If Russian President Vladimir Putin states that he has a dream, the ex-Soviet Republics would either have nightmares or have sleepless nights. Putin does have a dream and that dream is the resurgence of Soviet might, perhaps adjusted to current day realities. And Russian gas and oil have pivotal roles in helping him realise his dreams.
What he wants is not a centralised Soviet Union dominating the former Republics. That would be impossible to achieve in current day circumstances. But he can still maintain defacto control over former Soviet republics; Ukraine and especially Crimea is going to be an example in this regard.
Why Russia has decided to annex Crimea?
The Russian naval presence, its largest offshore, is a compelling reason for Russia to annex Crimea. Let us not nurse the illusion that Russian leader is interested in protecting the welfare of Russian speakers in Crimea.
If he has not heeded the calls of his own citizens in matters related to transparency and accountability of governance in Russia, how can he be deemed to represent Russian interests in Russian soil in a democratic sense? Now, if that be true, how can we ever expect the Russian President to represent and fight for Russian speaking Crimeans in foreign soil and that too, against the wishes and amid threats from international community?
Hence the argument that Russia is trying to protect the interests of Russian speaking Crimeans by annexing Crimea carries no weight.
Currently Crimea is an Autonomous Republic within Ukraine, a sovereign territory of Ukraine and therefore indivisible from Ukraine. However, according to an intergovernmental agreement between Russia and Ukraine, the latter had allowed Russian Navy at Sevastopol in Crimea with strict provisions that limit the soldiers from crossing a certain perimeter.
By annexing Crimea, Russia can use the base for its own ends—already the base is the largest one offshore Russia—with no restrictions, in other words like a blank cheque of significant strategic leverage.
This will have two dividends. Russia, depending on its strategic intentions, can go for a limitless troop surge and hardware augmentation in Crimea. Secondly, annexation can result in the dangling of a permanent sword hung over Ukraine, thereby forcing it to behave in line with commands in Russian.
Given the massive troop presence in Crimea, Ukraine would lose its strategic autonomy and its decisions on multiple policy fronts would be shaped by the Russian presence subconsciously. Crimea would thus be a valve that would allow Russia to step up pressure on Ukraine at its will and pleasure. By exercising sovereign control over Crimea, Russia can maintain defacto control over Ukraine.
The gas question
Russia is still the largest energy supplier to Europe. And many a pipeline network established in Soviet era passes through Ukraine and nations like Poland and Belarus. Russia has on different occasions turned off the gas to Ukraine and thereby Western Europe before. That was mainly due to conflicts arising out of pricing of gas. Recent reports suggest that if cash-strapped Ukraine were not to pay its dues on gas purchases, Gazprom—Russia’s monopoly on gas—would once again turn the valves off stepping up pressure on Ukraine. But this would have had its consequences, if not for pipelines—Nord Stream--extending to Western Europe underneath the Baltic Sea.
There are only a few pipeline networks that carry gas from Russia to other parts of Europe. Until the Nord stream got online, the pipeline network to Western Europe was mainly through Ukraine. This meant that by turning off supplies to Ukraine, Russia would in turn and without intention, turned off supplies to Western Europe as well. But with the Nord Stream operational, Russia can afford to do that although it may involve ‘costs’ renting-in on the words of Obama.
By annexing Crimea and pumping gas to Western Europe through Nord Stream, Russia can virtually isolate Ukraine, Belarus and Poland. The latter two are also dependent on Russia for energy needs. Now, with South Stream gas supplies in the pipeline--yet another gas transit extravaganza underneath the Black Sea—Russia could supply gas to other parts of Europe while leaving Ukraine and other nations shiver in European winter and simmer in summer thereby exerting defacto control over Poland and Belarus.
Now one may ask how someone can control and derive strategic dividends from Poland using gas supplies as a tool. My humble suggestion to them would be to closely study the map of Europe.
Between Lithuania and Poland, Russia does have an exclave called Kaliningrad. It is the home of Russian Baltic Sea fleet, yet another strategic outpost. No wonder, states like Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania summoned NATO jets on spotting Russia overtures over the Baltic coast recently.
The long term issue
Annexation of Crimea under the pretext of defending Russian speaking Crimeans, is just the beginning. Putin does have an expansionist design when it comes to restoring Soviet glory. But he knows too well that territorially annexing the Baltic nations would be quite difficult, if not impossible. The only provision left is to maintain defacto control over these nations. And a mix of gas, diplomacy, military presence and masked soldiers sporting nil insignia would contribute to a new model. Putin is just running a test of the same in Crimea with text book precision.
However, in this context one should also note that this future of Soviet prowess is being portrayed assuming many other factors would remain static. But that is never going to be the case. For every action, there would be an equal and comparable reaction, although unpredictable. NATO would be there, so would be the Organisation of Security and Cooperation in Europe assessing, planning and responding to Russian actions.
But the Great Recession that kicked the US in its soft underbelly, not to speak of self-defeating Congressional tussles and debilitating military cuts would not be least helpful in contributing to a solution. In a sense, we would see the Cold War getting heated up, going forward.
The only bright spots are the US’ shale energy boom and the togetherness in the European Union; both achievements could play a pivotal role in shaping the multilateral equations.(rakesh.neelakandan@gmail.com)
http://www.commodityonline.com/news/russian-military-gas-prowess-ukraine-over-poland-and-belarus-next-58181-3-58182.html
Showing posts with label Defence Foreign Policy Strategic Ties Foreign Affairs Strategic Affairs etc. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Defence Foreign Policy Strategic Ties Foreign Affairs Strategic Affairs etc. Show all posts
Monday, March 10, 2014
Sunday, April 14, 2013
North Korea: Why China may choose to unseat Kim Jong-un and restrict US' Asia pivot
Last Updated : 04 April 2013 at 17:40 IST
The US' pivot to Asia has been presented to the United States in a platter by its worst enemy North Korea and China is now possibly regretting that it did not restrain North Korea adequately.
Latest reports say that as soon as the United Sates decided to move its missile defence system to Guam, North Korea moved in with a new threat. It has moved a missile to east coast amid vows of attack on US bases.
Who started all this is an irrelevant question. But the escalation or the upward spiralling of the crisis is something that is evoking serious concerns all over the world.
Daniel Pinkston, a North Korea expert at the International Crisis Group, raises a pertinent question as he spoke to The Telegraph:
"The US has to deter North Korea without antagonising it and fulfil its commitments to South Korea and Japan. What hardware do you deploy and what signalling do you do?" He said he was unsure if officials really intended to dial back their position. "What else is the US going to do? It has sent out a nuclear submarine, the B52 bombers, the B2 stealth jets, a pair of destroyers and now I hear an aircraft carrier is on the way. What else have they got to roll out? Once they have done all this, is it then rolling back if they pause?" he said.
In other words, getting all these million dollar toys to the place is relatively easy. But once you have deployed them, how and in what context would you retrace it?
Ultimately, US has to come out of all this in a positive way. If the tensions escalate and US backs off, it would be a virtual failure for the US. But they, following a possible skirmish or even a war--in which the US would ultimately prevail--could not only get North Korea to agree to sign on dotted lines, but also secure their military interests in the Korean peninsula much to the consternation of Chinese. In fact, China may not be in a position to remain neutral in the event of a war or even a skirmish and will have to join North Korean side; but that would then evolve to be a full-blown war of World War scale. This scenario would possibly never occur.
The Obama administration has said US would have its focus on the unraveling Asian century and would reap benefits together with Asia while the continent progresses in a well laid out economic trajectory.
This has evoked considerable Chinese ire.
China views this as a strategy of containment and may be is in a process of using North Korea to tell the US that things may not be as easy as it sounds.
China will now have to restrain North Korea from employing the threats it has raised or risk a war in its neighbourhood. US, by all accounts is not going to talk to North Korea as that would severely compromise US' position. But, then how Kim Jong-un would save his face and retain his throne? How would he retain his popularity and pre-eminence amongst his peers in North Korean establishment?
Currently, North Korean leader, is in a way, trying to assert himself over the current domestic political establishment in his land by kicking up a furore. And if China finds his position getting unstable may choose to get rid of him. The pawn will be sacrificed in the geopolitical chess board to restrict the capitalistic queen that is US.
Saturday, November 24, 2012
India lacks a Strategic Road Map to hoarding and storing of Gold
Last Updated : 20 November 2012 at 14:45 IST
The Reserve Bank of India, the nation's central bank has struck: in a move deemed to address the current account deficit of the nation, the Bank has notified the banks under its clutch not to give away loans for gold purchases.
“...no advances should be granted by banks against gold bullion to dealers/traders in gold if, in their assessment, such advances are likely to be utilised for purposes of financing gold purchase at auctions and/or speculative holding of stocks and bullion. In this context, the significant rise in imports of gold in recent years is a cause for concern as direct bank financing for purchase of gold in any form viz., bullion/primary gold/jewellery/gold coin could lead to fuelling of demand for gold for speculative purposes.” the Bank said in a notification.
India completely relies on imports of gold and with nation's foreign exchange reserves depleting and current account deficit climbing, the RBI could not have acted better, one may think. (In 2011, the nation imported a record 969 metric tons of gold, up from 958 tons in 2010.) So much for this gold frenzy!
Now, we know Indians generally are keen hoarders of bullion. Indian households may hold many 1000 tons of gold in segregated form; reliable statistics to this effect are not available.
The question is, in the era, where Chinese identify gold as a strategic commodity, is the Indian central bank directive a prudent one?
Currently at about 1054 tons, gold just accounts for 1.6% of Chinese $3.2tn foreign exchange reserves. In case of US, the figure stands at 70% of holdings. The US has the biggest economy in the world, followed by China.
“As gold is a currency in nature, no matter if it’s for state economic security or for the acceleration of renminbi internationalisation, increasing the gold reserve should be one of the key strategies of China.” the Financial Times said in a translation of Sun Zhaoxue article. [He is the head of China National Gold Corporation.]
The article argues that US is trying to create the impression that gold is useless so that dollar retains its value.
“Although the global financial crisis originated in the US, the crisis hasn’t shaken the dominant status of the US dollar in the world and American assets are not shrinking because of dollar depreciation. America’s 8,133 tonnes of gold reserves plays an important role in that.” Zhaoxe article said.
Sun argues that China should view gold as a “strategic resource as important as petroleum energy”
China is also the world's biggest gold producer and has maintained the top spot for five years. China is also on an acquisition spree in gold reserves buying out mines in different parts of the world.
And it thinks that the hoarding of gold by its citizens would add to the economic resilience of the country.
So need the RBI re-think its policy? Chances are less that the said policy in current form would make India shine.
It is high time that policy makers come out with a robust 'Strategic Road Map to hoarding and storing of Gold' and think of ways and means to procure this commodity rather than spike import duties and thereby errect barriers; not to speak of killing demand.
Friday, October 19, 2012
Volatility, thy name is Crude Oil
Last Updated : 18 October 2012 at 14:40 IST
Crude oil prices invariably hinge on two factors for the medium term: Turkey-Syria relations or the lack of it and the Iran issue.
EU leaders think that Iran has enhanced its Uranium-enrichment capabilities apparently setting the latter in a position from where it could pluck a bomb from the blue. The fruit is increasingly becoming low-hanging, it has to be assumed.
Now, chances are more that a surgical strike targeting Iran nuke facilities is in the pipeline. But, the possibility of a glitch in this particular pipeline exists as Presidential elections in US looms.
It is clear and apparent that Israel will not be that audacious to launch a strike on its own on Iranian facilities without the blessings of Uncle Sam.
And as long as the US President is elected to the Oval Office for a fresh new term, political acumen of the basic degree suggests that nothing, one may repeat, nothing is going to happen that would considerably set a wave of unpredictability marching on to the shores of political landscape in US. No strikes would be carried out, as such an initiative may severely affect the US public opinion and set it up for an an insane roller-coaster ride. This is an anathema in election times.
Even the British PM David Cameron has hinted that it would be an inauspicious time to hit Iran as Iran could still get away with the image of a victim.
Now, this situation would have some vital consequences as far as the crude oil prices are concerned.
Given the lack of stability in the Middle East, the presidential candidates especially Mitt Romney may come up with ugly comments on the unstable landscape there: he already has. This, in effect may prompt reactions from the current US President that may be used as cues by crude oil futures.
Naturally, volatility in futures would be the rule.
Now when it comes to Turkey-Syria relations, things could turn out to be worse. Turkey is confidently firing across the Syrian border on two accounts:
1. Syria is already mired in a civil war. Hence Assad will not be in a position to be aggressive beyond a point as he is already busy with his 'home-works' and head aches.
2. Turkey, unlike Syria has NATO support. If Syria decides to attack Turkey by firing all cylinders, in an either-me-or-you-war, NATO can chip in. Specifically, this is the factor that gave Turkey the courage to ground a Syria bound civilian air craft from Russia and come up with the news that the plane had carried ammunition.
Now, Syria cannot be lame when Turkey attacks it and in order to maintain good humor amongst his dwindling base of supporters, Assad will continue with attacks although on a subdued scale.
Another factor is that Turkey too would no want a full-blown war with Assad as that may help Assad to rally all domestic support and help him be friends with the current rebels in Syria and fight the war against Turkey—foreign enemy--shoulder rubbing against shoulders between erst while rebels and Assad's soldiers. This would be the most disgusting outcome of a potential war as far as Turkey is concerned.
This situation of semi-war too smacks of uncertainty and holds prospects of conflict escalation making crude oil prices highly volatile. Add to this, the consequences effected by data releases every week on economies including Eurozone, China and US and the picture becomes clear.
One may have to say: Volatility, thy name is Crude Oil.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Afghanistan: A failed mission!
The Taliban has been ousted and if reports are anything to go by, is being brought back to the throne by those who ousted it in the first place. It is branded political solution to Afghan problem. This mutation is puzzling; and possibly lethal. It is like going back in time and killing your own grandfather. It is identical to providing a nursery for future 9/11 terrorist-trainees on a silver platter.
Read more on my policy blog
Read more on my policy blog
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
God save America: What if the drone is not RQ-170 Sentinel!
The recent Iranian drone episode is so full of riddles that even a game analyst may find it difficult to solve. But a primary question would be:
As claimed, whether Iran has actually downed an unmanned, unarmed US spy drone ‘RQ-170 Sentinel’ (whose technology is deemed dated) or is it something else; a highly classified drone?
In fact, there are reasons to believe that Iran has downed the drone though it is contestable as to which drone. And this could be a serious problem.
Read more on my policy blog
As claimed, whether Iran has actually downed an unmanned, unarmed US spy drone ‘RQ-170 Sentinel’ (whose technology is deemed dated) or is it something else; a highly classified drone?
In fact, there are reasons to believe that Iran has downed the drone though it is contestable as to which drone. And this could be a serious problem.
Read more on my policy blog
Monday, December 5, 2011
User name: South China Sea, Password: Philippines; How US is accessing the Chinese zone of influence
Sovereignty is a tricky word. On the one hand it stands for all that is patriotic and embodies pride. On the other hand the very patriotism and pride that it invokes guide the respective believers to sink into unrealistic and often delusionary assumptions.
Eventually, as and when this feeling of sovereignty gets hurt by an agent (read China), when this pride is curtailed by harsh realities (read untenable military ambitions), it is an awakening that in terms of geopolitics would take you to the White House.
Ask Philippines!
China is possibly regretting the way it dealt with its immediate neighbors including Philippines in the South China Sea and the resultant citing of American hull—USS Fitzgerald—in its traditional zone of influence.
On the 16th of November on board the USS Fitzgerald in Manila Bay, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Philippine Secretary for Foreign Affairs Albert del Rosario signed the Manila Declaration.
A part of declaration read:
“We (US and Philippines) share a common interest in maintaining freedom of navigation, unimpeded lawful commerce, and transit of people across the seas and subscribe to a rules-based approach in resolving competing claims in maritime areas through peaceful, collaborative, multilateral, and diplomatic processes within the framework of international law.”—emphasis added.
On board the ship, Ms. Clinton said in a speech: “The USS Fitzgerald has patrolled the entire Western Pacific region this year. It traveled to Australia, Russia, Guam, Saipan, the Marshall Islands, before docking here in Manila Bay. As part of Operation Tomodachi, the search, rescue, and recovery mission following the earthquake, the tsunami, and the nuclear reactor meltdown in Japan, the Fitzgerald operated closest to shore. And this summer, it transited the Gregorio del Pilar the flagship of the Filipino Navy on its maiden voyage across the Pacific. The ships cross-decked and held training sessions for 16 days on emergency response and onboard medical procedures. By the end of the exercise, the officers and crews onboard both vessels achieved new levels of proficiency and partnership.”
Chipping away the niceties in the speech and analyzing the substance would produce 4 points:
1. US Navy has unrestricted and unquestioned access to what it calls the high seas or the international waters.
2. US Navy enjoys a pre-eminence in rescue operations (which often leads to concrete relationship in post-crises periods).
3. US Navy enjoys cordial relationship with its previous rival (Russia; please see that ‘Russia’ is pronounced next to ‘Australia’).
4. US Navy cares for its allies and is keen on enhancing interoperability with Philippines.
But there is one critical point that we should not miss in the declaration. “…subscribe to a rules-based approach in resolving competing claims in maritime areas through peaceful, collaborative, multilateral, and diplomatic processes.”
All these years, the US has maintained a neutral stand in South China Sea dispute refusing to side with the claimants. Now it has changed the tack, and is taking active interest in the whole issue. One can argue that by using the world ‘multilateral’, the US is calling for enhanced ASEAN participation in the till-date regional issue.
But the very fact that the words virtually came from the mouth of none other than the US Secretary of State puts across a point: The US will have the role of a patron, if not a mediator. Any inkling of doubt in this regard is obliterated when you look at the venue where the declaration was signed: the battle ship of the most powerful Navy in the world! Unusual and probably unprecedented, in effect, it was as good as signing the declaration on American soil.
What could this be if not a strong message to China?
Origins: South China Sea (SCS) dispute
A few would recall that the SCS island disputes originated with the end of the Second World War.
In the San Francisco conference of 1951, the Allied powers failed to identify who had the title to the South China Sea islands—Spartlys and Paracel-- when they stripped Japan off the possession of the same after the Pacific War in Article 2(f) of the San Francisco Treaty. (Japan occupied the islands in 1939, when the war was on foot.)
This paved way for the littoral states like Philippines and Vietnam to raise the claims.
Had China not fallen to the Communists, the treaty may well have accorded island titles to the Chinese. But as fate would have it, this did not happen. In fact in one way or other, the Chinese had laid claim to the disputed islands during various instances in 1877 (Qing dynasty), 1883 and 1887.
In fact, even before the conference, on August 15, 1951, the Chinese Foreign Minister Zhou Enlai affirmed China’s claim on the islands (see the current map). But these claims went unheeded and Allied powers were in no mood to bequeath the islands to Communist China.
Now, only problem is that historical precedents alone will not help China calcify its claims. “Continuous and effective acts of occupation”; which worked in disputes concerning Island of Palmas, Clipperton and Eastern Greenland at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, would do.
This partly explains the developments manifested as claims, occupations and counter occupations in the South China Sea Islands in the past years by various parties, including China, Vietnam and Philippines.
Source: eia.doe.gov, 2008; UNCLOS=United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
What brings the US to the table?
But, the Island disputes though central to the problem of the South China Sea, singularly cannot warrant US intervention in the issue.
It needs to be something more important, lethal to be precise:
In an opinion piece written in the month of August in The Heritage Foundation portal, Renato De Castro and Walter Lohman said:
“On March 2, 2011, in the South China Sea, two Chinese patrol boats confronted a survey ship commissioned by the Philippine Department of Energy to conduct oil exploration in the Reed Bank, just 80 nautical miles west of the Philippine island of Palawan. The survey ship was in the process of identifying sites for possible appraisal wells to be drilled for the next phase of a contract with the Philippine Department of Energy, when it was accosted.
According to Philippine sources, the Chinese boats moved dangerously close to the Philippine vessel twice, as they ordered it to leave the area. Then, the Chinese boats maneuvered straight toward the survey vessel two times, apparently threatening to ram it, but turned away in time. The unarmed survey vessel radioed for assistance to the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Western Command in Palawan, and the Philippine Air Force (PAF) dispatched two reconnaissance planes to fly over the area. The Chinese patrol boats, however, had left the area before the aircraft arrived.”
After due diplomatic consultations between both sides, Philippine President Benigno Aquino III said that he wanted to defuse the tension between the two countries and announced that an unarmed Philippine Coast Guard patrol craft would be deployed to protect the survey ship conducting oil exploration at the Reed Bank.
In other words, it was all he could do; despite his country’s sovereignty getting violated in the Exclusive Economic Zone that stretched 200 kilometers into the ocean in blatant terms, that was all he could do.
Meanwhile, Chinese embassy officials in Manila insisted that China had indisputable sovereignty over the “Nansha Islands” (Spratlys) and their adjacent maritime territory. China was blind to the fact that the claims are disputed and the UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) stipulates 200nm EEZ rights to the Philippines.
China has ratified the convention but with riders attached that gives it exclusive sovereignty on the disputed islands which means exclusive EEZ rights (though that may overlap with EEZ claims made by others under the provisions of the same convention!) and has reaffirmed that, “the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea concerning innocent passage through the territorial sea shall not prejudice the right of a coastal State to request, in accordance with its laws and regulations, a foreign State to obtain advance approval from or give prior notification to the coastal State for the passage of its warships through the territorial sea of the coastal State.”
In other words, the Freedom of the Seas as enjoyed by traditional maritime powers like US would require Chinese approval or at least notifying China, if the US Navy or some other forces ever has to pass through the SCS.
Clearly US is vehemently against this.
Writes Walter Lohman in another opinion piece in The Heritage Foundation portal:
“(Freedom of the Seas) is a bedrock, non-negotiable interest of the United States. The U.S. is the world’s preeminent seafaring nation. When it comes to the South China Sea—through which half of global shipping and most of Northeast Asia’s energy supplies transit—its position is consistent: All nations enjoy navigational rights and freedoms there that are qualitatively and quantitatively the same as those applicable on the high seas.”
The caveat is here: SCS is a vital shipping lane and by far the shortest route from the North Pacific Ocean to the Indian Ocean. The world’s second busiest international sea-lane, with over half of the world’s petroleum-bearing traffic passing through, the region boasts of rich fishery resources, and is widely said to hold enormous potential as a source of oil and natural gas.
Clearly, it is a region that the US cannot ignore as long as it cares about its multi-faceted national interests. If the US, by far thousands of kilometers away from the region, is finding the region to be important, one can only sigh at the enormous interest China has in the Sea; China’s vulnerable backyard.
It also tells us why China is reluctant to involve third parties in the issue; especially the US.
The United States was among the nations that participated in the third United
Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, which took place from 1973 through 1982
and resulted in the international treaty known as the United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The United States also participated in the subsequent
negotiations of modifications to the treaty from 1990 to 1994. The UNCLOS came into
force in 1994. Although the United States now recognizes the UNCLOS as a
codification of customary international law, it has not ratified it.From nationalsovereignty to taxation to economics, a variety of arguments is doing rounds for the non-ratification of treaty by the United States.
Writes David A. Ridenour in an article: “…there are serious flaws in the treaty that -if U.S. ratified the treaty - could place U.S. sovereignty, security and political
independence in doubt.” “The "right of innocent passage" is the right of any
nation's ships to traverse continuously and expeditiously through the territorial
waters of a coastal nation, subject to certain conditions. Under the Law of the Sea
Treaty, such passage is conditioned on passing in a manner that isn't threatening to
"sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence" or the "good order and
security" of that nation.
By this definition, if the Law of the Sea Treaty was a ship, it would fail to qualify.”—he elaborates. So clearly there are tussles: While states like Philippines and China interpret the UNCLOS in their own terms that foments episodes of uncalled-for provocations, pre-eminent sea faring powers like the US are reluctant to cede the
‘traditional rights’ that they have enjoyed for decades. Both these tussles are shaping the nature of future conflicts in the South China Sea.
In a 1998 Pacific Forum CSIS paper titled, ‘Security Implications of Conflict in the South China Sea: Exploring Potential Triggers of Conflict’, prepared by Ralph A. Cossa it is said, “the proximity of the Spratlys to South China Sea shipping lanes adds an important strategic element to the dispute. A threat to freedom of passage through the South China Seas would severely disrupt regional economies. If, during any military action in the Spratlys--or, for that matter, in the course of defining its claim over the currently occupied or coveted territory--any nation threatened to inhibit the free flow of maritime traffic along these critical SLOCs (Sea lines of communication), the U.S. would almost certainly become involved since America's economic growth and security depend upon continued freedom of navigation for both merchant and military shipping. Other nations heavily dependent on maritime commerce could be expected to at least endorse, if not actively participate in, any U.S.-led enforcement of freedom of navigation along the South China Sea's heavily-traveled sea lanes.”
Profound and prophetic!
Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal has reported that “Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao reluctantly discussed the issue with 17 other leaders at the East Asia Summit in Bali, Indonesia, on Saturday (November 20, 2011) while restating China's position that it was an inappropriate forum to address the matter, according to U.S. and Chinese official accounts of the meeting.”
The reported noted that Five Asean members—Singapore, Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Thailand—as well as Australia and India raised the South China Sea issue directly at the Chinese Premier.
(Meanwhile, a U.S. official denied that he had lobbied other attendees to put the South China Sea on the agenda.)
China's state-run Xinhua news agency quoted Mr. Wen saying: "I don't want to discuss this issue at the summit. However, leaders of some countries mentioned China on the issue. It's impolite not to make a return for what one receives. So, I am willing to reiterate China's stance.” The Wall Street Journal said.
Axial shift in the stand of small littoral states
To involve US in the issue is an axial shift in the stand of all the littoral states that has cemented their grouping under the ASEAN umbrella.
This is because the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea proved to be an ineffectual angel. As per the crux of the declaration signed by ASEAN and China in 2002:
• The Parties concerned undertake to resolve their territorial and jurisdictional disputes by peaceful means, without resorting to the threat or use of force, through friendly consultations and negotiations by sovereign states directly concerned, in accordance with universally recognized principles of international law, including the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea;
• The Parties undertake to exercise self-restraint in the conduct of activities that would complicate or escalate disputes and affect peace and stability including, among others, refraining from action of inhabiting on the presently uninhabited islands, reefs, shoals, cays, and other features and to handle their differences in a constructive manner.
This has sporadically been violated by China many times. No wonder ASEAN sent the SOS to US.
Password: Philippines
“This incident (Reed Bank incident)—and at least eight others since February 25—underscores the sensitivity of the territorial dispute in the bilateral Philippines–China relationship; highlights broader tensions in the South China Sea, which is claimed in whole or part by China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan; and starkly points to the continued relevance of the obligations embodied in the 1951 U.S.–Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty.” Renato De Castro and Walter Lohman added.
It has to be noted that, U.S.-Philippine relations are based on shared history and commitment to democratic principles, as well as on economic ties.
The historical and cultural links between the Philippines and the United States remain strong. The Philippines modeled its governmental institutions on those of the United States and continues to share a commitment to democracy and human rights. At the most fundamental level of bilateral relations, human links continue to form a strong bridge between the two countries. (There are an estimated four million Americans of Philippine ancestry in the United States, and more than 300,000 American citizens in the Philippines.)
Until November 1992, pursuant to the 1947 Military Bases Agreement, the United States maintained and operated major facilities at Clark Air Base, Subic Bay Naval Complex, and several small subsidiary installations in the Philippines. In August 1991, negotiators from the two countries reached agreement on a draft treaty providing for use of Subic Bay Naval Base by U.S. forces for 10 years…
The post-U.S. bases era has seen U.S.-Philippine relations improved and broadened, with a prominent focus on economic and commercial ties while maintaining the importance of the security dimension. U.S. investment continues to play an important role in the Philippine economy, while a strong security relationship rests on the 1952 U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT). In February 1998, U.S. and Philippine negotiators concluded the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), paving the way for increased military cooperation under the MDT. The agreement was approved by the Philippine Senate in May 1999 and entered into force on June 1, 1999. Under the VFA, the United States has conducted ship visits to Philippine ports and resumed large combined military exercises with Philippine forces.
In October 2003, the United States designated the Philippines as a Major Non-NATO Ally. That same month, the Philippines joined the select group of countries to have ratified all 12 UN counterterrorism conventions.
The military relation between both states has been gaining traction and China may backtrack if not launch another round of charm offensive for a while to pacify the situation in SCS. Estranging its neighbors may not prove good for China and Beijing knows this well. In the same breath, estranging China is not good for other littoral states.
“While the core problem is a regional one, global issues and concerns are raised that could have far-reaching consequences. Today, all parties have a vested interest in a peaceful resolution of the dispute. As a result, the prospects for conflict seem low in the near term. However, the potential for conflict remains and could grow, especially if potential triggers of conflict are not clearly understood and avoided.” the paper ‘Security Implications of Conflict in the South China Sea: Exploring Potential Triggers of Conflict’, prepared by Ralph A. Cossa cautioned.
“While the prospects of military confrontation over the Spratlys remains low, it would be naive to completely rule out the possibility of the use of force. This is especially so if major oil discoveries are made or if energy shortages add to the perceived (even if unproven) importance of the Spratlys.” It said, and added. “If it were positively determined tomorrow that there was no exploitable oil in the Spratlys, the dispute would not go away; no claimant would, as a result of such news, abandon its claim—the bottom line issue is still sovereignty.”
With the US declaring the Pacific Century in a big way, it is not going to be deluded by the charm offensive that China may launch. With Canberra in tight embrace and Manila joining the stable, the US will continue to make its presence felt in the traditional Chinese zone of influence.
The question is whether other ASEAN members would start talking Filipino? Well, that depends a lot on China.
As I said in the beginning, sovereignty is a tricky word!
As published in the think-tank portal Center for Asia Studies, Chennai
Eventually, as and when this feeling of sovereignty gets hurt by an agent (read China), when this pride is curtailed by harsh realities (read untenable military ambitions), it is an awakening that in terms of geopolitics would take you to the White House.
Ask Philippines!
China is possibly regretting the way it dealt with its immediate neighbors including Philippines in the South China Sea and the resultant citing of American hull—USS Fitzgerald—in its traditional zone of influence.
On the 16th of November on board the USS Fitzgerald in Manila Bay, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Philippine Secretary for Foreign Affairs Albert del Rosario signed the Manila Declaration.
A part of declaration read:
“We (US and Philippines) share a common interest in maintaining freedom of navigation, unimpeded lawful commerce, and transit of people across the seas and subscribe to a rules-based approach in resolving competing claims in maritime areas through peaceful, collaborative, multilateral, and diplomatic processes within the framework of international law.”—emphasis added.
On board the ship, Ms. Clinton said in a speech: “The USS Fitzgerald has patrolled the entire Western Pacific region this year. It traveled to Australia, Russia, Guam, Saipan, the Marshall Islands, before docking here in Manila Bay. As part of Operation Tomodachi, the search, rescue, and recovery mission following the earthquake, the tsunami, and the nuclear reactor meltdown in Japan, the Fitzgerald operated closest to shore. And this summer, it transited the Gregorio del Pilar the flagship of the Filipino Navy on its maiden voyage across the Pacific. The ships cross-decked and held training sessions for 16 days on emergency response and onboard medical procedures. By the end of the exercise, the officers and crews onboard both vessels achieved new levels of proficiency and partnership.”
Chipping away the niceties in the speech and analyzing the substance would produce 4 points:
1. US Navy has unrestricted and unquestioned access to what it calls the high seas or the international waters.
2. US Navy enjoys a pre-eminence in rescue operations (which often leads to concrete relationship in post-crises periods).
3. US Navy enjoys cordial relationship with its previous rival (Russia; please see that ‘Russia’ is pronounced next to ‘Australia’).
4. US Navy cares for its allies and is keen on enhancing interoperability with Philippines.
But there is one critical point that we should not miss in the declaration. “…subscribe to a rules-based approach in resolving competing claims in maritime areas through peaceful, collaborative, multilateral, and diplomatic processes.”
All these years, the US has maintained a neutral stand in South China Sea dispute refusing to side with the claimants. Now it has changed the tack, and is taking active interest in the whole issue. One can argue that by using the world ‘multilateral’, the US is calling for enhanced ASEAN participation in the till-date regional issue.
But the very fact that the words virtually came from the mouth of none other than the US Secretary of State puts across a point: The US will have the role of a patron, if not a mediator. Any inkling of doubt in this regard is obliterated when you look at the venue where the declaration was signed: the battle ship of the most powerful Navy in the world! Unusual and probably unprecedented, in effect, it was as good as signing the declaration on American soil.
What could this be if not a strong message to China?
Origins: South China Sea (SCS) dispute
A few would recall that the SCS island disputes originated with the end of the Second World War.
In the San Francisco conference of 1951, the Allied powers failed to identify who had the title to the South China Sea islands—Spartlys and Paracel-- when they stripped Japan off the possession of the same after the Pacific War in Article 2(f) of the San Francisco Treaty. (Japan occupied the islands in 1939, when the war was on foot.)
This paved way for the littoral states like Philippines and Vietnam to raise the claims.
Had China not fallen to the Communists, the treaty may well have accorded island titles to the Chinese. But as fate would have it, this did not happen. In fact in one way or other, the Chinese had laid claim to the disputed islands during various instances in 1877 (Qing dynasty), 1883 and 1887.
In fact, even before the conference, on August 15, 1951, the Chinese Foreign Minister Zhou Enlai affirmed China’s claim on the islands (see the current map). But these claims went unheeded and Allied powers were in no mood to bequeath the islands to Communist China.
Now, only problem is that historical precedents alone will not help China calcify its claims. “Continuous and effective acts of occupation”; which worked in disputes concerning Island of Palmas, Clipperton and Eastern Greenland at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, would do.
This partly explains the developments manifested as claims, occupations and counter occupations in the South China Sea Islands in the past years by various parties, including China, Vietnam and Philippines.
Source: eia.doe.gov, 2008; UNCLOS=United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
What brings the US to the table?
But, the Island disputes though central to the problem of the South China Sea, singularly cannot warrant US intervention in the issue.
It needs to be something more important, lethal to be precise:
In an opinion piece written in the month of August in The Heritage Foundation portal, Renato De Castro and Walter Lohman said:
“On March 2, 2011, in the South China Sea, two Chinese patrol boats confronted a survey ship commissioned by the Philippine Department of Energy to conduct oil exploration in the Reed Bank, just 80 nautical miles west of the Philippine island of Palawan. The survey ship was in the process of identifying sites for possible appraisal wells to be drilled for the next phase of a contract with the Philippine Department of Energy, when it was accosted.
According to Philippine sources, the Chinese boats moved dangerously close to the Philippine vessel twice, as they ordered it to leave the area. Then, the Chinese boats maneuvered straight toward the survey vessel two times, apparently threatening to ram it, but turned away in time. The unarmed survey vessel radioed for assistance to the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Western Command in Palawan, and the Philippine Air Force (PAF) dispatched two reconnaissance planes to fly over the area. The Chinese patrol boats, however, had left the area before the aircraft arrived.”
After due diplomatic consultations between both sides, Philippine President Benigno Aquino III said that he wanted to defuse the tension between the two countries and announced that an unarmed Philippine Coast Guard patrol craft would be deployed to protect the survey ship conducting oil exploration at the Reed Bank.
In other words, it was all he could do; despite his country’s sovereignty getting violated in the Exclusive Economic Zone that stretched 200 kilometers into the ocean in blatant terms, that was all he could do.
Meanwhile, Chinese embassy officials in Manila insisted that China had indisputable sovereignty over the “Nansha Islands” (Spratlys) and their adjacent maritime territory. China was blind to the fact that the claims are disputed and the UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) stipulates 200nm EEZ rights to the Philippines.
China has ratified the convention but with riders attached that gives it exclusive sovereignty on the disputed islands which means exclusive EEZ rights (though that may overlap with EEZ claims made by others under the provisions of the same convention!) and has reaffirmed that, “the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea concerning innocent passage through the territorial sea shall not prejudice the right of a coastal State to request, in accordance with its laws and regulations, a foreign State to obtain advance approval from or give prior notification to the coastal State for the passage of its warships through the territorial sea of the coastal State.”
In other words, the Freedom of the Seas as enjoyed by traditional maritime powers like US would require Chinese approval or at least notifying China, if the US Navy or some other forces ever has to pass through the SCS.
Clearly US is vehemently against this.
Writes Walter Lohman in another opinion piece in The Heritage Foundation portal:
“(Freedom of the Seas) is a bedrock, non-negotiable interest of the United States. The U.S. is the world’s preeminent seafaring nation. When it comes to the South China Sea—through which half of global shipping and most of Northeast Asia’s energy supplies transit—its position is consistent: All nations enjoy navigational rights and freedoms there that are qualitatively and quantitatively the same as those applicable on the high seas.”
The caveat is here: SCS is a vital shipping lane and by far the shortest route from the North Pacific Ocean to the Indian Ocean. The world’s second busiest international sea-lane, with over half of the world’s petroleum-bearing traffic passing through, the region boasts of rich fishery resources, and is widely said to hold enormous potential as a source of oil and natural gas.
Clearly, it is a region that the US cannot ignore as long as it cares about its multi-faceted national interests. If the US, by far thousands of kilometers away from the region, is finding the region to be important, one can only sigh at the enormous interest China has in the Sea; China’s vulnerable backyard.
It also tells us why China is reluctant to involve third parties in the issue; especially the US.
The United States was among the nations that participated in the third United
Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, which took place from 1973 through 1982
and resulted in the international treaty known as the United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The United States also participated in the subsequent
negotiations of modifications to the treaty from 1990 to 1994. The UNCLOS came into
force in 1994. Although the United States now recognizes the UNCLOS as a
codification of customary international law, it has not ratified it.From nationalsovereignty to taxation to economics, a variety of arguments is doing rounds for the non-ratification of treaty by the United States.
Writes David A. Ridenour in an article: “…there are serious flaws in the treaty that -if U.S. ratified the treaty - could place U.S. sovereignty, security and political
independence in doubt.” “The "right of innocent passage" is the right of any
nation's ships to traverse continuously and expeditiously through the territorial
waters of a coastal nation, subject to certain conditions. Under the Law of the Sea
Treaty, such passage is conditioned on passing in a manner that isn't threatening to
"sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence" or the "good order and
security" of that nation.
By this definition, if the Law of the Sea Treaty was a ship, it would fail to qualify.”—he elaborates. So clearly there are tussles: While states like Philippines and China interpret the UNCLOS in their own terms that foments episodes of uncalled-for provocations, pre-eminent sea faring powers like the US are reluctant to cede the
‘traditional rights’ that they have enjoyed for decades. Both these tussles are shaping the nature of future conflicts in the South China Sea.
In a 1998 Pacific Forum CSIS paper titled, ‘Security Implications of Conflict in the South China Sea: Exploring Potential Triggers of Conflict’, prepared by Ralph A. Cossa it is said, “the proximity of the Spratlys to South China Sea shipping lanes adds an important strategic element to the dispute. A threat to freedom of passage through the South China Seas would severely disrupt regional economies. If, during any military action in the Spratlys--or, for that matter, in the course of defining its claim over the currently occupied or coveted territory--any nation threatened to inhibit the free flow of maritime traffic along these critical SLOCs (Sea lines of communication), the U.S. would almost certainly become involved since America's economic growth and security depend upon continued freedom of navigation for both merchant and military shipping. Other nations heavily dependent on maritime commerce could be expected to at least endorse, if not actively participate in, any U.S.-led enforcement of freedom of navigation along the South China Sea's heavily-traveled sea lanes.”
Profound and prophetic!
Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal has reported that “Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao reluctantly discussed the issue with 17 other leaders at the East Asia Summit in Bali, Indonesia, on Saturday (November 20, 2011) while restating China's position that it was an inappropriate forum to address the matter, according to U.S. and Chinese official accounts of the meeting.”
The reported noted that Five Asean members—Singapore, Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Thailand—as well as Australia and India raised the South China Sea issue directly at the Chinese Premier.
(Meanwhile, a U.S. official denied that he had lobbied other attendees to put the South China Sea on the agenda.)
China's state-run Xinhua news agency quoted Mr. Wen saying: "I don't want to discuss this issue at the summit. However, leaders of some countries mentioned China on the issue. It's impolite not to make a return for what one receives. So, I am willing to reiterate China's stance.” The Wall Street Journal said.
Axial shift in the stand of small littoral states
To involve US in the issue is an axial shift in the stand of all the littoral states that has cemented their grouping under the ASEAN umbrella.
This is because the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea proved to be an ineffectual angel. As per the crux of the declaration signed by ASEAN and China in 2002:
• The Parties concerned undertake to resolve their territorial and jurisdictional disputes by peaceful means, without resorting to the threat or use of force, through friendly consultations and negotiations by sovereign states directly concerned, in accordance with universally recognized principles of international law, including the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea;
• The Parties undertake to exercise self-restraint in the conduct of activities that would complicate or escalate disputes and affect peace and stability including, among others, refraining from action of inhabiting on the presently uninhabited islands, reefs, shoals, cays, and other features and to handle their differences in a constructive manner.
This has sporadically been violated by China many times. No wonder ASEAN sent the SOS to US.
Password: Philippines
“This incident (Reed Bank incident)—and at least eight others since February 25—underscores the sensitivity of the territorial dispute in the bilateral Philippines–China relationship; highlights broader tensions in the South China Sea, which is claimed in whole or part by China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan; and starkly points to the continued relevance of the obligations embodied in the 1951 U.S.–Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty.” Renato De Castro and Walter Lohman added.
It has to be noted that, U.S.-Philippine relations are based on shared history and commitment to democratic principles, as well as on economic ties.
The historical and cultural links between the Philippines and the United States remain strong. The Philippines modeled its governmental institutions on those of the United States and continues to share a commitment to democracy and human rights. At the most fundamental level of bilateral relations, human links continue to form a strong bridge between the two countries. (There are an estimated four million Americans of Philippine ancestry in the United States, and more than 300,000 American citizens in the Philippines.)
Until November 1992, pursuant to the 1947 Military Bases Agreement, the United States maintained and operated major facilities at Clark Air Base, Subic Bay Naval Complex, and several small subsidiary installations in the Philippines. In August 1991, negotiators from the two countries reached agreement on a draft treaty providing for use of Subic Bay Naval Base by U.S. forces for 10 years…
The post-U.S. bases era has seen U.S.-Philippine relations improved and broadened, with a prominent focus on economic and commercial ties while maintaining the importance of the security dimension. U.S. investment continues to play an important role in the Philippine economy, while a strong security relationship rests on the 1952 U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT). In February 1998, U.S. and Philippine negotiators concluded the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), paving the way for increased military cooperation under the MDT. The agreement was approved by the Philippine Senate in May 1999 and entered into force on June 1, 1999. Under the VFA, the United States has conducted ship visits to Philippine ports and resumed large combined military exercises with Philippine forces.
In October 2003, the United States designated the Philippines as a Major Non-NATO Ally. That same month, the Philippines joined the select group of countries to have ratified all 12 UN counterterrorism conventions.
The military relation between both states has been gaining traction and China may backtrack if not launch another round of charm offensive for a while to pacify the situation in SCS. Estranging its neighbors may not prove good for China and Beijing knows this well. In the same breath, estranging China is not good for other littoral states.
“While the core problem is a regional one, global issues and concerns are raised that could have far-reaching consequences. Today, all parties have a vested interest in a peaceful resolution of the dispute. As a result, the prospects for conflict seem low in the near term. However, the potential for conflict remains and could grow, especially if potential triggers of conflict are not clearly understood and avoided.” the paper ‘Security Implications of Conflict in the South China Sea: Exploring Potential Triggers of Conflict’, prepared by Ralph A. Cossa cautioned.
“While the prospects of military confrontation over the Spratlys remains low, it would be naive to completely rule out the possibility of the use of force. This is especially so if major oil discoveries are made or if energy shortages add to the perceived (even if unproven) importance of the Spratlys.” It said, and added. “If it were positively determined tomorrow that there was no exploitable oil in the Spratlys, the dispute would not go away; no claimant would, as a result of such news, abandon its claim—the bottom line issue is still sovereignty.”
With the US declaring the Pacific Century in a big way, it is not going to be deluded by the charm offensive that China may launch. With Canberra in tight embrace and Manila joining the stable, the US will continue to make its presence felt in the traditional Chinese zone of influence.
The question is whether other ASEAN members would start talking Filipino? Well, that depends a lot on China.
As I said in the beginning, sovereignty is a tricky word!
As published in the think-tank portal Center for Asia Studies, Chennai
Saturday, September 17, 2011
'South China Sea dispute unlikely to hurt Indian energy goals'
Quoting relevant sources, Teshu Singh, Research Officer at IPCS (Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies) has commented that India has not violated any sovereign rights of China by taking up exploration in South China Sea.
Recently, China has objected to Indian exploration initiatives in two Vietnamese oil blocks in the South China Sea to which Beijing lays claim. But India was quick to respond that India’s position was guided by international laws.
Teshu Singh said: “India has not violated any sovereign right of China by taking up exploration the SCS –Defense Minister George Fernandes in April 2000, while launching of INS Brahmaputra asserted that India’s maritime “area of Interest …extends from the north of the Arabian Sea to the SCS”.”
IPCS, a New Delhi based think tank, conducts independent research on conventional and non-conventional security issues whose voice is highly respected in policy circles.
According to media reports, China has pitted itself against offshore Block 127 and Block 128, for which ONGC Videsh –State owned Oil and Natural Gas Corporation’s foreign arm—entered into deal with Vietnam.
Block 128 is an offshore deepwater Block, located at water depth of more than 400 metres with 7,058 sq km area in Vietnam. In September 2009, ONGC Videsh had deployed drilling rig on Block 128; however, the well could not be drilled with the rig as it had difficulty in anchoring at the location due to hard sea bed.
“The drilling activity was terminated and it is planned that the location shall be drilled in 2012 subjected to successful field testing of anchors.” ONGC Videsh Annual Report for last fiscal said.
ONGC Videsh has invested approximately $46 million till 31st March, 2011 in the block. In fact, the total investments by ONGC Videsh in Vietnam total to $225 million.
Besides ONGC Videsh, Indian private firm, Essar Exploration and Production has also been allocated an oil block in Vietnam.
India has Vietnam support
Asked what is the stand taken by Vietnam on the issue and given the geopolitical realities, will Vietnam stay on Indian side in the event of a crisis, Teshu Singh responded:
“Vietnamese government stands in support of the Indian Government. With the ongoing developments where the two countries are adding greater content to their bilateral relations in defense and security, education, trade and investment, culture and other areas one can affirm that Vietnam will stay on Indian side.”
She is of the opinion that, “the face off should not have any negative effect on the pursuit of Indian ambition in securing resources in the SCS (South China Sea); official spokesman of India’s External Affair ministry, Vishnu Prakash, has said “Our cooperation with Vietnam or any other country for that matter in the world is always as per as international; law, norms and convention”.”
With India and China growth stories assuming legendary dimensions, the colossal needs of both nations in energy have pushed the countries into fighting verbal wars that may gain din in coming years.
As published in: http://www.commodityonline.com/news/South-China-Sea-dispute-unlikely-to-hurt-Indian-energy-goals-42421-3-1.html
Recently, China has objected to Indian exploration initiatives in two Vietnamese oil blocks in the South China Sea to which Beijing lays claim. But India was quick to respond that India’s position was guided by international laws.
Teshu Singh said: “India has not violated any sovereign right of China by taking up exploration the SCS –Defense Minister George Fernandes in April 2000, while launching of INS Brahmaputra asserted that India’s maritime “area of Interest …extends from the north of the Arabian Sea to the SCS”.”
IPCS, a New Delhi based think tank, conducts independent research on conventional and non-conventional security issues whose voice is highly respected in policy circles.
According to media reports, China has pitted itself against offshore Block 127 and Block 128, for which ONGC Videsh –State owned Oil and Natural Gas Corporation’s foreign arm—entered into deal with Vietnam.
Block 128 is an offshore deepwater Block, located at water depth of more than 400 metres with 7,058 sq km area in Vietnam. In September 2009, ONGC Videsh had deployed drilling rig on Block 128; however, the well could not be drilled with the rig as it had difficulty in anchoring at the location due to hard sea bed.
“The drilling activity was terminated and it is planned that the location shall be drilled in 2012 subjected to successful field testing of anchors.” ONGC Videsh Annual Report for last fiscal said.
ONGC Videsh has invested approximately $46 million till 31st March, 2011 in the block. In fact, the total investments by ONGC Videsh in Vietnam total to $225 million.
Besides ONGC Videsh, Indian private firm, Essar Exploration and Production has also been allocated an oil block in Vietnam.
India has Vietnam support
Asked what is the stand taken by Vietnam on the issue and given the geopolitical realities, will Vietnam stay on Indian side in the event of a crisis, Teshu Singh responded:
“Vietnamese government stands in support of the Indian Government. With the ongoing developments where the two countries are adding greater content to their bilateral relations in defense and security, education, trade and investment, culture and other areas one can affirm that Vietnam will stay on Indian side.”
She is of the opinion that, “the face off should not have any negative effect on the pursuit of Indian ambition in securing resources in the SCS (South China Sea); official spokesman of India’s External Affair ministry, Vishnu Prakash, has said “Our cooperation with Vietnam or any other country for that matter in the world is always as per as international; law, norms and convention”.”
With India and China growth stories assuming legendary dimensions, the colossal needs of both nations in energy have pushed the countries into fighting verbal wars that may gain din in coming years.
As published in: http://www.commodityonline.com/news/South-China-Sea-dispute-unlikely-to-hurt-Indian-energy-goals-42421-3-1.html
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Afghanistan on the cusp of mining, commodity boom?
Nobody knows how rich Afghanistan is!
A war-torn nation, grappling with huge problems--which are so intricately intertwined, that disentangling them looks to be a herculean task--solutions for the same seem to be ever evading.
A country where violence is the norm, where aid agencies have lost count of human casualties, where corruption is rampant (famine hit Somalia is the only country that beats Afghanistan in Transparency International ranking of worst corrupt countries), where the infrastructure is damn poor, where kids respond better to gun shots than black boards, one would think Afghanistan is the wrong place to do business.
Wrong!
Afghanistan is evolving as a business hotspot where a mining boom is very much in the offing and India, China, Russia, Germany, UK and US are all warming up to the great Afghan challenge! Going by the estimates of various agencies, Afghan mineral wealth can hover around $1 trillion in value.
Since antiquity, Afghanistan has been shelling out gems and semi-precious stones, metals, and marble. When the Soviet forces entered Afghanistan and continued with their notoriously disastrous occupation, somewhere on the course, they also identified huge mineral wealth.
They even set up some industrial mining units in 1970s but had to abandon the efforts in 1992 when Mujahideen terror gained prominence with US support.
In 2002, the US Geological Survey estimates proclaimed presence of more treasures in Afghanistan: there were over 1000 deposits, mines and occurrences in Afghanistan with presence of gold, copper, iron, mercury, lead, cesium, lithium, niobium, and tantalum in chunks.
Run up to the rush
In March 2011, a conference on mines of Afghanistan took place in London where a number of investors gathered.
During the same month after necessary discussions, ADB (Asian Development Bank) officially announced that they have agreed to allocate funds worth $25mn dollars for construction of Hydrogen Sulfide Separation machinery for Jarqduq gas basins, $165 mn dollars for Sheberghan gas pipeline and development of gas network, and, $35 mn for rehabilitation of gas wells of Sheberghan in Afghnistan.
ADB also promised to support gas project after the completion of MoM (Ministry of Mines) plan for TAPI (Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India), extension of cables for convection of thermo Electricity from Sheberghan to Mazar and joining it with main network as well as building of second phase of 227 Km railway from Mazar to Andkhoi, which will be useful for mining sector.
Subsequently, Australia, the commodity country, expressed their willingness to share their expertise in mining sector with Afghanistan.
Australian Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd met with the Afghan Minister of Mines, Wahidullah Shahrani and said,
“The surge in the Afghan mining sector has enormous potential to improve the country’s economic sustainability. Australia’s expertise in mining exploration, extraction, processing, transport, environmental protection and legislation has Australia well placed to offer specialized education in this area.”
Afterwards, to attract Italian investment to infrastructure, construction, energy, agriculture and mining sectors, a summit took place at Herat in Afghanistan followed on by similar initiatives getting kick started with Turkey and Germany.
A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for cooperation in development of Afghanistan natural resources was signed by Afghanistan and Germany at the end of June visit by Wahidullah Shahrani to Germany.
According to the MOU, both sides will strive to encourage both the private and public sectors of Germany to invest in Afghanistan’s mining sector and related activities.
Germany will strengthen its cooperation in technical and financial assistance, provide training programs for Afghan geologists, establish training centers in the fields of hydrocarbons and minerals, provide technical support for preparing strategies, strengthen the extractive sector by improving transparency in revenue transactions, introduce accepted financial systems and encouraging sustainable use of natural resources.
Further, India has agreed to contribute extensively to establish the first National Institute of Mine in Kabul.
Special regiment with personnel of 7,000 policemen for security of mines was also created as an internal arrangement between interior ministry and mining ministry of Afghanistan.
Recently, a comprehensive plan for building railways in Afghanistan based on economic criteria was welcomed at a special conference in Paris.
Add to this, The Geological Data Center of Afghanistan, equipped by modern technology and with very high capacity for storage of data; the picture becomes clear.
In accordance with the programs undertaken by the Ministry of Mines, Afghanistan’s coffers are expected to receive about $1.5 billion. Wahidullah Shahrani, the Minister of Mines, said recently to Parliament: “although exploration of mines in Afghanistan needs the time and technology, the assignment of mining contracts to international companies will increase the income of Afghanistan."
The rush as we see it
“The Hajigak Iron Ore deposit is situated in the mountainous Bamyan province, 130 km west of the Afghanistan capital, Kabul. It is one of several iron deposits within this area but is the largest located to date. A study in the 1960s demonstrated the mineral potential of the region, and estimated the Hajigak resource as 1.8 billion tons of iron ore with a concentration of approximately 62 % Fe . This assessment ranks the Hajigak deposit as world class.” said a British Geological Survey report.
The presence of coking Coal at Shabashak which is nearby makes the Hajigak deposit an exceptionally favourable target for economic development, the report adds.
No surprise, the Afghan ministry of mines has recently announced six companies have submitted bids for the Hajigak Iron Ore Project. A Bid Evaluation Team (BET) is reportedly sitting on the bids that were received from ACATCO LLC; Behin Sanate Diba; Corporate Ispat Alloys Ltd.;Gol-e-Gohar Iron Ore Co.;Kilo Goldmines Ltd.; and a consortium led by Steel Authority of India Ltd (SAIL).
Back in 2010, Russia promised to revamp 140 Soviet-era installations comprising of hydroelectric stations, bridges, wells and irrigation systems in Afghanistan which may add to $1 billion. And of course, that was just the beginning.
The SAIL consortium is on the forefront of the rush and reportedly exhibits a better chance of winning the race, according to The Business Standard. The consortium expecting a smooth sail may invest up to Rs 28,700 crore ($6 billion) in the mine, railroads and a steel plant.
But what stands out in the bleary desert is the moves made by Ian Hannam, Chairman of J.P. Morgan Capital Markets.
He has identified the potential of Afghanistan like no one else and is an early bird. He brought J.P Morgan from its cosy office to the war torn nation in 2010, when violence was at its worst since the American-led occupation began in 2001.
Hannam had the great idea of bringing in Gold and lithium miners initially, since both commodities could be lifted using helicopters and demanded just a moderate infrastructure. Once that gets on track Hannam can prove a point to the giants in mining like BHP and Rio Tinto, which would in turn nudge the leviathans into investing in road and rails and tap Afghan resources.
Hannam found his match in Sadet Naderi--a British educated Afghan—who also had astronomical ambitions and a vital piece of paper: a gold license. They started off with some initial hiccups but soon were on track.
Add to this, the initiatives by Chinese, we can safely believe that Afghanistan is on the cusp of a mining boom. BUT: violence in Afghanistan is a cause of lethal concern. No week seemingly passes by without the sound of gunshots, mine blasts or attacks.
In an 1841 article in a journal of Asiatic studies, Capt. Henry Drummond, wrote about the Afghans:
"Give them, however, but constant employment, with good wages and regular payment; encourage a spirit of industry, both by precept and example; let strict justice be dealt out to them without respect of persons; and we shall shortly see their swords changed into plowshares, industry take place of licentiousness, and these people be converted into peaceable and useful subjects,"
Amen!
As published in: http://www.commodityonline.com/news/Afghanistan-on-the-cusp-of-mining-commodity-boom-42334-2-1.html
A war-torn nation, grappling with huge problems--which are so intricately intertwined, that disentangling them looks to be a herculean task--solutions for the same seem to be ever evading.
A country where violence is the norm, where aid agencies have lost count of human casualties, where corruption is rampant (famine hit Somalia is the only country that beats Afghanistan in Transparency International ranking of worst corrupt countries), where the infrastructure is damn poor, where kids respond better to gun shots than black boards, one would think Afghanistan is the wrong place to do business.
Wrong!
Afghanistan is evolving as a business hotspot where a mining boom is very much in the offing and India, China, Russia, Germany, UK and US are all warming up to the great Afghan challenge! Going by the estimates of various agencies, Afghan mineral wealth can hover around $1 trillion in value.
Since antiquity, Afghanistan has been shelling out gems and semi-precious stones, metals, and marble. When the Soviet forces entered Afghanistan and continued with their notoriously disastrous occupation, somewhere on the course, they also identified huge mineral wealth.
They even set up some industrial mining units in 1970s but had to abandon the efforts in 1992 when Mujahideen terror gained prominence with US support.
In 2002, the US Geological Survey estimates proclaimed presence of more treasures in Afghanistan: there were over 1000 deposits, mines and occurrences in Afghanistan with presence of gold, copper, iron, mercury, lead, cesium, lithium, niobium, and tantalum in chunks.
Run up to the rush
In March 2011, a conference on mines of Afghanistan took place in London where a number of investors gathered.
During the same month after necessary discussions, ADB (Asian Development Bank) officially announced that they have agreed to allocate funds worth $25mn dollars for construction of Hydrogen Sulfide Separation machinery for Jarqduq gas basins, $165 mn dollars for Sheberghan gas pipeline and development of gas network, and, $35 mn for rehabilitation of gas wells of Sheberghan in Afghnistan.
ADB also promised to support gas project after the completion of MoM (Ministry of Mines) plan for TAPI (Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India), extension of cables for convection of thermo Electricity from Sheberghan to Mazar and joining it with main network as well as building of second phase of 227 Km railway from Mazar to Andkhoi, which will be useful for mining sector.
Subsequently, Australia, the commodity country, expressed their willingness to share their expertise in mining sector with Afghanistan.
Australian Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd met with the Afghan Minister of Mines, Wahidullah Shahrani and said,
“The surge in the Afghan mining sector has enormous potential to improve the country’s economic sustainability. Australia’s expertise in mining exploration, extraction, processing, transport, environmental protection and legislation has Australia well placed to offer specialized education in this area.”
Afterwards, to attract Italian investment to infrastructure, construction, energy, agriculture and mining sectors, a summit took place at Herat in Afghanistan followed on by similar initiatives getting kick started with Turkey and Germany.
A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for cooperation in development of Afghanistan natural resources was signed by Afghanistan and Germany at the end of June visit by Wahidullah Shahrani to Germany.
According to the MOU, both sides will strive to encourage both the private and public sectors of Germany to invest in Afghanistan’s mining sector and related activities.
Germany will strengthen its cooperation in technical and financial assistance, provide training programs for Afghan geologists, establish training centers in the fields of hydrocarbons and minerals, provide technical support for preparing strategies, strengthen the extractive sector by improving transparency in revenue transactions, introduce accepted financial systems and encouraging sustainable use of natural resources.
Further, India has agreed to contribute extensively to establish the first National Institute of Mine in Kabul.
Special regiment with personnel of 7,000 policemen for security of mines was also created as an internal arrangement between interior ministry and mining ministry of Afghanistan.
Recently, a comprehensive plan for building railways in Afghanistan based on economic criteria was welcomed at a special conference in Paris.
Add to this, The Geological Data Center of Afghanistan, equipped by modern technology and with very high capacity for storage of data; the picture becomes clear.
In accordance with the programs undertaken by the Ministry of Mines, Afghanistan’s coffers are expected to receive about $1.5 billion. Wahidullah Shahrani, the Minister of Mines, said recently to Parliament: “although exploration of mines in Afghanistan needs the time and technology, the assignment of mining contracts to international companies will increase the income of Afghanistan."
The rush as we see it
“The Hajigak Iron Ore deposit is situated in the mountainous Bamyan province, 130 km west of the Afghanistan capital, Kabul. It is one of several iron deposits within this area but is the largest located to date. A study in the 1960s demonstrated the mineral potential of the region, and estimated the Hajigak resource as 1.8 billion tons of iron ore with a concentration of approximately 62 % Fe . This assessment ranks the Hajigak deposit as world class.” said a British Geological Survey report.
The presence of coking Coal at Shabashak which is nearby makes the Hajigak deposit an exceptionally favourable target for economic development, the report adds.
No surprise, the Afghan ministry of mines has recently announced six companies have submitted bids for the Hajigak Iron Ore Project. A Bid Evaluation Team (BET) is reportedly sitting on the bids that were received from ACATCO LLC; Behin Sanate Diba; Corporate Ispat Alloys Ltd.;Gol-e-Gohar Iron Ore Co.;Kilo Goldmines Ltd.; and a consortium led by Steel Authority of India Ltd (SAIL).
Back in 2010, Russia promised to revamp 140 Soviet-era installations comprising of hydroelectric stations, bridges, wells and irrigation systems in Afghanistan which may add to $1 billion. And of course, that was just the beginning.
The SAIL consortium is on the forefront of the rush and reportedly exhibits a better chance of winning the race, according to The Business Standard. The consortium expecting a smooth sail may invest up to Rs 28,700 crore ($6 billion) in the mine, railroads and a steel plant.
But what stands out in the bleary desert is the moves made by Ian Hannam, Chairman of J.P. Morgan Capital Markets.
He has identified the potential of Afghanistan like no one else and is an early bird. He brought J.P Morgan from its cosy office to the war torn nation in 2010, when violence was at its worst since the American-led occupation began in 2001.
Hannam had the great idea of bringing in Gold and lithium miners initially, since both commodities could be lifted using helicopters and demanded just a moderate infrastructure. Once that gets on track Hannam can prove a point to the giants in mining like BHP and Rio Tinto, which would in turn nudge the leviathans into investing in road and rails and tap Afghan resources.
Hannam found his match in Sadet Naderi--a British educated Afghan—who also had astronomical ambitions and a vital piece of paper: a gold license. They started off with some initial hiccups but soon were on track.
Add to this, the initiatives by Chinese, we can safely believe that Afghanistan is on the cusp of a mining boom. BUT: violence in Afghanistan is a cause of lethal concern. No week seemingly passes by without the sound of gunshots, mine blasts or attacks.
In an 1841 article in a journal of Asiatic studies, Capt. Henry Drummond, wrote about the Afghans:
"Give them, however, but constant employment, with good wages and regular payment; encourage a spirit of industry, both by precept and example; let strict justice be dealt out to them without respect of persons; and we shall shortly see their swords changed into plowshares, industry take place of licentiousness, and these people be converted into peaceable and useful subjects,"
Amen!
As published in: http://www.commodityonline.com/news/Afghanistan-on-the-cusp-of-mining-commodity-boom-42334-2-1.html
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Wanted: A global platform to end commodity wars
Onions have always made us shed tears and unseat politicians. It is a fact! No wonder politicians in India feel a silver dagger going down their throat when the O-word is uttered coupled with an I-word: inflation.
India being inflicted with inflation, a side-effect of the growth pill it has taken; prices of sensitive commodities like vegetables have charted new highs.
That is why, despite record output in grains and pulses, despite improved storage facilities and better roads, despite a booming economy, despite a growing middle class, India was not spared a shudder when Pakistan decided to stop its exports of truckloads of onions.
And many people in India have upped the jingoistic ante which is an inevitable casting of political dice. The question is: are we seeing things in the right perspective?
May be we should know that the Pakistani embargo on landbound onions is not a singular event. It can be viewed from a bilateral perspective, which it necessarily is, and linked to a global trend.
The drama has a backstage in India’s decision to block cotton exports to Pakistan!
The Hindu reported on Monday:
India is understood to have told Pakistan that it is ready to lift the ban on cotton exports if the latter resumes its onion exports through rail and land routes.
Official sources in the Commerce Ministry said this was conveyed to Islamabad by the External Affairs Ministry. “The Indian side has conveyed to the Pakistani counterparts that it was ready to revisit the cotton export ban and ceiling issues, if the gesture is reciprocated by Pakistan through the removal of the ban on the movement of onion,” a senior official said.
Pakistan’s textile industry took a severe beating and cringed under price-pressure when India scrapped Pakistan’s orders for one million cotton bales; a measure India adopted to avert a similar disaster occurring in its domestic textile industries.
This episode is in turn preceded by the tragedy of flash floods and misery that hit Pakistan in August and September that displaced millions of people and ravaged more than a million acres of fertile land.
The areas in south Punjab and interior Sindh that contribute to largest chunk of cotton production in Pakistan were severely affected. (Please note that Pakistan is world’s fourth largest producer of cotton.)
Though the legitimacy of tit-for-tat-embargoes on both sides is a different question, the cues from the planet is suggestive of commodity wars slated to continue in one way or other in some place or other; in fact for years to come.
FAO has been warning endlessly that price rise of food would continue to trace record levels. (Already, there are reports of food riots in Algeria and Tunisia).This price rise would invariably bring more and more (innocent) people into the fold of the poverty leaving the battle-field open to a string of commodity wars to follow: not only in agri-commodities but also in metals, minerals and energy.
Remember the recent rare-earth export embargo that China imposed to preserve its strategic hegemony over Japanese interests; or Russia blocking the crude oil supplies to Belarus?
Floods in Australia, droughts in Russia and Ukraine, and heavy snow-fall across Europe… sure tickets to the food prices and energy prices heading northwards!
And what would countries do if not banning exports and triggering commodity wars?
Need for a global platform
On Tuesday, the Indian premier Dr.Manmohan Singh (an eminent economist himself) convened a meeting of his council of ministers and bureaucrats to take stock of the inflation which is hovering at around 18%.
The two hour meeting concluded inconclusively!
Not something to make fuss about, one can say. However it shows the complexity of the problem in its entirety.
The person who changed the fate of India by ushering in reforms (Dr.Manmohan Singh), the man who presented the first-ever dream budget of India (P.Chidambaram), Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission of India (Montek Singh Ahluwalia)—if this trinity of Indian policy sector could not kiss the holy grail despite a two hour brain-storming session; it is not an intellectual failure but a sheer complicated problem requiring a global platform to redress.
Until that happens, the so-called commodity wars can be expected to continue.
Let’s wait for the next meeting then, with hope.
As published in: http://www.commodityonline.com/news/Wanted-A-global-platform-to-end-commodity-wars-35546-3-1.html
India being inflicted with inflation, a side-effect of the growth pill it has taken; prices of sensitive commodities like vegetables have charted new highs.
That is why, despite record output in grains and pulses, despite improved storage facilities and better roads, despite a booming economy, despite a growing middle class, India was not spared a shudder when Pakistan decided to stop its exports of truckloads of onions.
And many people in India have upped the jingoistic ante which is an inevitable casting of political dice. The question is: are we seeing things in the right perspective?
May be we should know that the Pakistani embargo on landbound onions is not a singular event. It can be viewed from a bilateral perspective, which it necessarily is, and linked to a global trend.
The drama has a backstage in India’s decision to block cotton exports to Pakistan!
The Hindu reported on Monday:
India is understood to have told Pakistan that it is ready to lift the ban on cotton exports if the latter resumes its onion exports through rail and land routes.
Official sources in the Commerce Ministry said this was conveyed to Islamabad by the External Affairs Ministry. “The Indian side has conveyed to the Pakistani counterparts that it was ready to revisit the cotton export ban and ceiling issues, if the gesture is reciprocated by Pakistan through the removal of the ban on the movement of onion,” a senior official said.
Pakistan’s textile industry took a severe beating and cringed under price-pressure when India scrapped Pakistan’s orders for one million cotton bales; a measure India adopted to avert a similar disaster occurring in its domestic textile industries.
This episode is in turn preceded by the tragedy of flash floods and misery that hit Pakistan in August and September that displaced millions of people and ravaged more than a million acres of fertile land.
The areas in south Punjab and interior Sindh that contribute to largest chunk of cotton production in Pakistan were severely affected. (Please note that Pakistan is world’s fourth largest producer of cotton.)
Though the legitimacy of tit-for-tat-embargoes on both sides is a different question, the cues from the planet is suggestive of commodity wars slated to continue in one way or other in some place or other; in fact for years to come.
FAO has been warning endlessly that price rise of food would continue to trace record levels. (Already, there are reports of food riots in Algeria and Tunisia).This price rise would invariably bring more and more (innocent) people into the fold of the poverty leaving the battle-field open to a string of commodity wars to follow: not only in agri-commodities but also in metals, minerals and energy.
Remember the recent rare-earth export embargo that China imposed to preserve its strategic hegemony over Japanese interests; or Russia blocking the crude oil supplies to Belarus?
Floods in Australia, droughts in Russia and Ukraine, and heavy snow-fall across Europe… sure tickets to the food prices and energy prices heading northwards!
And what would countries do if not banning exports and triggering commodity wars?
Need for a global platform
On Tuesday, the Indian premier Dr.Manmohan Singh (an eminent economist himself) convened a meeting of his council of ministers and bureaucrats to take stock of the inflation which is hovering at around 18%.
The two hour meeting concluded inconclusively!
Not something to make fuss about, one can say. However it shows the complexity of the problem in its entirety.
The person who changed the fate of India by ushering in reforms (Dr.Manmohan Singh), the man who presented the first-ever dream budget of India (P.Chidambaram), Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission of India (Montek Singh Ahluwalia)—if this trinity of Indian policy sector could not kiss the holy grail despite a two hour brain-storming session; it is not an intellectual failure but a sheer complicated problem requiring a global platform to redress.
Until that happens, the so-called commodity wars can be expected to continue.
Let’s wait for the next meeting then, with hope.
As published in: http://www.commodityonline.com/news/Wanted-A-global-platform-to-end-commodity-wars-35546-3-1.html
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
The revised US plan to intercept potential Iranian missile attacks OR Iraqing Iran
Introduction
The United States Intelligence Community (IC), comprising of sixteen intelligence agencies has finally reached a billion-dollar consensus: Iran may not develop ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles) at least for the next six to eleven years! Previously, it was believed that Iran had plans to develop ICBMs in a lesser time-frame.
The United States’ NMD (National Missile Defence) program was conceived to take care of the scenario, where Iran or North Korea comes up with the ICBM to attack America.
However in a move which drew appreciation and flak alike, Mr. Obama has decided to scrap the BMDS (Ballistic Missile Defence System) - a program of NMD- to be deployed at Eastern Europe. Russian premier Mr. Vladmir Putin, has welcomed the initiative and even termed it “correct and brave”. BMDS, which had aimed to address the threat from Iran, was perceived as a threat to Russia in the garb of a missile defence system.
In the world of defence and strategy, every high-profile move has their own implicit intentions. Though critics are pummelling the US President, telling that the initiative will be interpreted as a sign of “ weakness” rather than “ goodwill”, the US is sure to have many trumps up their sleeves.
What is BMD?
BMD is a missile defence system intended to protect the US, its deployed forces, allies and friends from ballistic missiles of all ranges and in all phases of flight.
Ballistic missiles are grouped into four, based on their range:
1. Short-range (less than 1,000 kilometers)
2. Medium-range (1,000 to 3,000 kilometers)
3. Intermediate-range (3,000 to 5,500 kilometers)
4. Long-range (greater than 5,500 kilometers)
These missiles could be intercepted in three stages:
1. The boost phase, wherein the launch vehicle has been launched and its boosters have burned out.
2. Mid-course phase which means the flight through space.
3. Terminal phase where the missile is nearing its target.
Weaponry, including missiles, guided by sensors plays the role of the interceptor. A command and control system facilitates interception.
Disadvantages of the current BMD
The BMD had envisioned deploying (only)ten Ground Based Interceptors in Poland as weaponry and building a huge radar site in Czech Republic to sniff out the trajectory of the threat. The intelligence reports in 2006, furnishing the pace of the development of ICBMs by Iran, promoted the BMD program.
But the new reports tell a different story:
Iran, in its efforts to boost its capabilities is in the course of developing, short and medium- range ballistic missiles. The pace of their innovation has made the Americans to sit-up and take notice. The BMD project, in its current form, is simply incapable of addressing the short- to medium-range ballistic missiles that could be fired by Iran. It would leave the Americans lurking in darkness as Iran fine-tunes its technological prowess.
Moreover, the proposed interceptors in Poland would have facilitated nil coverage to some of the allies in NATO like Bulgaria, Greece, Romania and Turkey.
Above all, Russia perceived it as a new step in the arms race with American missiles right in its yard.
Obama’s Plan
In the new plan, missile defence components will be deployed across Europe in a span of ten years in four phases, beginning from 2011- the main-stay of the program being a combination of fixed and re-locatable Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) and radars.
The plan in phases:
Phase one: In the timeframe of 2011, deploy the tried and tested missile defence systems available. The whole process may take the subsequent two years and includes the sea based Aegis weapon system, the SM-3 interceptor (Block 1A), and sensors such as the forward-based Army Navy / Transportable Radar Surveillance system (AN/ TPY-2). The advantage is obvious: regional ballistic missile threats to Europe and the deployed US troops and their families will be taken care of.
Phase two: In the timeframe of 2015, deploy a more capable version of the SM-3 interceptor (Block IB) in both sea and land-based configurations succeeding appropriate testing. Advanced sensors will help in expanding the defended area against threats arising out of short- and medium-range missiles.
Phase three: In the time-frame of 2018, deploy the more advanced SM-3 Block IIA variant (which is currently under development). It will work against short-, medium- and intermediate-range missile threats.
Phase four: In the time-frame of 2020, deploy the SM-3 Block IIB after its development and testing are complete. It would help US to cope with medium - and intermediate-range missiles and the potential ICBM threat of the future.
The US will also be improving the sensors for missile defence throughout the four phases. And the
new plan doesn’t warrant the installation of huge radar in Czech Republic. A different and better interceptor technology means ease of deployment and use.
The new system of missile defence will be augmented with the existing ground-based interceptors deployed at Alaska and California to protect the home-land, in the fourth phase. Moreover, the new plan is six to seven years ahead of the shelved plan, in implementation. In addition to extending the protective umbrella over all NATO members and allies, in concert with their individual defence capabilities, the plan provides flexibility to up-grade and adjust the architecture of interceptor system in a cost-effective manner.
Unlike the previous plan, the new missile defence plan incorporates the allies in Europe as well as NATO. It promotes a multi-lateral approach and not a trilateral approach involving Poland and Czech Republic only. In short, the new system is more “realistic” in its perception of threat scenarios.
The revised system will ensure that European countries and Unites States work more closely on strategic fronts. This will eventually give rise to a fortification of relationship between the participants, ensuring a stronger deterrent in place of which missile defence system is only a part of.
In a scenario where Iran launches a missile at a NATO ally, it will incur the wrath of all NATO members.
A call to Russia?
There seems to be a plan to invite Russia with its wealth of strategic knowledge, to join the new plan. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, in his first major speech as the Secretary General, referred to this aspect. He emphasized on exploring the potential of linking the US, NATO and Russian missile defence systems “ at an appropriate time” to combine their collective wealth of experience aimed at “mutual benefit “. He was of the hope that a revival of NATO-Russia council where both parties could discuss common security concerns enhances cooperation. Iran, after all, is a concern for Russia too.
If the above said plan gets materialized, Iran gets the signal that US is not alone in its endeavour to curtail the strategic ambitions of the so called rogue sates.
Russia, though has welcomed the US plan to scrap the BMD, seems to be fully aware of the consequences of the new plan ( as explained in the ensuing paragraphs). Beyond diplomatic niceties as exhibited by the Russian premier, Russian Ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin said that Russia cannot be “childishly euphoric” about the US initiative to suspend the BMD deployment. Russians are reluctant to perceive it as a “concession” from the US.
Why Iran has changed course to a different degree of defence?
Before explaining in detail, the implications of the new missile defence system, it is worthwhile to think why Iran has changed its plans, in a strategic somersault. Why is it keen on developing short and medium range ballistic missiles instead of ICBMs?
It is because Iran has shuffled its priority hit list sensing change of strategic realities.
Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles are essentially long range missiles which Iran planned to include in its arsenal to mount a strike on America, of course after fitting it with an indigenous nuclear war head. Iran foresaw the possibility of a US strike and found that an effective deterrent can be nuclear weapons and a couple of delivery vehicles.
But soon enough, Iran realized that the actual threat lay somewhere close to it, in its neighbour hood- Israel. The Islamic Republic had been at loggerheads with the Zionist state since the Iranian revolution. The verbal wars between both countries continued into decades. Threats from US and satiation of Israel’s nuclear arsenal triggered the Iranian hunger for nukes. And that lead to its development of covert nuclear installations retailed out by notorious A.Q. Khan.
But one cannot depend on a postman to deliver these warheads! Hence, the short and medium range ballistic missiles, tailored for Israel.
The latest news is that Iran is shopping around to have advanced surface-to-air missiles (S-300) and Russia can be a source. Read this is in the context of Iran revealing its secret nuclear installation at Qom.
Iran now knows that it is impossible for it to develop nuclear weapons, at least when the Americans are on prowl. The only solution is to protect these facilities which it has painstakingly built after several years of sweating it out, braving sanctions. But Israel is someone who can upset the applecart. Russia too may back-off from selling missiles due to international pressure. The only way out is to foster the indigenous missile development program and protect itself from possible Israeli air-attacks.
Sneak a peek at Israel’s hand
As usual, Israel has played its trump-United States of America. Engaging all of its sixteen intelligence agencies for some serious data-mining in Iran shows the gravity of the situation as perceived by the Americans. If the previous plan was to install a BMDS to protect American longevity, the new plan takes into account the United States’ brother-like love for Israel. In the garb of protecting partners and allies and inviting Russia to join forces with America, US is stepping up the pressure on Iran that could break the barometer, eventually. Add to this, the fresh call for additional sanctions and the Iranians living a life in the ventilator, may soon be doomed. The internal unrest in Iran would be fomented, as peace and stability turn into rubble.
Advantage USA
So, what piece of pie will the U.S. get out of this? “Really big”, is the answer.
The US will get a back-door entry into the neighbour- hood of Russia as Iran turns into a cauldron of chaos. The authorities there can be dethroned. Iran has nuclear capability which is a good pretext for the US to ‘intervene’ or in other words, “Iraqing Iran”. Millions of barrels of oil and gas are an incentive enough! To achieve this, the US just has to relocate a part of its troops in the military bases of Afghanistan to Iran. Any wonder, the US is “considering” an increase of troops in Afghanistan?
Implications on Russia
Though the new plan is intended to curtail Iran’s strategic game plans, the ultimate aim could be Russia! A pro-US bulwark, which the plan eventually hopes to build in Europe and Asia by the year 2020, is definitely not in the interests of Russia- and Russia knows it well.
How Russia is going to tackle the emerging situation can be an interesting study in strategic affairs.
The United States Intelligence Community (IC), comprising of sixteen intelligence agencies has finally reached a billion-dollar consensus: Iran may not develop ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles) at least for the next six to eleven years! Previously, it was believed that Iran had plans to develop ICBMs in a lesser time-frame.
The United States’ NMD (National Missile Defence) program was conceived to take care of the scenario, where Iran or North Korea comes up with the ICBM to attack America.
However in a move which drew appreciation and flak alike, Mr. Obama has decided to scrap the BMDS (Ballistic Missile Defence System) - a program of NMD- to be deployed at Eastern Europe. Russian premier Mr. Vladmir Putin, has welcomed the initiative and even termed it “correct and brave”. BMDS, which had aimed to address the threat from Iran, was perceived as a threat to Russia in the garb of a missile defence system.
In the world of defence and strategy, every high-profile move has their own implicit intentions. Though critics are pummelling the US President, telling that the initiative will be interpreted as a sign of “ weakness” rather than “ goodwill”, the US is sure to have many trumps up their sleeves.
What is BMD?
BMD is a missile defence system intended to protect the US, its deployed forces, allies and friends from ballistic missiles of all ranges and in all phases of flight.
Ballistic missiles are grouped into four, based on their range:
1. Short-range (less than 1,000 kilometers)
2. Medium-range (1,000 to 3,000 kilometers)
3. Intermediate-range (3,000 to 5,500 kilometers)
4. Long-range (greater than 5,500 kilometers)
These missiles could be intercepted in three stages:
1. The boost phase, wherein the launch vehicle has been launched and its boosters have burned out.
2. Mid-course phase which means the flight through space.
3. Terminal phase where the missile is nearing its target.
Weaponry, including missiles, guided by sensors plays the role of the interceptor. A command and control system facilitates interception.
Disadvantages of the current BMD
The BMD had envisioned deploying (only)ten Ground Based Interceptors in Poland as weaponry and building a huge radar site in Czech Republic to sniff out the trajectory of the threat. The intelligence reports in 2006, furnishing the pace of the development of ICBMs by Iran, promoted the BMD program.
But the new reports tell a different story:
Iran, in its efforts to boost its capabilities is in the course of developing, short and medium- range ballistic missiles. The pace of their innovation has made the Americans to sit-up and take notice. The BMD project, in its current form, is simply incapable of addressing the short- to medium-range ballistic missiles that could be fired by Iran. It would leave the Americans lurking in darkness as Iran fine-tunes its technological prowess.
Moreover, the proposed interceptors in Poland would have facilitated nil coverage to some of the allies in NATO like Bulgaria, Greece, Romania and Turkey.
Above all, Russia perceived it as a new step in the arms race with American missiles right in its yard.
Obama’s Plan
In the new plan, missile defence components will be deployed across Europe in a span of ten years in four phases, beginning from 2011- the main-stay of the program being a combination of fixed and re-locatable Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) and radars.
The plan in phases:
Phase one: In the timeframe of 2011, deploy the tried and tested missile defence systems available. The whole process may take the subsequent two years and includes the sea based Aegis weapon system, the SM-3 interceptor (Block 1A), and sensors such as the forward-based Army Navy / Transportable Radar Surveillance system (AN/ TPY-2). The advantage is obvious: regional ballistic missile threats to Europe and the deployed US troops and their families will be taken care of.
Phase two: In the timeframe of 2015, deploy a more capable version of the SM-3 interceptor (Block IB) in both sea and land-based configurations succeeding appropriate testing. Advanced sensors will help in expanding the defended area against threats arising out of short- and medium-range missiles.
Phase three: In the time-frame of 2018, deploy the more advanced SM-3 Block IIA variant (which is currently under development). It will work against short-, medium- and intermediate-range missile threats.
Phase four: In the time-frame of 2020, deploy the SM-3 Block IIB after its development and testing are complete. It would help US to cope with medium - and intermediate-range missiles and the potential ICBM threat of the future.
The US will also be improving the sensors for missile defence throughout the four phases. And the
new plan doesn’t warrant the installation of huge radar in Czech Republic. A different and better interceptor technology means ease of deployment and use.
The new system of missile defence will be augmented with the existing ground-based interceptors deployed at Alaska and California to protect the home-land, in the fourth phase. Moreover, the new plan is six to seven years ahead of the shelved plan, in implementation. In addition to extending the protective umbrella over all NATO members and allies, in concert with their individual defence capabilities, the plan provides flexibility to up-grade and adjust the architecture of interceptor system in a cost-effective manner.
Unlike the previous plan, the new missile defence plan incorporates the allies in Europe as well as NATO. It promotes a multi-lateral approach and not a trilateral approach involving Poland and Czech Republic only. In short, the new system is more “realistic” in its perception of threat scenarios.
The revised system will ensure that European countries and Unites States work more closely on strategic fronts. This will eventually give rise to a fortification of relationship between the participants, ensuring a stronger deterrent in place of which missile defence system is only a part of.
In a scenario where Iran launches a missile at a NATO ally, it will incur the wrath of all NATO members.
A call to Russia?
There seems to be a plan to invite Russia with its wealth of strategic knowledge, to join the new plan. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, in his first major speech as the Secretary General, referred to this aspect. He emphasized on exploring the potential of linking the US, NATO and Russian missile defence systems “ at an appropriate time” to combine their collective wealth of experience aimed at “mutual benefit “. He was of the hope that a revival of NATO-Russia council where both parties could discuss common security concerns enhances cooperation. Iran, after all, is a concern for Russia too.
If the above said plan gets materialized, Iran gets the signal that US is not alone in its endeavour to curtail the strategic ambitions of the so called rogue sates.
Russia, though has welcomed the US plan to scrap the BMD, seems to be fully aware of the consequences of the new plan ( as explained in the ensuing paragraphs). Beyond diplomatic niceties as exhibited by the Russian premier, Russian Ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin said that Russia cannot be “childishly euphoric” about the US initiative to suspend the BMD deployment. Russians are reluctant to perceive it as a “concession” from the US.
Why Iran has changed course to a different degree of defence?
Before explaining in detail, the implications of the new missile defence system, it is worthwhile to think why Iran has changed its plans, in a strategic somersault. Why is it keen on developing short and medium range ballistic missiles instead of ICBMs?
It is because Iran has shuffled its priority hit list sensing change of strategic realities.
Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles are essentially long range missiles which Iran planned to include in its arsenal to mount a strike on America, of course after fitting it with an indigenous nuclear war head. Iran foresaw the possibility of a US strike and found that an effective deterrent can be nuclear weapons and a couple of delivery vehicles.
But soon enough, Iran realized that the actual threat lay somewhere close to it, in its neighbour hood- Israel. The Islamic Republic had been at loggerheads with the Zionist state since the Iranian revolution. The verbal wars between both countries continued into decades. Threats from US and satiation of Israel’s nuclear arsenal triggered the Iranian hunger for nukes. And that lead to its development of covert nuclear installations retailed out by notorious A.Q. Khan.
But one cannot depend on a postman to deliver these warheads! Hence, the short and medium range ballistic missiles, tailored for Israel.
The latest news is that Iran is shopping around to have advanced surface-to-air missiles (S-300) and Russia can be a source. Read this is in the context of Iran revealing its secret nuclear installation at Qom.
Iran now knows that it is impossible for it to develop nuclear weapons, at least when the Americans are on prowl. The only solution is to protect these facilities which it has painstakingly built after several years of sweating it out, braving sanctions. But Israel is someone who can upset the applecart. Russia too may back-off from selling missiles due to international pressure. The only way out is to foster the indigenous missile development program and protect itself from possible Israeli air-attacks.
Sneak a peek at Israel’s hand
As usual, Israel has played its trump-United States of America. Engaging all of its sixteen intelligence agencies for some serious data-mining in Iran shows the gravity of the situation as perceived by the Americans. If the previous plan was to install a BMDS to protect American longevity, the new plan takes into account the United States’ brother-like love for Israel. In the garb of protecting partners and allies and inviting Russia to join forces with America, US is stepping up the pressure on Iran that could break the barometer, eventually. Add to this, the fresh call for additional sanctions and the Iranians living a life in the ventilator, may soon be doomed. The internal unrest in Iran would be fomented, as peace and stability turn into rubble.
Advantage USA
So, what piece of pie will the U.S. get out of this? “Really big”, is the answer.
The US will get a back-door entry into the neighbour- hood of Russia as Iran turns into a cauldron of chaos. The authorities there can be dethroned. Iran has nuclear capability which is a good pretext for the US to ‘intervene’ or in other words, “Iraqing Iran”. Millions of barrels of oil and gas are an incentive enough! To achieve this, the US just has to relocate a part of its troops in the military bases of Afghanistan to Iran. Any wonder, the US is “considering” an increase of troops in Afghanistan?
Implications on Russia
Though the new plan is intended to curtail Iran’s strategic game plans, the ultimate aim could be Russia! A pro-US bulwark, which the plan eventually hopes to build in Europe and Asia by the year 2020, is definitely not in the interests of Russia- and Russia knows it well.
How Russia is going to tackle the emerging situation can be an interesting study in strategic affairs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)