US) for Midrats Episode 342: Turkey, Erdoğan & its Miltary - with Ryan Evans:

The events of the last week in Turkey brought that critically important nation in to focus, and we are going to do the same thing for this week's episode of Midrats.

Turkey has a history of military coups as a byproduct of an ongoing drive to be a modern secular nation against the current of a deeply Islamic people. This week we are going to look at how Turkey found itself at another coup attempt, the response, and the possible impact for Turkey and its relationship with NATO, Russia, Europe, and its neighbors.

Our guest to discuss this and more for the full hour will be Ryan Evans.

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk- Father of Modern Turkey

Ryan Evans is a widely published commentator and recovering academic. He deployed to Helmand Province, Afghanistan from 2010 – 2011 as a Social Scientist on a U.S. Army Human Terrain Team that was OPCON/TACON to the British-led Task Force Helmand. He has worked as assistant director at the Center for the National Interest, a research fellow at the Center for National Policy, and for the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence in London. He is a Fellow of the Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society and received his MA from the King's College London War Studies Department.

Join us live if you can or listen later by clicking here. Or pick the show up later from either our iTunes page here or our Stitcher page here.

Kenya: Al Shabaab Lurks

Interesting (and pause-giving) article from Paul Hidalgo at Foreign Affairs "Why the Showdown Between Kenyatta and Odinga is Empowering al Shabaab":

The current political upheaval and conflict in Kenya could not have been better scripted for the Islamist militant group al Shabaab. Its continued attacks have successfully pitted the country’s two top politicians, President Uhuru Kenyatta and his main rival, Raila Odinga, against each other in a high-stakes game of political brinkmanship that could plunge Kenya into another toxic ethnic conflict -- exactly the kind of environment in which a group like al Shabaab can thrive.
***
Al Shabaab is relishing every moment. A divided Kenya is ideal for the militant group. With the Kenyan political elite consumed by infighting, and with security forces busy keeping the peace (or picking sides), the already porous Kenya–Somalia border would all but dissolve, giving al Shabaab fighters free reign as they strengthen their bases and increase recruitment efforts in Kenya.
***

You can read the whole thing with a free registration.

Kenya has been an ally in the Long War Against Terrorist Groups (LWATG), its disintegration into warring faction would be . . . "unhelpful."

As you can see from this old (1974) map, there is a tribal flavor to Kenya and there are a grunch of Somali refugees sitting in Kenya.

A sort of background article (from a sort of "leftist" view) from 2008 Beyond 'Tribes': Violence and Politics in Kenya:

When Nobel Prizewinning author Ngugi wa Thiong'o says that the present conflict is more about class than ethnicity, he is right. Talk of "tribes" is essentially a cover for more basic class divisions that have been exacerbated, first by colonial and more recently by corrupt governments in Kenya.

While the author points the finger at "global capitalism" as setting the table for economic chaos in Kenya, one could argue from the same set of data that the issue was the stifling of capitalism by the various governments that have held power in Kenya due to corruption and other factors, especially self enrichment by government agents through bribery:

Bribes at every level—from those collected from small business owners by impecunious police whose government pay has been siphoned off by corrupt officials up the line, to those paid by the middle class to obtain licenses of some kind, to those paid by international contractors/corporations in order to be treated preferentially in Kenyan business contracts—have also impeded the achievement of a stable prosperous economy.

Indeed, governmental corruption has contributed directly to the current breakdown of order in Kenya. With funds diverted to further enrich the rulers, the government has left its citizens at the mercy of all forms of violence. Several years ago in northern Kenya there was a cross-border attack from Ethiopia caused by intra-clan camel and cattle rustling that resembled strongly the better publicized Darfur raids. The feud resulted in a massacre in which an Ethiopian branch of a clan, related to those attacked, destroyed a Kenyan village, killing all of its inhabitants. One of the victims had the presence of mind to call the police on his cell phone, but it took three hours for the police to arrive because they did not have a vehicle. Money for such things usually disappears before reaching those whose job it is to keep order. The only survivors were two persons buried alive in a pile of bodies.

It hardly seems fair to blame "international capitalism" for every corrupt official who stands in the path of local business owners making their way. Be that as it may, the author does note:

Fast forward to post-independence and contemporary Kenya. When Kenyatta followed ethnic preferences in the redistribution of land that took place after independence, much of the land went to a small Kikuyu elite. Some established or took over highland plantations and continued to employ locals as labor. President Moi, in particular, during his long reign shamelessly created, manipulated, and advertised "tribal" loyalties in an effort to control the population and enrich certain powerful social groups.

So, the local government decides to exploit a system that allows a small minority to push down larger groups for the minorities benefit? I think there is a term for this - "oligarchy"

CIA World Factbook report on Kenya's economy:

Kenya has been hampered by corruption and by reliance upon several primary goods whose prices have remained low. Low infrastructure investment threatens Kenya's long-term position as the largest East African economy, although the Kenyatta administration has prioritized infrastructure development. International financial lenders and donors remain important to Kenya's economic growth and development. Unemployment is high at around 40%. The country has chronic budget deficits. Inflationary pressures and sharp currency depreciation peaked in early 2012 but have since abated following low global food and fuel prices and monetary interventions by the Central Bank. Recent terrorism in Kenya and the surrounding region threatens Kenya's important tourism industry. Kenya, in conjunction with neighboring Ethiopia and South Sudan, intends to begin construction on a transport corridor and oil pipeline into the port of Lamu in 2014.

So, you've got some 45 million Kenyans, (Christian 82.5% (Protestant 47.4%, Catholic 23.3%, other 11.8%), Muslim 11.1%, Traditionalists 1.6%, other 1.7%, none 2.4%, unspecified 0.7% (2009 census)), some goodly number who just might be unhappy with their government for reasons having little to do with al Shabaab's agenda, but who might not be disinclined to have things shaken up a bit.

How much that "bit" is - well, al Shabaab lurks.

By the way, there is another article at Foreign Affairs now worth contemplating, State of Imbalance: Why Countries Break Up
by Benjamin Miller:

There seems to be little connecting recent violence in the former Soviet space to ongoing bloodshed in the Middle East. In one place, a neo-imperialist power is attempting to reassert itself in a region that it ruled not so long ago. In the other, sect-based militant groups are grabbing up territory by the mile.

Even so, both conflicts spring from a common source, as do a host of other major conflicts around the world. In each, there is a mismatch between state boundaries and national identities -- a state-to-nation imbalance. The state is a set of institutions that administer a certain territory; the nation is made up of people who, in their view, share common traits (language, history, culture, religion) that entitle them to self-rule.

Are we simply kiving in a time of a realignment of states and national identities? Read the whole thing.

North Korea and its "Missiles of Doom"

That the NORKs may have nuclear capable missiles comes as little surprise - since that's what they've been telling everyone with their fear-mongering bullying. How that might have been confirmed comes to us via Eli Lake's Yahoo! News piece, the poorly titled "How North Korea Tipped Its Hand":

After the North Korean launch, U.S. Navy ships managed to recover the front section of the rocket used in it, according to three U.S. officials who work closely on North Korean proliferation. That part of the rocket in turn provided useful clues about North Korean warhead design, should the next payload be a warhead rather than a satellite.

First off, "managed to" is a poor way to describe what must have been an impressive salvage operation.

Secondly, doesn't it give you pause about the level of intelligence we have on the NORKs? More from the article:

The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) released a classified assessment last month saying that it now has “moderate confidence” that the “North currently has nuclear weapons capable of delivery by ballistic missiles however the reliability will be low,” South Korea has provided additional intelligence bolstering this conclusion, according to U.S. officials.
***
Intelligence suggesting North Korea could design a nuclear warhead has been building for many years. A.Q. Khan, the man considered to be the father of the Pakistani nuclear program, for example has said in interviews and correspondence that in 1999 on a visit to North Korea he was shown boxes of components for three finished nuclear warheads that could be assembled within an hour.

You'd think the intel we did have would have prompted a little quicker movement of Ballistic Missile Defense systems to the areas that could, in theory be reached by the DPRK.

On the other hand, perhaps there was the usual desire not to tip our hand on exactly how much we really know about what the NORKs are up to.

Okay, now we know of the threat. We now know that various sanctions regimes of the past have not stopped the DPRK from going nuclear. What should we do?

Do we continue to chat with the Current Kim-in-Charge? Secretary of State John Kerry has indicated a willingness to meet with the NORKs under certain conditions, as set out in the NY Times here:

Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday that the United States was prepared to reach out to Kim Jong-un of North Korea if he made the first move to abandon his nuclear weapons program.
***
“What we really ought to be talking about is the possibility of peace,” he said in a joint news conference on Sunday with Fumio Kishida, Japan’s foreign minister. “And I think there are those possibilities.”

Sketching out his approach in his meeting later in the day with reporters, Mr. Kerry said that before talks could begin, North Korea needed to take tangible steps to demonstrate that it was serious about denuclearization.

But it seemed unlikely that that precondition for talks would be met by North Korea, given the country’s announcements that it considers itself to be a nuclear state and its dedication to a “military-first” stance that channels resources to its armed forces.

You can read Mr. Kerry's remarks in context here:

So – *** – hopefully North Korea will hear our words and recognize that for the future of its people and for the future stability in the region as well as on the peninsula itself, there is a clear course of action that they are invited to take, and they will find in us ready partners to negotiate in good faith to resolve this issue.

Okay. Talk with the NORKs some more.

What is the end goal for such talks?

For the NORKs to give up on nuclear weapons? Why in the hell would they do that?

Right now the North Koreans are a "one-trick pony" in a position to blackmail their neighbors because the cost of taking the current DPRK regime out is projected to be awfully high. Take away their nuke threat and they are a conventional land power with no place to go that doesn't place them on a path to a buzz saw.

So what do you end up with? Stuff like this from our SecState:

The North has to understand, and I believe must by now, that its threats and its provocations are only going to isolate it further and impoverish its people even further. And they have to understand also something that we have consistently made clear. President Obama has made it clear. I think I’ve tried to underscore the President’s policy as much as possible. And it is very simple: that the United States will do what is necessary to defend our allies – Japan, Republic of Korea – and the region against these provocations. But our choice is to negotiate. Our choice is to move to the table and find a way for the region to have peace. And we would hope that whatever considerations or fears the North has – of the United States or of others in the region that they would come to the table in a responsible way and negotiate that. We are confident that we can address the concerns with respect to their security and find ways together with China and the Republic of Korea and Japan and Russia and the members of the Six-Party Talks, we can find a way to resolve these differences at a negotiating table. I hope they will hear that and I hope they will respond to that, and any other choice by them will simply further isolate them in the world and make it clear to the rest of the world where the problem really lies here. That’s our hope.

Isolate NK further? Is that possible?

Good lord.

The NORKs must come to understand and truly know that any use of their nukes will end whatever life they currently enjoy.

Having a few nukes just means that any missiles the NORKs mount them on are "missiles of doom" - for the NORKs.

 

They have understand that it is not asymmetric warfare we are discussing here when we talk a nuclear exchange.The U.S. will not fight back with one hand tied behind its back.

The U.S. has the power to totally obliterate the DPRK.

THE DPRK does not have the power to destroy the U.S. or its response capabilities.

My suggested talking point to the SecState are along the lines of,

If you try to launch missiles that threaten the U.S. or its allies, we will shoot them down and then we will come after you and yours without mercy.

Do you understand what 'without mercy' means in this context? We have the most experienced combat force on the planet and you will get to meet them up close and personal if you do something stupid.

Perhaps you have seen the American movie, "Dirty Harry?" You might recall Harry's words to the killer creep who threatened some school children - let me modify them for you to make my point clear:

I know what you're thinking, punk. You're thinking "Will the Americans fight?" Now to tell you the truth sometimes we send mixed messages in all this excitement. But being this is the U.S. military, the most powerful military in the world and they would be itching to blow you head clean off if you attacked us, you've gotta ask yourself a question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?

North Korea: Threaten U.S. (Again) - Guam and Hawaii and a "Sea of Fire"

Guam and Hawaii (and I would think Alaska) ought to practicing "duck and cover" according to the really, really threatening North Koreans, or as the current Kim-in-Charge calls it, the "Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea" which just proves that once you start lying it is hard to stop or something.



In any event, the NY Times covers the threat as North Korea Calls Hawaii and U.S. Mainland Targets

North Korea’s military said it put all its missile and artillery units on “the highest alert” on Tuesday, ordering them to be ready to hit South Korea, as well as the United States and its military installations in Hawaii and Guam.

I assume that the NORKS must have great confidence in (a) their ability to launch missiles without having them shot down (if they rise high enough to get shot down) and (b) their guidance systems in order to hit, say, Guam, which is, as I can testify from having lived there, a small island in a great big ocean. By small I mean 35 miles long and about 8 miles wide.

On the other hand, perhaps K-i-C is unconcerned with accuracy, since it is unlikely that he will ever learn the results of any missile launch against the U.S.


The NORKS have also announced their "readiness for combat":

"From this moment, the Supreme Command of the Korean People's Army will be putting into combat duty posture No. 1 all field artillery units, including long-range artillery units and strategic rocket units, that will target all enemy objects in U.S. invasionary bases on its mainland, Hawaii and Guam," the North's KCNA news agency said.

My "invasionary base" is safely out of NORK range.

UPDATE: John Hudson adds to his list of DPRK (heh) threats here.

Japan's East China Sea Response to China: A new base near the dispute

China and Japan are engaged in a dispute over some islands in the East China Sea (see here and here).

China has sent fleets of fishing vessels and aircraft and ships of its "State Oceanic Administration" to the area.

Japan has a response:


UPDATE: It should be note this plan has been in works for a couple of years, as seen here:

***The government of Prime Minister Naoto Kan has since vowed to beef up defenses for Japan’s “outlying islands,” and it appears close to a decision on the small Yonaguni garrison, a plan that has been under discussion for years.***

China's "patrols" of the disputed area have included warships:

A flotilla of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) Navy patrolled waters near the Diaoyu Islands on Monday after returning from a training exercise in the west Pacific.

The patrol marked the first time for China to confirm its naval operations in the waters near the Diaoyu Islands on the very day when the Navy warships conducted such patrol.

The flotilla, consisting of the DDG-136 Hangzhou and DDG-139 Ningbo destroyers, as well as the two frigates FFG-525 Ma'anshan and FFG-529 Zhoushan from the Navy's Donghai Fleet, passed through the Miyako Strait and entered the West Pacific for a routine training exercise on Nov. 28.

After finishing a series of training operations, the flotilla sailed through a strait near the Yonaguni and Iriomote Islands and arrived in waters surrounding the Diaoyu Islands Monday morning.

China: Japan Asserts China Violated Japanese Airspace

ABC News reports Japan Accuses China of Intruding Air Space, Scrambles Fighter Jets.

The disputed islands are in the area of the red arrow. See here.

Eight F-15 fighters were dispatched, according to this:

Japan scrambled eight fighter jets on Thursday after a Chinese state-owned plane breached its airspace for the first time, over islands at the center of a dispute between Tokyo and Beijing.

It was the first incursion by a Chinese state aircraft into Japanese airspace anywhere since the country’s military began monitoring in 1958, the defense ministry said.

The move marks a ramping-up of what observers suggest is a Chinese campaign to create a “new normal”—where its forces come and go as they please around islands which Beijing calls the Diaoyus, but Tokyo controls as the Senkakus.

It also comes as ceremonies mark the 75th anniversary of the start of the Nanjing Massacre, when Japanese Imperial Army troops embarked on an orgy of violence and killing in the then-Chinese capital.

F-15 jets were mobilized after a Chinese Maritime Surveillance aircraft ventured over the islands just after 11 a.m., Chief Cabinet Secretary Osamu Fujimura told reporters.

China asserts the islands over which one of its planes flew is "Chinese" airspace, playing the "It's really our territory card":

"The Diaoyu and its affiliated islands are China’s inherent territory since ancient times . . ."

The Chinese have posted pictures of their adventure above the islands here:

The Google translation of that page is:

State Oceanic Administration organized the China Marine Surveillance carry out the Diaoyu Islands, sea and air stereo cruise

Beijing time 10 am, the China Marine Surveillance B-3837 aircraft arrived I Diaoyu Islands airspace rendezvous with China ocean surveillance, 50,46,66,137 boat fleet within the territorial waters of the Diaoyu Islands cruise, cruise on the Diaoyu Islands to carry out sea and air stereo. During the China Marine Surveillance formation on the Japanese side activist propaganda solemn statement of the government's position, urged the Japanese side vessel immediately leave China's territorial waters.

Kinda takes the "accuses" part of the ABC headline out of the discussion, since the Chinese have admitted being in and above the islands - the dispute moves to one of those wonderful international law things about whose turf those islands are.
My guess is the "stereo" part refers to the effort being joint between the air and sea units. As reported here, the Chinese already had ships in the territorial waters around the islands:

According to the coast guard's 11th regional headquarters in Naha, Okinawa Prefecture, the three ships moved into Japanese waters west of Uotsuri, one of the Senkakus, at around 3:20 p.m. Japan Coast Guard ships warned the three vessels to leave. But crew members on the Chinese ships responded by saying the area 12 nautical miles from Diaoyu constitutes Chinese territorial waters.

Meanwhile, a Chinese fishery patrol ship entered the contiguous zone surrounding the Japanese territorial waters at a point northwest of Kubajima, another of the Senkakus, on Wednesday morning.

Nice historical tie-in. Lots of long memories out there.

Caribbean Sea Space Dispute: Colombia and Nicaraga

A dispute between neighbors (see the map) about valuable sea space as set out here:

While the International Court of Justice at The Hague ruled on November 19 that Colombia does in fact own the regional islands of San Andres, Providencia and Santa Catalina, it gave the expanse of some 120 square kilometers of oil-rich ocean to Nicaragua. Colombia, which has long fought to keep the area, has rejected the decision and officially left the Bogotá Pact, a 1948 treaty which recognizes ICJ rulings to find peaceful solutions to these types of conflicts.

The country claims that by rebuffing the pact, it does not have to follow the decision. But Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega supports the court and says his navy is now “exercising sovereignty in all territory.”
***

Nicaraguan fishermen report harassment:

Nicaraguan fishing boat captains on the Caribbean Sea say they are “fishing with fear” among Colombian warships that continue to ply Nicaragua’s recently recovered waters beyond the 82nd meridian. But they insist they are doing their patriotic duty to exert Nicaraguan sovereignty in the area.

“We are doing our part to support the government,” says Carlos Javier Goff, president of the Copescharley fishing company out of Puerto Cabezas. “We feel protected by the government and by the international community and, God willing, this won’t go to extremes…it won’t get beyond words and intimidation.”

Goff, whose fishing company has seven boats currently fishing near the 81st meridian, in waters still protected by Colombia despite the Nov. 19 world court ruling that establishes the waters as Nicaraguan territory, says his crews were harassed all last week by Colombian forces. He says his boat captains report the presence of two Colombian warships, which routinely deployed go-fasts to circle the Nicaraguan fishing boats. One of Colombian patrols allegedly attempted to board one of his Nicaraguan fishing vessels early last week, but the captain wouldn’t let the Colombian mariners aboard.

The harassment was also coming from the air, Goff says. “They were doing daily flyovers of our boats last week in helicopters and planes,” he told The Nicaragua Dispatch in a phone interview this morning.

The International Court of Justice materials relating to this dispute can be found here. Colombia has indicated disagreement with the ruling. Below is the press release the ICJ issued on 19 Nov 12:
ICJ Press Release Disp

A report on a meeting between the presidents of Nicaragua and Colombia "Nobody wants war":

Both presidents explained their respective country’s position on the matter and stressed the need for a solution through channels of diplomacy and dialogue.

“Of course nobody wants a bellicose confrontation. That is the last recourse,” Santos told reporters in Mexico following his sit-down with Ortega. “The way to resolve these types of situations is through dialogue—a sensible dialogue in which the positions are clearly stated and established, like we did in telling President Ortega what Colombia’s position is.”

Though the Colombian warships continue to ply Nicaraguan waters two weeks after the ICJ’s ruling, Santos said his country will look for mechanisms for international diplomacy to resolve the issue and “reestablish the rights that the ruling violated.”

Ortega, for his part, repeated that Nicaragua will continue to respect the ancestral fishing rights of the raizal, the Creole population of the Colombian islands of San Andres and Providencia.

“We are giving a message of peace and we are saying with total clarity that we are going to develop mechanisms for communication in all areas mentioned to guarantee the security of everyone, assuring the raizal people of their fishing rights, and also offering guarantees to the fishing industry based on San Andres,” Ortega said.

Something to keep an eye on.

UPDATE: Some thoughts on ramifications Colombia-Nicaragua ICJ Case Tests Region's Crisis Resolution Mechanisms


Circle on map is meant to show general are of dispute. Maps in the ICJ press release show actual areas involved.

Some Countries Offering "Insurance" Money for Evading the Iranian Sanctions

Short report from PennEnergy on a couple of countries offering "insurance" money to support tankers which evade economic sanctions against Iran at India offers $50MM in coverage for Iranian tanker runs:

Indian oil transportation companies will be able to receive some limited coverage from the government for oil tankers making trips to Iran, according to Reuters. The recent sanctions imposed against Iran for its continuing efforts to develop its nuclear program, and as many Western nations fear nuclear weapons, have largely prevented Indian oil companies from finding insurance for their oil ships.
***
In response, the Indian government has offered to insure as much as $50 million for any "Indian flag carriers" traveling to Iran. This amount falls well short of the actual liability incurred by oil tankers on any given trip, but it comes to more than six times as much as the Japanese government has offered its companies, illustrating India's interest in continuing the flow of Iranian oil.

Insurance Insight provides some background:

The concern for Asian nations such as India, China and Japan has been that their ships, which are highly dependent on the International Group of Protection & Indemnity Clubs and its reinsurance programme, will be unable to sail if they cannot obtain cover.

Another Insurance Insight report on limitations placed by Japanese insurers on tankers carrying Iranian crude:

Japanese oil buyers will be forced to coordinate schedules after insurers warned they will cover only one tanker transporting Iranian oil at a time after the 1 July sanctions deadline.
***
According to Reuters, the three insurers together can provide only up to ¥30bn ($370m) at one time in hull and machinery cover, which protects vessels against physical damage, without relying on the European reinsurance market to hedge the risk.

This is enough to cover insurance for only one tanker travelling in the Gulf with Iranian crude oil, Insurance Insight understands.

So, India and Japan as "sanction busters?"

Earlier report here, where China is added to the list of Iranian oil carriers.

Armed Guards on Merchant Ships: The "Flag-State Endorsement"

Who will be responsible for Barney?

Interesting update to the Italian armed guard mess off India at The Hindu "Business Line" Ships with armed guards: Govt may fix responsibility on flag-state:

India's maritime administration may make ‘flag-state endorsement' mandatory for foreign merchant ships entering Indian waters with armed security guards on board. The idea is to make the Government of the country in which the ship is registered (flag-state) also responsible for any action on the part of the armed guards deployed on the vessel.
***
Currently, flag-states give a general approval for shipping companies to engage private security guards. The contract is between the ship owners and the security agency which provides the armed men. With rising incidents of attacks on cargo ships by Somali pirates, many countries, including India and Italy, have allowed their merchant ships to have armed guards on board. Ships have to follow the policy (on deployment of guards) of the country in which they are registered. The policy is based on the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) guidelines.

Problems can arise when the ship is owned, managed and operated by people of different nationalities. Typically, a ship may be registered in one country and its owner based in another. Further, the private security agency that provides the guards could be operating from a third country. Adding to this, there is every possibility of the security men belonging to different nationalities. Given such complexities, Government officials here said it needs to be made mandatory that flag states should shoulder the responsibility of ensuring that any liability arising out of reckless acts by armed men on board are honoured.

Of course, there are problems with such an "endorsement," too. What if the foreign merchant ship is not in "Indian waters?" In fact, what if the entire act complained of occurs on the "high seas?" How do you hold the government of some "flag of convenience" state like Tuvalu responsible? Somewhere I once dug up the info that about 35% of shipping sails under a "flag of convenience." Is India going to forbid entry to its waters for such ships - not that it may matter all that much because many of those ships can't afford or won't hire armed security guards.
UPDATE 22 Feb 12: "It was an accident, not manslaughter" - an opinion piece.

Somali Pirates: Seychelles asks China for counter-pirate "presence"

UPDATE here.

Perhaps reflecting a shift in the currents of international sea power or perhaps just an extension of an existing relationship, the Chinese have been invited to extend some power to an island cluster in the the Indian Ocean bothered by Somali pirates.

As reported by AFP as "Seychelles invites China to set up anti-piracy presence":

"We have invited the Chinese government to set up a military presence on Mahe to fight the pirate attacks that the Seychelles face on a regular basis," Adam said.

"For the time being China is studying this possibility because she has economic interests in the region and Beijing is also involved in the fight against piracy," he explained.
***

"Together, we need to increase our surveillance capacity in the Indian Ocean... as Seychelles has a strategic position between Asia and Africa," Michel said in a statement, adding that China had given its army two light aircraft.

The two countries signed a military cooperation agreement in 2004 that has enabled some 50 Seychelles soldiers to be trained in China. They renewed their agreement Friday, with China to provide further training and equipment.

If the Chinese military presence goes ahead, "it won't be the first foreign military presence here because the Americans already have a small drone station here that they use in the fight against piracy," Adam said.

After warships started deploying in the Gulf of Aden in 2008 to thwart attacks on vessels, Somali pirates enlarged their field of operations into the Indian Ocean, including towards the Seychelles.

Pakistan: NATO Suppy Routes to Afghanistan Closed, New Rules of Engagement Adopted

Following the confusion of the attack on a Pakistan border post (see here), the words continue to fly fast and furious, with the truth of what happened becoming less and less relevant.

The U.S. claims a couple of defenses in the incident, including an assertion by Afghan forces that they called in the airstrike.

"Whatever" - as the saying goes- the Pakistanis are not in the mood to listen to explanations. As the story notes,

Pakistan's army claims the attack was unprovoked and insists there was no militant activity in the area.

Meantime, Islamabad has closed its border to the trucks that deliver supplies to coalition troops and is demanding the U.S. vacate a base thought to be used for launching drones.

Further, Reuters reports, "After NATO strike, Pakistan adjusts rules of engagement,

"I do not want there to be any doubt in the minds of any commander at any level about the rules of engagement," Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Kayani said in a communique on Friday.

"In case of any attack, you have complete liberty to respond forcefully using all available resources. You do not need any permission for this."

A military source explained that this amounted to a change in the rules for Pakistani forces guarding the Western border against militant movements to and from Afghanistan.

"In the past, we were only guarding ourselves or reacting against militants," said the source, who requested anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the media.

An analysis of the potential impact of the closed Pakistani border can be found at Oilprice.com where reporter John Daly lays out the logistics issues posed by the Pakistan border closing in Furious at Latest U.S. Attack, Pakistan Shuts Down Resupply Routes to Afghanistan "Permanently",

So, what does this mean for logistical support of ISAF forces? According to Nesar Ahmad Nasery, the deputy head of Torkham Customs, around 1,000 trucks cross into Afghanistan on a daily basis, nearly 300 of which are NATO contractors carrying NATO supplies in sealed containers. Khyber Transport Association chief Shakir Afridi said that each oil tanker has a capacity of 13,000-15,000 gallons. In October 2010 Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen said that fossil fuels are the number one import to Afghanistan.

Noting the obvious, as Afghanistan has no indigenous hydrocarbon supplies, every drop must be brought in, with transit greatly increasing the eventual cost. For 2001-2008, almost all U.S. and NATO supplies were trucked overland to Afghanistan through parts of Pakistan effectively controlled by the Taliban.

Source: US TRANSCOM
Credit: Alyson Hurt/NPR

As shown on the map from NPR and Transcom (Logistics into Afghanistan), the logisticians have come up with alternative routes - which Mr. Daly discusses in his report:

But NATO and the Pentagon have a backup plan – since 2009 they have been shifting their logistics to the Northern Distribution Network (NDN), a railway link running from Latvia’s Riga Baltic port through Russia and Kazakhstan terminating in Uzbekistan’s Termez on the Afghan border.

There is also another route, involving ships entering the Black Sea with several modal transfers. These alternative routes are much more costly. I suggest reading the excellent Oilprice.com piece for details.

Logistics, logistics, logistics. Can't fight wars without it.

Taiwan arms sales bill introduced in US Congress

Reported in Taiwan as Taiwan bill introduced in US Congress - Taipei Times:

A major new bill to strengthen and enhance the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) has been introduced to the US Congress by Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairperson of the House of Representatives Foreign Relations Committee.
***
“This bill supports the sale of F-16C/Ds to Taiwan and endorses a wide range of defense exports to the island, and strengthens congressional oversight of defense transfers to Taiwan,” Ros-Lehtinen said.
***
“China must not be allowed to dictate US policy in the Pacific,” she added.
***
It has been introduced at a tense moment in US-Taiwan relations, with Obama nearing a self-imposed deadline of Oct. 1 to announce his decision on whether to sell Taipei 66 advanced F-16C/D jets.

There has been extensive speculation that he will bow to Chinese pressure and refuse to sell the fighters, choosing instead to update and refit Taiwan’s fleet of aging F-16A/B planes. However, if the new bill became law, it force Obama to make the sale.
***

On the question of arms sales, the bill contains a long list of items that should be made available to Taiwan, including modern surface-to-air missiles, vertical and short take-off and landing aircraft, access to satellites for remote sensing and communication, submarines, anti-ship cruise missiles and enhanced senior-level training.

The bill also calls for an extensive review into whether Taiwan’s air defense forces retain the ability to effectively defend Taiwan “against China’s ballistic missile and air threats.”

Taiwan has sought new diesel electric submarines for some time. The G.W. Bush administration suggested purchases from a third party, such as the Netherlands (Taiwan already possesses 2 older Dutch designs) or Italy. Taiwan proposed building its own.

For more on the history of the Taiwan Relations Act, see below.

The hang up on foreign sales to Taiwan is the big mainland Chinese dragon, for example (referring to the stalled submarine acquisition):

Even if a locally-built submarine is more costly than one purchased from abroad, Taiwan has to build its own underwater fighting craft, because naval powers around the world refuse to sell them to Taiwan for fear they might offend the People's Republic.

For those of you unfamiliar with the China-Taiwan controversy, see here for a primer. Another excellent resource is this pdf, "China/Taiwan: Evolution of the “One China” Policy—Key Statements from Washington, Beijing, and Taipei" from the Congressional Research Service.