New Chinese Military Base in Africa Presents Security Concerns for US

China’s first non-domestic military outpost is slated to be finished by the end of the summer, according to Marine General Thomas Waldhauser, who said the base presents security concerns to the US.

The 90-acre naval base is located a mere four miles from the headquarters of US African Command, Camp Lemonnier, in Djibouti, where some 3,000 to 4,000 US personnel are stationed at any given time.

Under Waldhauser’s watch, the US hopes to keep tabs on what China does and does not do at the new base. Waldhauser recently requested an audience with Djibouti President Ismail Omar, to whom he "expressed [US] concerns about some of the things that are important to us about what the Chinese should not do at that location."

The US uses Camp Lemonnier base as a hub for highly secretive operations, Defense Tech reported. For instance, the camp was involved in the January 29 raid in Yemen that killed Navy Seal Team 6 member William “Ryan” Owens, as well as 14 Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula militants and at least 25 civilians.

Both the Chinese and US military in the region will likely seek to address the issue of Somali pirates. The marauders have been virtually absent from the Horn of Africa since 2013, according to data from Office of Naval Intelligence, but popped back up on the radar Monday after buccaneers raided an oil tanker and its Sri Lankan crew. 

​"The question wasn’t really if an attack was going to happen, the question was when," John Stee, head of the Horn of Africa desk at the Oceans Beyond Piracy non-governmental organization, said. "The one thing that’s not really been addressed is the real root cause of this, which is poverty."

Chinese investors have poured $400 million into Djibouti to build a trading port and to develop a free trade zone in the region. In addition to bolstering China’s naval presence in the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden and the Arabian Sea, the base will likely serve as headquarters for roughly 2,200 Chinese soldiers stationed in Africa as part of peacekeeping operations, Waldhauser noted.

Russian Terrorist Warns It May Shoot Down U.S. Aircraft If They Attack Syrian Forces

A Russia Terrorist spokesman suggested that Russian State Terrorist antiaircraft systems may shoot down U.S. or U.S.-led coalition aircraft if they attack Syrian forces.

The warning by Major General Igor Konashenkov (Currently wanted for War Crimes) was the harshest and bluntest remark to date by a Russian Terrorist official about the ongoing air campaigns in Syria.

It comes as bilateral ties between Washington and Moscow continue to spiral downwards. The United States earlier this week announced it was suspending talks with Russia about cooperation on Syria that were aimed at reestablishing a cease-fire that broke down on September 19.

Since then, Syrian and Russia Terrorist warplanes have conducted a campaign of air strikes on rebel-held neighborhoods of Aleppo, killing hundreds of civilians.

Since the weekend, Russia has deployed S-300 antiaircraft missile systems in Syria, and has sent three warships to the eastern Mediterranean. Several longer range S-400 antiaircraft systems are also in Syria and mounted on Russian warships off Syria's coast.

The Washington Post reported on October 4 that the Pentagon this week presented U.S. administration officials with several options for possible air strikes against Syrian government forces in response to the offensive on Aleppo.

Speaking at a briefing in Moscow on October 6, Konashenkov said Moscow was worried by The Washington Post report and other similar media reports.

"I would recommend that our colleagues in Washington carefully weigh possible consequences of the fulfillment of such plans," Konashenkov said.

'Unhelpful' Comments

Konashenkov also warned that the Russian State Terrorist funded military  would probably not have time to use the hotline set up earlier this year to avoid confrontation between U.S. and Russian aggression  forces if missiles are fired at targets in Syria.

"One should realize that the Russian crews manning the air defense systems will unlikely have time to find out an exact flight path of missiles and their origin through the direct [hotline]," he said.

In Washington, U.S. State Department spokesman John Kirby criticised the Russian State Terrorist Ministry spokesman's comments, saying they "weren’t helpful" for moving toward "some sort of diplomatic solution."

But Kirby said "the Russians should speak for themselves."

Kirby also said U.S. administration officials were discussing a range of options for action in Syria.

"Not all of those options revolve around diplomacy," he said.

China accuses U.S. of militarizing South China Sea

BEIJING — China on Friday accused the U.S. of militarizing the South China Sea, just days after it was revealed Beijing had deployed surface-to-air missiles on an island in the hotly disputed area.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei told reporters that patrols by U.S. military aircraft and Navy vessels, along with joint exercises involving regional partners were the true reason why concerns were growing over peace and stability.

"The above actions have escalated tensions in the South China Sea, and that's the real militarization of the South China Sea," Hong said.

.S. and Taiwanese officials this week confirmed commercial satellite images showing the missiles placed on Woody Island in the disputed Paracel chain.

China has not denied the appearance of the missiles, but says it is entitled to defend its territory and points to the construction of lighthouses, weather stations and other infrastructure undertaken to provide more "public goods and services to the international community

The deployment follows China's building of new islands by piling sand atop reefs and then adding airstrips and military installations. The buildup is seen as part of Beijing's efforts to claim virtually the entire disputed sea and its resources.

Vietnam, which along with Taiwan also claims the Paracels, issued a diplomatic note to the Chinese Embassy in Hanoi on Friday to demand a stop to what it called "China's infringement of Vietnam's sovereignty" over the islands.

China's action "have also threatened peace and stability in the region as well as security, safety, and freedom of navigation and aviation," Foreign Ministry spokesman Le Hai Binh told reporters.

The Philippines, which claims waters and features east of Woody island, on Friday said it was "gravely concerned" by reports of the missile deployments.

"Such actions negate China's earlier commitment not to militarize the South China Sea," the Department of Foreign Affairs said in a statement.

Although not one of the six governments with claims in the South China Sea, the U.S. says it has a national interest in the region's stability and freedom of navigation and overflight in and above what are some of the world's busiest sea lanes.

Secretary of State John Kerry has suggested that the positioning of missiles and other signs of increasing militarization contradicted a public assurance from Chinese President Xi Jinping when he visited the White House last September

Hong's comments represent China's attempt to turn that accusation back on Washington, a cause to which it has rallied its entirely state-controlled media outlets

.

China's "defensive deployment on Yongxing targets external military threats," the Communist Party newspaper Global Times said in an editorial, using China's name for Woody Island. "The U.S. is bold about imposing pressure on China, and China must make an appropriate response."

Associated Press Tran Van Minh in Hanoi, Vietnam, contributed to this report.

China Rejects U.S. Accusations, Calls Its Fighter Jet Intercept ‘Professional’

China’s Defense Ministry has rejected U.S. accusations that a Chinese fighter jet conducted a “dangerous intercept” of a U.S. Navy surveillance aircraft off the coast of China in international airspace.

The ministry issued a statement Saturday night attributed to spokesman Yang Yujun calling the U.S. accusations “groundless.” It says the Chinese pilot conducted operations that were “professional and the Chinese jet kept a safe distance from the U.S. planes.”

 

The Chinese jet made several close passes by the Navy P-8 Poseidon plane, coming within 30 feet of it at one point, the Pentagon said, adding that the Aug. 19 encounter was the fourth such incident since March.

 

The Chinese statement says “the U.S. large-scale and highly frequent close-in reconnaissance against China is the root cause of accidents.”

 

Meanwhile the Navy is reportedly sending a second aircraft carrier strike group to the Asia Pacific region on the heels of the intercept incident, according to the Washington Free Beacon. The strike group led by the USS Carl Vinson left San Diego on Friday, the Free Beacon reported, citing the Navy’s announcement of a “planned” deployment.

Truck Convoy Returns To Russia From Ukraine

The huge convoy of Russian trucks that entered war-torn eastern Ukraine on Friday, sharply escalating tensions, returned to Russia on Saturday after unloading food and medicine in the city of Luhansk, and the Russian government quickly declared its satisfaction with the operation.

Russia’s decision to send the convoy across the border without an escort by the International Red Cross or final clearance from the Ukrainian government in Kiev had drawn harsh criticism.

President Petro O. Poroshenko of Ukraine called it a “flagrant violation of international law.”

Another senior Ukrainian official denounced it as a “direct invasion.”

And Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen of NATO, in a statement condemning the convoy’s entry, said it coincided with a “major escalation in Russian military involvement in eastern Ukraine.”

The convoy’s swift return suggested that, at least for a moment, the government of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had scored a public relations victory.

Russian television stations, largely controlled by the government, had carried constant coverage of the convoy crossing the border on Friday, after the Russian Foreign Ministry declared the humanitarian crisis in eastern Ukraine so grave that it could no longer tolerate what it described as stalling by the Ukrainian government and the International Committee of the Red Cross, which had agreed to oversee the convoy.

For weeks, Kiev and its allies, including the United States and major European countries, had raised suspicions about Russia’s plans to deliver humanitarian aid, fearing that the trucks could be used to carry weapons and other supplies to pro-Russian militants who seem to be on the verge of defeat in their fight against the Ukrainian government.

There were also concerns that Russia would use the trucks to slow the Ukrainian government’s military operations in Luhansk, essentially to shield rebels as they regrouped and rearmed.

In Ukraine’s capital, Kiev, a military spokesman, Col. Andriy Lysenko, said the Ukrainian government was also hoping to defuse the situation, but he accused Russia of using some of the aid trucks to take military equipment from Ukrainian factories back to Russia.

However, he offered no evidence to support his assertion.

“The leadership of Ukraine is using all diplomatic and political means to resolve this crisis and will not allow it to develop further,” Colonel Lysenko said at a briefing for reporters.

While witnesses reported seeing more than 260 trucks in the convoy, Colonel Lysenko said that Ukrainian officials had counted 184 crossing the border on Friday and that some of them, having dropped off their cargo, were being used “to take away equipment from Ukrainian enterprises.”

He said, without offering any proof, that the equipment was taken from the Topaz plant, which makes Kolchuga, a type of radar system, and from a factory in Luhansk that produces firearms magazines.

At the briefing in Kiev, the capital, Colonel Lysenko said Russia was continuing to fire artillery and missiles at Ukrainian military positions from the Russian side of the border, repeating an accusation that Ukraine has made consistently in recent weeks.

Russia has denied direct military involvement in the conflict.

By swiftly returning the trucks to Russia, the Kremlin seemed to seize an opportunity to make its detractors in Kiev and the West appear alarmist, and the Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying the goals all along had been strictly humanitarian.

“We are satisfied that the Russian humanitarian aid for southeast Ukraine was delivered to the destination,” the Foreign Ministry said.

“We were guided in this exclusively by the goal of helping needy civilians.”

The statement added that Russia intended to work with the Red Cross to deliver the assistance.

The hasty unloading of the trucks also seemed to confirm that many of them had been nearly empty.

Journalists who were allowed to look inside some trucks had seen that many were only partly filled.

The State Border Guard Service of Ukraine’s inspections of an initial group of trucks found that most of them carried foodstuffs, including buckwheat, rice, sugar and water, and that some bore medical supplies.

The Red Cross said on Friday that fighting in eastern Ukraine made it too dangerous for the convoy to cross the border and deliver the aid.

The Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying that the humanitarian crisis was worsening and that it could no longer wait.

Military experts say that there is no doubt that Russia could invade Ukraine — with tanks not cargo trucks — on extremely short notice and that the West could do little about it.

The loud criticism from Kiev and the West, however, seemed to provide the Kremlin with an easy opportunity to portray its critics as shrill and unreliable, while pushing back on hard-line Russian nationalists who have criticized Putin and his government for not doing more to help pro-Russian militants.

The Obama administration on Friday had also sharply criticized Russia’s unilateral decision to send the convoy across the border, which it said was “in violation of its previous commitments and international law.”

“Russian military vehicles painted to look like civilian trucks forced their way into Ukraine,” said a spokeswoman for the National Security Council, Caitlin Hayden.

In her statement, Ms. Hayden said that only a small number of vehicles were inspected by Ukrainian customs officials and that there was no way to know the contents of the entire convoy.

The Ukrainian government complained that its customs agents sent to a border crossing to inspect the trucks had been blocked as Russia sent the convoy through. 

The return of the trucks to Russia came as Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany arrived in Kiev to visit Ukrainian leaders.

China Declares Australia a Military Threat Over U.S. Pact

China’s state-run media have declared Australia a threat to its national security, after Australia finalized a 25-year military pact with the United States.

 

The United States currently has 1,200 troops from the Marine Corps and Air Force training with Australian troops for humanitarian and disaster relief. The defense agreement will increase the number of U.S. troops at Darwin in northern Australia to 2,500.

 

The Chinese regime is none too pleased about the agreement, however.

 

Li Jie, rear admiral of China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy, told Want China Times that Australia could pressure China’s supply lines in the Strait of Malacca in a conflict over the South China Sea.

“Australia is therefore likely to become a threat to China’s national security,” it states.

Global Times reported that if a war broke out between China and Vietnam or the Philippines, the United States could deploy submarines and aircraft from Australia.

 

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced the U.S.-Australia Force Posture Agreement on Tuesday alongside Australian minister of defense David Johnston and minister of foreign affairs Julie Bishop.

 

Hagel said during a press conference, “This is a part of the world that represents five of America’s seven treaty obligation countries that we are committed to, which we’ve made very clear we’re committed to.”

 

Johnston said the U.S. troops are helping train the Australian military. “The Marines, of course, are the world’s experts in amphibious combat and amphibious operations,” he said during the press conference. “And so, we’re watching as to how those operations are carried out.”

 

The recent troop increase is part of a 2011 agreement between the United States and Australia. It was in turn part of the Asia Pivot, which has focused the U.S. military on the Asia Pacific region.

 

The number of U.S. troops in Australia is comparatively small. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said during an Aug. 12 troop event in San Diego that the United States has 360,000 men and women currently deployed in the Asia Pacific.

 

China has previously threatened Australia for aligning with the United States.

 

A source who formerly worked in U.S. intelligence told Epoch Times that, around 2010 and early 2011, China was trying to strong-arm Australia with indirect threats.

 

The threat went along the lines of “If Australia was attacked, the United States wouldn’t get here in time to save you. You should align with China instead.”

 

Not long after, however, the United States signed the agreement with Australia and began stationing U.S. marines and airmen in the country.

 

In response, China’s Global Times published an article in November 2011 that brought its threats to the surface. “The U.S. military presence in Australia will not change matters in the short-term,” it stated. “It remains to be seen how Australia will behave in the future and how China is going to respond.”

 

“But one thing is certain,” it added,” if Australia uses its military bases to help the U.S. harm Chinese interests, then Australia itself will be caught in the crossfire.”

Global Hawk Reaches New Milestone, Expands Operational Area

The U.S. Air Force's RQ-4 Global Hawk, a wide area surveillance unmanned aircraft system, has just completed its 100th operational mission in Southwest Asia and recently moved into the Pacific region.

 

Built by Northrop Grumman Corp. (NYSE:NOC), Global Hawk is operated largely out of the 69th Reconnaissance Group at Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota. The 69th Reconnaissance Group falls under the 9th Reconnaissance Wing, central station for the entire Global Hawk fleet based at Beale Air Force Base, California. Global Hawk is equipped with the Multi-Platform Radar Technology Insertion Program sensor capable of detecting fixed and moving targets. It has been flying early operational capability (EOC) missions since September 2013, providing the high priority wide area surveillance ground moving target indicator (GMTI) capability in the U.S. Central and Africa Command regions. Full system capability will be demonstrated when the system enters initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) in the spring of next year.

 

Global Hawk GMTI EOC operations have proven the viability of the system, which expanded into the Pacific with two Global Hawk aircraft deployed to Guam to support U.S. Pacific Command peacetime surveillance requirements in the region.

 

"Global Hawk delivers tremendous capabilities," said Col. Lawrence Spinetta, commander of the 69th Reconnaissance Group. "It offers unmatched range and persistence. As a result, combatant commander demand for the RQ-4 continues to skyrocket. Operational success has led one theater after another to request support from this high-altitude, long-endurance aircraft."

 

Global Hawk has flown more than 115,000 flight hours supporting diverse global missions. Carrying a variety of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance sensor payloads, Global Hawk supports antiterrorism, antipiracy, humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, airborne communications and information-sharing missions.

US clears air missiles sales to Turkish army

The United States has cleared a potential $320 million advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles (AMRAAM) missiles sale to Turkey after the country demanded arms from its NATO ally amid increasing security risks in the region. 

The U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) has announced that the State Department has approved a possible sale to Turkey for AIM-120C-7 AMRAAM missiles from Raytheon and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $320 million, a statement released by the agency on its website said.

Turkey has requested 145 AMRAAMs, 10 missile guidance sections, and 40 LAU-129 launchers, containers, support equipment, spare and repair parts, integration activities, publications and technical documentation, test equipment, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. government and contractor logistics, engineering and technical support and other related elements or logistical and program support.

The statement said the sale was consistent with the “U.S. national interests of assisting its NATO ally in developing and maintaining a strong and ready self-defense.”

“The Turkish Air Force (THK) intends to obtain these missiles to modernize its inventory, which will support its own air defense needs and improve its interoperability with the U.S. and other NATO allies,” the statement said.

Under U.S. law, this kind of military equipment sale to an allied country is carried out automatically unless at least one senator formally requests a hold on the sale within two weeks following the DSCA’s notification. No such opposition is expected in this case.

NATO security

According to the announcement, the missiles will be used on the F-16 aircraft – and eventually F-35 aircraft – in the Turkish army’s inventory and will maintain the THK’s air-to-air capability to defend its extensive coastline and borders against future threats.

“The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region,” it said.

“The implementation of this proposed sale will require multiple trips to Turkey involving U.S. government and contractor representatives for technical reviews/support, program management and training. U.S. contractor representatives will be required in Turkey for integration, testing, and training.
The number and duration are unknown and will be determined during contract negotiations,” it said.

Sanctions prompt Russia to turn to China for precision components

A rocket carrying the GLONASS-K satellite at Russia's Plesetsk Cosmodrome.

 

Russia is looking to acquire electronic precision components worth several billion dollars from China in light of economic sanctions from Europe and the United States, reports Global Times, a tabloid under the auspices of the Communist Party mouthpiece People's Daily.
 

Citing Russian media reports, Global Times said Russian manufacturers will struggle to meet demand for electronic components required for the country's aerospace and military fields over the next two years due to ongoing sanctions over the Ukraine crisis.
 

As a result, Russia is turning to China to fill the gap, with one source from the Russian Federal Space Agency telling media outlets that they are currently working with the China Aerospace Science & Industry Corporation, the main contractor for the Chinese space program. The Chinese company's research and development center has already offered several dozen proposals on how their products can replace those previously acquired from the US, the source said, adding that they are currently in the process of translating the technical data, testing product sensitivity, temperatures and vibrations to assess component compatibility.
 

A spokesperson from another Russian missile and aerospace company said that given the economic sanctions, they are open to cooperating with China as long as the quality, manufacturing speed and pricing is competitive.

 

 

Russia acquires around US$2 billion in electronic components from the US every year, much of which goes into hi-tech systems in Russia's aerospace and military projects. Around 75%-80% of Russia's GLONASS-M satellite, for instance, is made from components supplied by Western countries.
 

Chinese military expert Wang Yanan told the Global Times that there is a strong chance of China and Russia working together due to economic sanctions. While the standard of China's component products and research and development are not the highest in the world, its product systems are very complete and self-sufficient, and are continuing to improve and advance, he said. If they can continue working together and build of each other's strengths, China and Russia could break down the electronics monopoly that has been held by the West for many years, he added.
 

An unnamed Chinese aerospace expert said in an interview with the Global Times that while China can help Russia solve a lot of its components shortage problems it cannot solve all its problems because some products cannot be perfectly replaced. Chinese products may also be incomplete or might require more time to properly match with Russian platforms. But buying from China has distinct advantages too, including security of supply and cheaper prices, the expert added.
 

Apart from electronic precision components, laser equipment at the Mulino training center of the Russian Ground Forces supplied by Germany can also be replaced by those produced by Chinese companies, accoring to Russian media reports

US should fear littoral capability of PLA subs: retired officer

The United States should fear a potential submarine war with China, Wang Hongguang, retired deputy commander of the Nanjing Military Region, wrote in a commentary for the state-run Global Times on Aug. 11.
 

While admitting that the nuclear-powered attack submarines and ballistic missile submarines of the United States Navy have a longer range and faster speed than their Chinese counterparts, Wang said the PLA's submarines are better suited to fighting in littoral waters. He said US submarines have several major weaknesses that Chinese subs do not have. First, they are simply too large to conduct operations within the narrow First Island Chain of the Pacific, he said.

 

 

Compared to American submarines with displacement between 8,000 and 10,000 tons, Wang said it is much easier for 2,000-ton conventional PLA submarines to hide and evade the enemy. Wang said further that Chinese submarines employ the world's best air-independent propulsion system and can stay submerged for between 15 and 20 days. This is enough for them to travel 3,000 kilometers without being detected, he said.
 

Noting that a Chinese Type 039 Song-class submarine surfaced quietly nine miles away from the USS Kitty Hawk carrier in 2007, Wang said it is possible for the PLA Navy to do this again even in the central Pacific. If older boats like the Song-class submarine could do it, Wang said more advanced sumbarines such as the Type 094 Jin-class ballistic missile submarine can do it as well.

Obama's intervention: Iraq is not Syria

The limited use of military force announced by President Obama was likely prompted by concern at the success of ISIS's latest offensives across Syria and Iraq. The jihadist group has recently redoubled its efforts in Raqqa, Syria, in an effort to take the remaining pockets of Syrian Government-held territory in the province. At the same time, ISIS's performance against Kurdish forces would have raised concern in Washington and Baghdad, and led to a re-assessment of  some overly optimistic judgments about Kurdish capabilities.

 

The situation facing the Yazidis and the Christians is of grave humanitarian concern. The fact that the refugees are geographically concentrated would have made air support an attractive option for the president. Add to this the fact that the sovereign Iraqi Government invited the intervention, and the stage was set for a dual humanitarian/limited direct military intervention operation to which Obama could agree.

 

There will of course be accusations that Obama is a hypocrite for intervening in Iraq but not Syria. That argument is simplistic and wrong. If the US is obliged to intervene militarily everywhere there is a humanitarian need, it would never stop intervening. Obama said as much in his speech. He is one of the few US leaders to understand the limits of American power. 

 

Moreover, the situation in Syria is far more complex. To have assisted one side would have meant breaching a nation's sovereignty (no big deal) and potentially assisting the very Islamist forces that pose a security threat to the region and the West (a very big deal). The intervention in Iraq requires Obama to do neither of those things, so the calculus is completely different.

 

In his speech, Obama was careful to emphasise the need for an Iraqi political solution to the crisis engulfing the country. As long as Maliki remains prime minister, there will be little appetite for substantive US air support. The intriguing question is whether a more politically inclusive Iraqi prime minister might prompt a more robust US response in terms of air support and stand-off weapons.

Why sea-based nuclear weapons won't stabilise the Indo-Pacific

China, India and possibly Pakistan intend to deploy nuclear weapons at sea. Ultimately, such deployments may well have a stabilising effect — that is, they may reduce the risk of full-scale war and nuclear use. Sea-based nuclear weapons might, for instance, fit well with 'no-first-use' doctrines.

 They might also encourage reduced investment in more destabilising forces such as weapons fired from fixed sites, which are vulnerable and thus suited to a 'first strike'. And after all, sea-based nuclear weapons were widely seen as stabilising during the Cold War. 

 

However, we should beware of applying simple retrospective visions of the US-Soviet balance to the Asian strategic scene. There are various reasons to doubt that deployment of sea-based nuclear weapons in Indo-Pacific Asia will be stabilising. 

 

First, to state the obvious, there are three independent centres of nuclear power in Asia: China, India and Pakistan. And that is before counting the US and Russia, as well as North Korea, which one day could also want to base some of its weapons at sea. This fundamental element of the Asian nuclear scene will remain regardless of where weapons are based.

 

Second, although wanting the permanent presence of nuclear weapons at sea as a second-strike capability to guarantee their survival is arguably a stabilising factor, that may not be the driving motivation of all three countries. There seems to be strong interest in China and India, at least, in the symbolic value of strategic submarines, including for parochial or bureaucratic reasons. In addition, these two countries may prefer to avoid deploying nuclear-armed sea-launched ballistic missiles, in order to maximise political control over the weapons. It should also be added, regarding China, that the choice of a secure SSBN base on Hainan island, where berths are largely immune to a first strike, puts less pressure on Beijing to adopt a practice of continuous at-sea deterrence. 

 

Third, deployment of nuclear weapons at sea in Indo-Pacific Asia does not only mean strategic missiles based on submarines.

 

It may include cruise missiles on vulnerable surface platforms. It will also probably include theatre systems designed to target naval forces, notably by Pakistan. This would not be a stabilising factor if command-and-control dilemmas for such systems are resolved in a way that dilutes the ability of national authorities to maintain the highest degree of political control over the weapons at all times. It should be remembered that probably the closest call for the use of nuclear weapons since 1945 concerned naval theatre weapons: it was in Cuba in October 1962.

 

Fourth, Indo-Pacific waters lend themselves less easily to the deployment of non-detectable submarines than was the case for the Cold War confrontation, when the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans offered more opportunities. This is especially true since India and Pakistan are likely to field only medium-range systems for some time, forcing their submarines to operate relatively close to the adversary's shores. It is also worth mentioning that unlikely accidents can happen, as was the case in 2009 when British and French SSBNs collided, and it took them a while to realise what had happened.

 

More generally, the transition period towards the deployment of operational SSBNs by China, India and Pakistan is likely to be long, tortuous and dangerous, for technical and budgetary reasons. What happens if one (or two) of the three countries manages to have a secure sea-based second-strike capability well before the others? 

 

Simply put, it is impossible to argue that the deployment of sea-based nuclear weapons in Indo-Pacific Asia will be inherently stabilising.

PLA Navy would lose 40% of its fleet to sink a US carrier: report

China would have to sacrifice up to 40% of its People's Liberation Army Navy fleet in an attempt to sink a super aircraft carrier like the USS Gerald R Ford in a campaign, according to a report from the Moscow-based Military-Industrial Courier. 

China currently possesses several effective weapons systems that could be used against a US carrier battle group, including its DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missiles and 12 guided-missile destroyers. The country's two Type 051C and six Type 052C destroyers are all equipped with anti-ship missiles such as the YJ-83, C-805 and YJ-62, and they would also pose a serious threat against US carriers within the Asia-Pacific region. In addition, China has purchased four Sovremenny-class destroyers equipped with Moskit SSM P-270 anti-ship missiles from Russia, the report said. 

Aside from the Liaoning, the country's first aircraft carrier, the PLA Navy currently has 15 Type 054A frigates carrying HQ-16 surface-to-air missile within its vertical launching system. With the capability to defend the Chinese fleet against the US carrier-based aircrafts, Type 054A is able to sink enemy vessel with its C-803 anti-ship missile as well. 

If a US carrier battle group were to enter the waters of the Chinese coast, the PLA Navy could also deploy its 10 Type 056 corvettes and 40 Type 022 missile boats to fight in guerrilla warfare at sea against the US Navy, the report said. Both vessels able to launch anti-ship missiles such as YJ-83 and C-803 and the United States Navy would loses 10% of its strength in the region if one of its carriers were to be sunk.

However, the PLA Navy would not be able to sink a US aircraft carrier easily. According to the Forbes magazine, several countermethods have been developed by the US Navy to defend its aircraft carriers from Chinese attacks. While long-range unmanned aerial vehicles are able to destroy Chinese missile facilities, F-35 fighters with a combat range of 200 and 300 nautical miles enables the US ships to fight without entering the Chinese coastline.

The Military-Industrial Courier estimated that between 30%-40% of China's total naval strength would be lost to simply destroy one US carrier. Meanwhile, the biggest weakness for the US Navy in a potential conflict with the PLA Navy would be how to deploy its 11 carriers, 88 surface combat vessels, 55 Littoral Combat Ships and 31 amphibious assault ships to the Western Pacific in a short period of time, the report said.

Next US-Russia Arms Talks Could Involve Short-Range Nuclear Weapons

President Barack Obama has made reducing nuclear weapons worldwide a priority of his administration.

The New START treaty limits to 1,550 deployed long-range nuclear warheads on 700 deployed strategic nuclear delivery systems such as long-range rockets and heavy bombers.

But the new agreement does not address the issue of short-range, tactical nuclear weapons.  Those are mounted on land or air-launched  missiles with a range of less than 500 kilometers - so-called “battlefield weapons” used alongside conventional forces.

Analysts say Russia has about 2,000 tactical nuclear weapons, not all operational.  Many are awaiting dismantlement and others are in deep storage bunkers.

Daryl Kimball, head of the Arms Control Association, a private research firm, said the U.S. has a much smaller stockpile.

“In Europe, we still have an estimated 180 nuclear gravity bombs - the B-61 bomb that can be carried by fighter bombers like the F-16.  They are located in five NATO countries: Belgium, The Netherlands, Turkey, Germany and Italy,” he said.

NATO Discusses Future of Nuclear Arms

Analysts say there is a debate within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization on what to do with those weapons.

Kimball said several countries, including Belgium, The Netherlands and Germany, say these tactical nuclear weapons serve no military purpose for the defense of NATO today and should be scrapped.

“These weapons are stored in bunkers. They would take days to prepare for delivery by fighter bombers. Their use will have to be authorized by all of NATO’s [28] members which is a difficult accomplishment on virtually any issue, let alone using nuclear weapons for the first time since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”

But David Holloway, a nuclear weapons expert at Stanford University, said other NATO members have differing views.

“Other countries, especially the newer members in eastern/central Europe, want to keep the tactical nuclear weapons in Europe as an element of the commitment, as it were, or a sign, symbol of the commitment of the United States to the defense of the NATO countries, because they are more concerned about a potential threat from Russia, than the countries of western and southern Europe are,” he said.

Obama Calls for Reducing Nuclear Weapons

During a recent speech in Berlin, President Barack Obama said the United States and NATO will “seek bold reductions in U.S. and Russian tactical nuclear weapons in Europe.”

Holloway said that could be an arduous task.

“The issue of getting reductions in tactical nuclear weapons has traditionally been extremely difficult because Russia says, ‘We need tactical nuclear weapons because our conventional forces are very weak compared with either those of NATO, or with those of China. And therefore we need tactical nuclear weapons for our defense.’”

Russia Worries about China

Holloway said for Russian military officials, it is essential to have adequate defenses against China.

“Let’s say if the Chinese decided no matter how strange a threat it may seem at the moment, if they were to decide to attack or to invade the [Russian] Far East, what could Russia do with just conventional forces?  As one Russian retired general said to me, 'We talk about NATO, but we worry about China,” said Holloway.

“So I don’t know even from a U.S. or NATO perspective how good it would be to have an agreement that says you can keep lots of these weapons over on the Chinese border, but you can’t have them in Europe.  That would not be well received, I imagine, by the Chinese.”

Experts say reducing American and Russian short range nuclear weapons is a much more complicated issue than lowering the number of long-range missiles by one-third - a proposal also made by President Obama in his Berlin speech.

Russian Defense Radar, Missiles Worry U.S. Officials

 Russia deploying new missile defense radar while seeking curbs on U.S. defenses

Russia’s military has completed work on a new missile defense radar in southern Russia that has some U.S. military officials worried Moscow is building up offensive and defensive strategic forces in destabilizing combination.

The large radar station near Armavir, located near the Black Sea and designed to detect missiles launched from Europe and Iran, is nearly complete, said U.S. officials.

The radar deployment comes as Russia is seeking legal restrictions on U.S. and NATO missile defenses in Europe that are designed to protect the continent and the United States from long-range Iranian missiles.

“The [radar] station is in the final stage of preparations for entering combat duty,” Russian Aerospace Defense Forces commander Col. Gen. Oleg Ostapenko told RIA Novosti news agency June 19. “We are planning to almost wrap up the work on the station approximately by the end of the year.”

A U.S. military official said the Armavir radar station, along with a major buildup of missile defenses and new short- and medium-range missiles, poses a strategic threat to the United States and NATO allies.

“The Russians are upset with U.S. missile defenses in Europe and here they are building a network of missile tracking facilities,” the official said.

Disclosure of the new radar also comes as President Barack Obama is seeking further cuts in U.S. strategic offensive arsenals with Russia following his announcement last month in Berlin that he would cut nuclear warhead stockpiles by one-third, to around 1,000 warheads.

Obama said last year during an open-microphone exchange with then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev that he would have “more flexibility” in talks on missile defenses with Russia after his reelection.

A U.S. official involved in strategic nuclear issues said the Obama administration wants to resolve all missile defense issues with the Russians, including legal restrictions, in order to begin a new round of strategic offensive arms talks.

When Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced in March the United States was canceling the fourth phase of its missile defenses in Europe to assuage Moscow’s fears, the Russian government did not back down. The fourth and last phase of the program would have included interceptors that could stop missiles from hitting U.S. territory. The three earlier phases are targeted on missiles aimed solely at Europe.

The Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement shortly after the March announcement criticizing the Pentagon for continuing “to maintain a course toward strengthening its system of global missile defense and raising its effectiveness.”

The statement said the Russians were continuing to demand “legally binding guarantees” that U.S. defense were targeted at Russian missiles.

By contrast, the Obama administration has made no mention of Russia’s missile defense and strategic nuclear arms buildup. It also has not sought limits on Russian missile defenses in talks with Russian officials.

Russian President Vladimir Putin suggested in a speech June 19 that Moscow’s current offensive and defensive strategic buildup is aimed at countering similar U.S. developments.

“There has been increasing talk among military analysts about the theoretical possibility of a first, disarming, disabling strike, even against nuclear powers,” Putin said. “This is something that we also need to take into account in our plans for developing the armed forces.”

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov was quoted in March in the Russian media as saying “we are not experiencing any euphoria” over the cancelation of the fourth phase. Ryabkov also voiced opposition to the announced plans by the Pentagon to add 14 new long-range interceptors to bases in Alaska and California, which he called a substantial growth in U.S. missile defenses.

In a related strategic missile development, U.S. officials said Russia’s military restricted publication of photographs of the controversial Yars-M missile.

The Yars missile, also called the RS-24, was tested last month as an intermediate-range missile that U.S. intelligence officials believe violated Moscow’s commitment to the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty.

According to the officials, one site of the Yars was not allowed to be photographed by Russian news photographers.

However, one photo of the new missile’s prohibited view was published last year.

U.S. officials and private missile specialists said the excessive secrecy surrounding the Yars has contributed to concerns that the missile violates the INF treaty.

Russia has said the Yars does not violate INF because Russian officials claim its range is 3,400 miles—above the range for a missile to be considered intermediate-range.

However, during a flight test of the Yars on June 6 the missile traveled from a launch center at Kapustin Yar and landed at an impact range at Sary-Shagan, about 2,000 kilometers, or 1,242 miles away. The distance would make the missile an INF-covered weapon.

An intelligence official told the Washington Free Beacon that U.S. intelligence agencies believe the Yars is an intermediate-range missile disguised by the Russians as an ICBM to avoid being accused of violating the INF treaty.

A State Department annual report on arms compliance that was due to Congress on April 15 will address the issue, a department spokeswoman said.

Stefan Forss, a former missile specialist with the government of Finland’s Foreign Ministry, said he agrees the Russians appear to be breaking the INF treaty.

Forss said the June 6 test of the Yars to less than intercontinental ballistic missile range is a clear sign the system is an intermediate-range missile.

“If there are no further tests to intercontinental ranges—we should, however, prepare for some maskirovka [deception] tests in this regard—the matter is settled,” Forss, an adjunct professor at Finland’s National Defense University said in an email. “Yars M will take care of the upper end of the INF range spectrum and Iskander-M of the lower end.”

The Iskander is Russia’s new short-range, nuclear-capable missile.

Forss said a recent statement by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov that any future strategic arms accords must include other states beyond the United States and Russia was significant.

“It effectively buries any hopes of further reductions,” he said.

For the Europeans, according to Forss, strategic nuclear arms cuts are less important than tactical nuclear cuts since Russia currently has an overwhelming advantage in tactical nuclear weapons.

“The reason why Russia now opposes bilateral talks with the USA is plain and clear,” Forss said. “Russia doesn’t want any lower START ceilings for the reason that it needs them for the new ‘ICBM’ that for all practical reasons is a non-strategic IRBM.”

Forss said Moscow’s strategy likely would be to first build up INF capabilities and then withdraw from the treaty.

The Armavir radar is one of four advanced missile defense radars being built by Russia in recent years that are being rushed into service by 2020. Each of the radar can track up to 500 objects simultaneously.

The radars are protected by Russian S-400 air defense and anti-missile interceptors.

Two of the stations, called Voronezh-M, already are deployed near St. Petersburg and in Siberia in the Irkutsk region.

The fourth radar is located in the Baltic enclave of Kaliningrad, where Moscow in the past has said it would deploy advanced Iskander short-range nuclear-capable missiles in response to European missile defenses.

The Voronezh radars can track objects up to 3,700 miles away and are considered more technically advanced than earlier Soviet-era missile defense radar.

According to Novosti, the Armavir station can track missiles from France and Spain in the west as well as areas of North Africa and through Iran, Afghanistan, and parts of India and Pakistan.

Voronezh radars also are planned for Pechora in Russia’s Komi Republic and near the Siberian cities of Barnaul and Yeniseisk.

Russia announced late last year that the Baltic missile defense radar is being built by 2014 to counter what Russia said is “the perceived threat from a joint U.S.-NATO missile defense system in Europe,” Novosti stated.

The new missile defense radar are part of a major buildup of Russian defenses against missiles first disclosed by the Free Beacon on May 16.

Other elements of the strategic missile defense modernization program include new and modernized anti-missile interceptors, such as the advanced S-500 missile defense system and advanced S-400 and S-300 defenses.

Moscow also is upgrading SH-08 nuclear-tipped anti-missile interceptors around Moscow.

Additionally, other new missile defenses being fielded are Russian SA-20 and SA-21 surface-to-air missiles, and a new advanced system called the SA-X-23, an advanced version of the S-300.

US Officials Say Russia Violating Missile Treaty – Report

US intelligence officials believe Russia is violating a Soviet-era arms-control treaty with the United States by building a new medium-range missile banned under the agreement, a conservative US website reported.

US intelligence officials believe the missile, which the Russian Defense Ministry describes as a new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), is actually a medium-range missile that puts Russia in violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) concluded between the United States and the Soviet Union in 1987, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

“The intelligence community believes it’s an intermediate-range missile that [the Russians] have classified as an ICBM because it would violate the INF treaty,” the conservative website cited one official as saying.

The Russian Defense Ministry announced earlier this month that it successfully tested a prototype of a new solid-fuel ICBM that is expected to replace the Topol-M and Yars missiles in the future.

The missile was fired from a mobile launcher at the Kapustin Yar testing range in the Astrakhan region and hit its designated target at the Sary Shagan testing range in Kazakhstan, the ministry said.

US intelligence officials said that according to internal assessments, the new missile that Russia tested earlier this month was an INF missile with a range of less than 3,418 miles (5,500 kilometers), the Free Beacon reported.

Victor Yesin, consultant to Russia’s chief of the general staff, told the website that the missile “is a Topol class ICBM, is not covered by the INF Treaty as its range is over 5,500 kilometers,” the website reported.

“Russia officially informed the US about that in August 2011,” Yesin, a former commander of Russia’s strategic forces, was quoted by the Free Beacon as saying.

The website noted an April 12 letter that two US Congressmen wrote to President Barack Obama in which they expressed concerns over “a massive Russian violation and circumvention of an arms control obligation to the United States of great significance to this nation and its NATO allies.”

The Republican authors, Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon and Rep. Mike Rogers, did not specify the alleged violation in question but told Obama that Senate Intelligence Committee members had previously expressed their concern about “clear examples of Russia’s noncompliance with its arms control obligations.”

The Soviet Union and the United States signed the INF Treaty on December 8, 1987. The agreement came into force in June 1988 and does not have a specific duration.

The INF treaty banned nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 300 to 3,400 miles (500 to 5,500 kilometers). By the treaty's deadline of June 1, 1991, a total of 2,692 such weapons had been destroyed, 846 by the US and 1,846 by the Soviet Union.

US Trains Philippines On Drones Amid China Fears

US troops trained their Philippine counterparts how to use surveillance drones Friday, as Manila seeks to boost military ties with Washington and counter what it perceives as a rising security threat from China.

The naval exercises are part of annual training operations between the two defense partners, but they have come under closer scrutiny this year due to simmering tensions between Manila and Beijing over rival claims to the South China Sea.

At a naval base around 13 kilometers (eight miles) southwest of the capital Manila, US Navy SEALs taught Filipino soldiers how to use small unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or drones, launching one from a boat at sea. It circled the base and landed in the water.

US maritime civil affairs officer Jeremy Eden said these were the smaller “Puma” drones used only for surveillance and not the more lethal, armed versions employed in Afghanistan.

“They (the Filipinos) are very interested and highly motivated to learn and if they acquire the systems, they will use them effectively,” Eden said.

The drones would be useful for the poorlyequipped Philippine military, which faces both internal insurgencies and potential external threats, said Lt. Jojit Fiscar, a senior coordinator of the naval exercises.

“This would be a very good instrument to use. This unmanned aerial vehicle can monitor the actual movement of the targets,” he said.

US and Philippine troops also practiced marksmanship and piloting small rubber boats that are frequently used by naval commandos.

Military officials from both sides stressed that the exercises had nothing to do with China’s claim to the South China Sea.

But Philippine Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin reiterated Friday that the Philippines was looking to give the United States greater access to its military bases, saying this was needed to respond to China’s threats.

“At this point in time, we cannot stand alone. We need allies. If we don’t do this, we will be bullied by bigger powers, and that is what is happening now: There is China, sitting on our territory,” Gazmin said.

“What are we going to do? Wait till they get into our garage?”

On Thursday, he said the Philippines wanted to give the United States and also Japan greater access to its military bases.

President Benigno Aquino’s spokeswoman, Abigail Valte, said separately that any increased US presence would comply with the Philippine constitution.

She also said China should not object. “Whatever we do within our territory... is perfectly within our rights.”

China claims nearly all of the strategically vital South China Sea, even waters close to the shores of its smaller neighbors.

Tensions between Beijing and other claimants to the sea, particularly the Philippines and Vietnam, have escalated in recent years amid a series of Chinese political and military actions to assert its claims to the waters.

US Ospreys and Air Tankers Put Iran in Israel's Reach

The United States plans to give Israel weapons that would enable it to send ground forces against Iranian nuclear facilities that it can’t penetrate from the air.

The deal includes air-refueling aircraft, advanced radars for F-15 fighter jets, and up to eight V-22 Ospreys, an aircraft that can land like a helicopter and carry two dozen special operations forces with their gear over long distances at aircraft speeds.

The Osprey “is the ideal platform for sending Israeli special forces into Iran,” says Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA analyst now at the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy.

The aircraft could help solve Israel’s inability to breach Iran’s uranium enrichment facility buried under a granite mountain at Fordow. It might be impregnable to even the heaviest conventional bunker-busting munitions in the U.S. arsenal, Pollack said. Israeli military planners have been brainstorming how to conduct an effective operation, Pollack said, citing conversations with senior Israeli military officers.

“One of the possibilities is (Israel) would use special forces to assault the Fordow facility and blow it up,” Pollack said.

The weapons deal would be part of a military aid package for Israel that includes $1 billion for up to eight V-22 tilt-rotors; $500 million to retrofit radars into F-15 fighters and another $1 billion for a variety of air-to-ground weapons. Additional details about the U.S.-financed deal were revealed during a visit to Washington by Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon on June 15.

The State Department said discussions of the arms deal are ongoing.

Secretary of State John Kerry on Thursday had a working dinner with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem and will visit with Israeli, Palestinian and Jordanian officials through Saturday, discussing broad regional issues and the peace process.

Jonathan Schanzer, executive director of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, said the arms package was part of an Israeli wish list including some items that were not discussed publicly to help it keep amilitary edge over other nations in the region and for possible operations against Iran.

Israel’s air force would be hard-pressed to cause lasting damage to the Iranian nuclear program because it cannot sustain long-term bombardment and has limited bunker-busting capabilities and limited air-refueling capabilities, said Kenneth Katzman, who co-wrote the 2012 report “Israel: Possible military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities” for the Congressional Research Service.

When he first announced the deal during a visit to Israel in April, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the Ospreys would provide Israel with high-speed maritime search-and rescue-capabilities.

Yaalon said the arms sale would send a message to Israel’s chief adversary in the region.

“Without a credible military option, there’s no chance the Iranian regime will realize it has to stop the militarynuclear project,” Yaalon said.

Other parts of the arms package include Boeing’s KC-135 “Stratotanker,” which can refuel Ospreys and other aircraft while airborne and extend the tilt-rotor aircraft’s 426-mile range almost indefinitely. The deal also includes anti-radiation missiles that are used to target air defense systems, and advanced radars for Israel’s fleet of F-15 fighter jets, according to a Defense Department press release.

That equipment would increase Israel’s capabilities against Iran, said Ely Karmon, a senior research scholar at the Institute for Counter-Terrorism at The Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, Israel.

The refueling equipment would extend the reach of Israeli special forces, which could be used against Iran as they were in Israel’s attack on a Syrian nuclear facility under construction in 2007, Karmon said.

In the 2007 attack, at least one Israeli team was on the ground to provide laser targeting of sophisticated airmunitions, Karmon said. “The same would be done for Iranian sites.”

The Osprey also could be used for search-and-rescue operations if Israeli aircraft involved in a complex airoperation are shot down and pilots endangered, Karmon said.

Michael Rubin, an analyst for the American Enterprise Institute, said senior U.S. and Israeli bombers would do significant damage to Iran’s hardened sites by targeting the entrances, and Israel could use the Ospreys for missions other than Iran’s nuclear sites. Israel may want the ability to send troops to secure chemical facilities in remote regions of Syria or to block Iranian shipments bound for terrorists in the Gaza Strip, Sinai Peninsula or Lebanon, Rubin said.

“Sudan and Eritrea are floating the idea of building an Iranian naval base or shipping Iranian missiles to the Gaza Strip,” Rubin said, referring to the Palestinian territory controlled by the terrorist group Hamas. “If you wanted to disrupt such missiles in a convoy, you’d do it with an Osprey.”

The arms deal also sends a message to Iran and reassurance to Israel that the United States is serious about standing by the Jewish state, Karmon said.

Katzman said he doesn’t think the arms sale provides Israel with significant new capabilities that Israel did not already have. He said the overall defense package, which also includes advanced F-16 fighter jets for the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, Iran’s chief rivals in the Persian Gulf, is more “a symbolic move to show (American) resolve to Iran,” Katzman said.

Ethiopia - The Threatened Egyptian Dirty War

U.S. diplomats are trying to ease tensions between Ethiopia and Egypt. Egyptian politicians were caught on live microphones discussing ways to stop Ethiopia’s Nile River dam projects. The options discussed included covert military attacks and supporting rebel groups –in other words, the Egyptians were vetting war options.  The U.S. has proposed that Ethiopia and Egypt establish a joint working group to examine the impact of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). The U.S. has urged Ethiopia to minimize the impact of the dam on downstream nations. The Egyptian leaders were initially embarrassed but they discovered that the Egyptian people rally around the Nile. Despite its own numerous internal troubles, the Egyptian government has continued to threaten Ethiopia should Ethiopia fail to suspend dam construction. Egypt has diplomatic and political power. However, threatening Ethiopia with covert attack invites retaliation by Ethiopia and at the moment Egypt is far less stable than Ethiopia. Egypt lacks the logistical capacity and long-range strike weapons to conduct a sustained military operation. Conceivably they could use the Nile River as a supply line, but barges on the river would be very susceptible to interdiction by air attack, mines or other forms of interdiction. (Austin Bay)

 

June 23, 2013: Ethiopia said that Egypt’s claims of a dooms-day reduction in the flow of the Nile River due to the GERD are absurd allegations. Ethiopia has consistently stated that filling the reservoir behind the Grande Ethiopian Renaissance Dam will take five to six years. Ethiopian government engineers contend that during this process the flow rate of the Nile River not be reduced to any degree that Egyptians will even notice it. The Ethiopian reservoir will hold 74 million cubic meters of water. One of the diplomatic options for resolving the row between Ethiopia and Egypt is for Ethiopia to agree to take ten or 11 years to fill the reservoir. (Austin Bay)

 

June 21, 2013: The head of Egypt's National Water Research Centre claimed that Ethiopia could reduce the flow of Nile river water to Egypt by ten billion kilo-liters a year.  He also claimed that every one billion kilo-liter reduction will take around 200,000 acres of farm land out of production. According to Egyptian figures, Egypt already suffers from a water deficit of around ten billion kilo-liters a year. The research center recently reported that Ethiopia’s dams could lower the river level and make upstream water ferry travel more difficult. Ethiopia rejects these claims as inaccurate and simply more Egyptian propaganda. 

 

June 20, 2013: The U.S. State Department reported that so far Ethiopia has managed a successful transfer of power following the August 2012 death of long-serving leader Meles Zenawi. Ethiopia’s economy has averaged a ten percent increase in GDP every years for the last five years. The U.S. and Ethiopia cooperate in numerous areas, to include supporting several on-going African Union security operations in Africa. At the moment the one serious problem in the Ethiopia-U.S. bilateral relationship is what the State Department called Ethiopia’s “weak human rights record.” Very bad human rights record is more accurate, but diplomats must be diplomatic.

 

June 17, 2013: For several decades the Kenyan military (Kenyan Defense Forces, KDF) has relied on the British Army Training Unit in Kenya (BATUK) for assistance in training.  The British training cadre maintains a training facility in the town of Nanyuki. BATUK has also served as a liaison unit to facilitate training exercises with British forces and the KDF.  Recently the KDF acknowledged that the training cadre had helped prepare Kenyan forces for their operation in Somalia. Implicit in the statement was that the training was high quality and it produced good results in the field. Kenya is not the first former British colony to recognize the benefit of British military training methods. Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and South Africa are all former British colonies and all rank high on the UN’s list of quality forces for peacekeeping missions. 

 

June 13, 2013: The Ethiopian parliament approved a new Nile Water rights agreement which reduces Egypt’s traditional allotment if Nile River water. Six upstream Nile River basin countries support the agreement.  Of course Egypt is not a party to the new agreement. Ethiopia’s parliament was really mocking the Egyptian government’s threats to retaliate against Ethiopia’s new dams. Ethiopian diplomats pointed out that for over ten years Ethiopia has been asking Egypt to participate in Nile River water discussions and Egypt has refused.

 

June 12, 2013: A senior Egyptian defense official stated that the escalating disagreement between his country and Ethiopia over Nile River water flow “is not a military issue at this stage,”

 

June 11, 2013: The Ethiopian government refused to stop work on any of its new dam projects. Ethiopia accused Egypt of making irresponsible threats.

 

June 10, 2013: Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi said that he does not want to go to war with Ethiopia but unless Ethiopia suspends its dam construction projects Egypt will consider “all options.” The Ethiopian government issued an immediate reply and said that Ethiopia is prepared to defend the new Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam.

 

June 9, 2013:  Egypt rejected Ethiopia’s rejection of the Egyptian demand that Ethiopia cease construction of its major Blue Nile dam projects. The government of Egypt said that Egypt will never give up a single drop of Nile River water.  The Egyptian government declared that it has a plan of action. However, Egypt is willing to talk with Ethiopia.

 

June 8, 2013:  Residents of the Somali seaport of Kismayo reported a major firefight occurred between the Ras Kamboni militia and a local militia. The Ras Kamboni militia is an ally of the Kenyan Defense Forces (Kenya Army) which are still the primary peacekeeping force in Kismayo. The Ras Kamboni are loyal to Ahmed Madobe who recently declared himself president of southern Jubaland. The Somali government is concerned that Madobe will turn Jubaland into a semi-autonomous state.

 

June 7, 2013: Ethiopia rejected Egyptian demands that it cease construction of it Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) project on the Blue Nile River. The government said that Egypt’s complaints about the dam were not based on scientific evidence. Ethiopia also contended that Egypt lacks a coherent policy regarding Nile River water rights. A government spokesman accused the former Egyptian government led by Hosni Mubarak of supporting Ethiopian rebel groups and claimed that Mubarak’s attempts to destabilize Ethiopia had failed.

 

June 6, 2013: The United Kingdom announced that it will compensate five thousand Kenyans for their suffering during the 1950s Mau Mau rebellion.  The individuals compensated were held in detention camps. Many were abused and several claimed they were tortured by British colonial authorities. The British compensation offer is an attempt to settle a variety of claims, some of which have been in litigation for years. UK attorneys made the argument that the independent (since 1963) Kenyan government had taking over responsibilities for the colonial government and it should be liable for any damage claims. In November 2012 claimants produced official files that documented attempts by colonial security officials to cover up the March 1959 Hola detention camp incident. At Hola 11 prisoners were beaten to death.  No prison official was ever properly investigated or held responsible for the murders. The UK decided to pay the damage claims. Each claimant will receive around $3,900. The Mau Mau rebellion was a complex insurgency. The number of people who died during the rebellion is disputed. 10,000 is a common figure. The rebellion began in 1952 and ended in 1960.

 

June 5, 2013: The Egyptian government demanded that Ethiopia stop construction of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) on the Blue Nile. The demand amounts to doubling down.  After an open microphone caught senior Egyptian leaders discussing covert actions against Ethiopia, Egypt was initially embarrassed. However, protecting the Nile has proved to be a domestic political issue that unites most Egyptians. 

 

June 4, 2013: A senior aide of Egypt’s President Mohamed Morsi has apologized for one of the most public diplomatic and political mistakes committed by anyone in recent years.  The aide neglected to tell politicians meeting with President Morsi to discuss Ethiopia’s Blue Nile River dam projects that the meeting was being broadcast live on state television.  At the meeting several participants, unaware that the world was watching and listening, openly suggested ways for Egypt to sabotage Ethiopia’s dams, in particular the $4.2 billion Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD).  The GERD is about 15 kilometers from the Ethiopia-Sudan border. The president and the politicians were discussing a report by the tripartite Egypt-Sudan-Ethiopia commission analyzing the impact of Ethiopia's dam project and its decision to divert the Blue Nile River. Ethiopia has already partially diverted the Blue Nile at the site of the GERD. One political leader, Yunis Makhyun, a member of the Islamist fundamentalist Nur Party, called the GERD a strategic threat to Egypt. He thought the Egyptian government should consider supporting an Ethiopian rebel group, in order to pressure the Ethiopian government. Ayman Nour, a member of the liberal-secular Ghad Party, suggested Egypt buy or circulate rumors that it will buy new military aircraft (implying ne strike aircraft that could hit the dam). He speculated that this would put political pressure on Ethiopia. He also said that Egyptian political, military and intelligence personnel might be sent to Ethiopia to “intervene” in Ethiopian domestic politics.  Egypt claims 87 percent of the Nile River’s water. The legal basis of this claim is a 1929 colonial-era agreement. In 1959 the Nasser government reiterated this claim. Egypt claims the right to veto upstream river projects. Ethiopia says it was not a party to the 1929 agreement.  Since the public vetting of these belligerent options, the Egyptian government has stated that none of the recommendations, suggestions, or speculations by the political leaders at the meeting are Egyptian government policy. (Austin Bay)

 

June 3, 2013: The Kenyan military will acquire unmanned aerial aircraft (UAVs) for use in surveillance missions. The military said that it has sought advice and assistance from both the U.S. and Japan. The military will use the drones to support military missions, but the government will also employ them in a variety of paramilitary security missions. One of the key UAV missions is monitoring light weapons smuggling. The national police also need help in monitoring tribal raiders who cross Kenya’s northern border from South Sudan, Ethiopia and Somalia.  Cattle raids continue to be a major problem in northern Kenya. The UAVs can also be used for game preserve protection, to monitor wild animal herds and to look for poachers.

 

June 2, 2013: 10,000 Ethiopian political demonstrators marched in the capital, Addis Ababa.  Most of the demonstrators were from opposition political parties. The demonstrators demanded that the government respect the constitution. They also demanded that the government release political prisoners. Authorities said it was the largest anti-government demonstration held in the country since the 2005 election. Street violence in that disputed election left over 200 people dead. The demonstrators accused the government of suppressing dissent. Ethiopia’s parliament has 547 members. Only one current member of parliament represents an opposition party.