Stratfor: Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Columbia

I've been very negligent with the blog posts as of late and I don't know when I will be able to resume anything that resembles a normal blogging schedule.  But here is a video detailing a dispute between Nicaragua and Columbia concerning the continental shelf and the potential for access to the resources in the disputed area; and the United States is involved via energy company Noble Energy.  This is something that we should remember, that often times nations act via private means to achieve their interests.

Now, in this instance it would be tough to say that Noble Energy is acting on behalf of the United States government, since Columbia is a very close ally to the United States in South America.  That being said, the fact that a United States company may have gotten itself involved, admittedly inadvertently, means that that the government will be keeping an eye on the situation. The likelihood of this dispute every becoming anything more than a legal dispute, with likely UN or US arbitration, is very low.

Outside of Syria: The Real Geopolitical Game

Bloggers, new caster and politicos are closely following the events in Syria as it looks like the event of US military action becomes more apparent. The likelihood of military action is becoming more certain now given that Russia is offering alternatives that would remove the 'we need to remove chemical weapons from Assad' cause being offered by the United States.  But in terms of the greatest game man has ever played, the great game refers to a series of geopolitical engagements between various powers in central Asia during the 19th century, Syria is secondary concern to the United States; the United States wouldn't be involved if it were not for Obama's political posturing. So while the majority of US media focuses on Syria, and our now inevitable military action.  The US and China continue to quietly duke it out in Pacific.

 

 

Syria Is Obama's Policy Blunder

So with the report, disputed by some, of Assad gassing civilians there are rumblings that America may finally enter the Syrian War in a more overt fashion.  Regardless of whether you think Assad, or the rebels, murdered those poor souls, or whether we should even involve ourselves in the war. The fact is that the US now faces an unenviable situation due to the geopolitical blundering of Obama.

Succient Reason Why Major Media Gets Geopolitics Wrong

Robert Kaplan has an article on Stratfor that talks about the primary motivation of nations in geopolitics, the expanding or protecting of their spheres of influence.  It's a good article, unfortunately it is unavailable to those who do not subscribe, and the first paragraph perfectly summarizes why mass media get geopolitics so wrong.

The media is preoccupied with democracy, human rights and other values-driven elements that reflect the discourse of foreign policy among elites and that often have little to do with the actual motivations of governments behind closed doors. So what is really going on in the world, what really motivates governments? In fact, the globe is a venue for struggles over geographic spheres of influence to the same extent it has been in former ages. Once that reality is accepted, relatively little that happens in the world is surprising.
 

It isn't that ideology doesn't matter in the realm of geopolitics, it does, but it is of secondary importance to the fundamental aims of a nation securing territory or influence that enables the territory to protect it's borders and get the resource it needs. When leaders allow ideological ends, rather than focusing on the primary interests of the nation, terrible consequences are usually had eventually.

Stratfor: A Conversaton on the Strengths of Asian States

 

A video from Stratfor where Robert Kaplan and the head analyst of Asia discuss what is going on with the States of Asia, particularly Japan, Vietnam and Japan.

 

 

Major Knife Attack In Xinjiang And Geopolitical Forecasting

MSNBC reports that knife wielding assailants kill 36 people in Xinjiang before being killed by authorities. I am sure someone will make a comment about how strict gun control did not prevent this incident, and another will make a comment about how nine policemen, who would presumably be armed with firearms, were killed and that them having firearms didn't protect them from knife wielding assailants, but that would miss the larger point. The point being is that this was not an attack by a lone crazed individual against civilians while, it was a an armed assault of a police station by multiple individuals. It wasn't a random act of violence, it was a planned attack.

Given that Xinjiang is a northwestern province bordering Afghanistan and Pakistan, and that, most importantly, the territory has a plurality of Muslim Ughyrs. It is pretty to easy to see why this event happened. This territory has alternatively been under, and independent of, the control of the Han for centuries. As terrible as the deaths of innocent people are, and they are terrible, the real issue is whether or not these sort of events are a signal of growing unrest in China's frontier regions.  It is really hard to say, since both Tibet and Xinjiang have had periods of unrest recently, but this attack is new. There have been protests and riots, but those are rather directionless and often fizzle out or are suppressed quickly. An assault on a government building, the police no less, is much different. Time will tell if this is a one off instance, or the beginnings of something larger.

The Unavoidable War: The War of The Pacific

I have notice the war between Japan and the United States being brought up in the comments section of various libertarian and reactionary blogs that I visit.  It is the opinion of some that this war was entirely avoidable was only the result of the machinations of President Roosevelt.  I disagree, the war, while not inevitable, had a very high likelihood of happening. I expect I may take some flak for this statement, I have in the past, but this post will explain my reasoning. Please reserve final opinions and conclusions until you have read it in it's entirety.

Geopolitics: Strategic Reshift To Pacific

*This is a post I have had in the docket for a little while now but just got around to releasing*

The US has been shift more of its attention for the last decade or so, very minimally at first due to the conflicts in the Middle East, and the American public at large is just starting to become aware of this fact..  Given the developments of the last two decades such the recent economic development, excluding Japan, of East Asia, The increasing trade tonnage traveling the pacific and the growth of China as a military power, the US has been focusing more of it's diplomatic, economic and military power in the region.

Arctic Trade

A real quick post this morning, due to the fact that I was across the state for graduation and unable to prepare any sort of lengthy post. The shrinking, and weakening of, the polar ice cap opens up the opportunity for new shipping route along the Arctic sea to the north; as seen by the image from Stratfors website.  This could have interesting geopolitical fall out for nations, not only with nearby access to the Arctic sea, but also those nations who are very far away from that part of the world.

Stratfor: Strategic Challenges of Italy and Greece

I've posted two videos today detailing the strategic challenges facing two Mediterranean nations

 

NYT Op-Ed: Japan's Unnecessary Nationalism

A few days ago I was reading the news and I read a New York Times article. I don't normally seek out the New York Times but my girl friend is a 'newsie' and often sends me articles she thinks I would be interested in reading.  The title of the article piqued my interest as I assumed it would probably relate to the growing tensions between China and Japan concerning islets and coral reefs in the East China Sea.

I assumed, given the New York Times ideological slant, that they would express concern with Japan's recent military developments in the last few years.  We often think of Japan as an extremely pacifist nation that utterly relies on the United States for protection.  The reality is that Japan has one of the most developed navies in the world and that what appears to be reliance is simply a high level of integration with the United States military. Imagine my surprise when, instead of a relatively researched piece filled with insight, I get a editorial that had to be no more than  few hundred words with no real insight whatsoever.  I should have known better considering that it is the New York Times and I have been spoiled by Stratfor reports.

The article was written by the editorial board of the New York Times and their entire op-ed boils down to nothing more than saying "Shame on you Japan for having some of your political leaders visit shrine for your war dead during this time of tension between you and Japan".  They also wrote how they didn't like that the current Prime Minister of Japan defended Japan's war time conduct during World War II.

Japan's conduct during the war was atrocious and you will find no argument from me; My grandmother's brother was killed in the Philippines when the US was there to liberate the island. but the war was over 60 years ago and majority of people alive in Japan today either did not fight in the war, or were not even born when it happened.  They also paid for their transgressions.  The United States fire bombed their capitol, dropped two nuclear bombs and then took away their sovereignty for a period of time.  At some point a people get tired of saying 'I'm sorry' for something that happened a long time ago. I believe the Japanese are at this point and I am with them on this.

Even if a nation has fought a war in the wrong it is unreasonable to expect never ending contrition.  At some point nations move on and look forward. The fact that the editors of the New York Times are concerned that a bunch of Japanese legislators are visiting a shrine honoring their countrymen who have died in war astounds me.  If the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom visited a monument honoring the British killed in the American Revolution it would be a total non-event for me.  Nations have every right to honor their fallen. The New York Times probably doesn't object to Japan honoring their dead so much as how they are choosing to honor it - sort of like how the left only doesn't object religion  itself, rather how its adherents choose to practice it.

The reason why it is absurd is that rhetoric mean very little on the geo-political stage. Rhetoric is meant for your own people.  Reagan's 'Tear down this wall' speech had absolutely zero impact on the Soviets, but Reagan didn't make the speech for the Soviets, or even the Germans for that matter, it was for Americans.  You would think that the editors would have finally realized this after the ill-fated attempts by the Presidents to raise our global stature.  He gave many speeches in Europe, Asia and most importantly the Middle East.  While the intelligentsia swooned and made a huge deal about Obama extending olive branches and mending bridges the reactions, outside of the intelligentsia in Europe at least, were impassive. That's because action, not rhetoric, has any real meaning. Whether the progressives at the NYT want to admit it or not our actions haven't changed.  The United States, like any other nation, looks out for her interest first and foremost and always will.

So this is what the NYT editors really need to understand. The Prime Minister and the leaders say what they say for their people and no one else. While the leaders of Korea and China will chastise Japan publicly, privately they couldn't care less. More importantly it's been over 60 years since the war and attempting to 'shame' Japan isn't going to work anymore.

The Offensive That Never Was

When Nazi Germany invaded Poland the allies, The United Kingdom and France, promptly declared war on Germany and did....nothing. Well, not exactly nothing, they did manage a half hearted offensive the only succeeded in moving French forces a few miles into German territory and get 2,000 French soldiers killed. The British did nothing in terms of major military movements into German territory, and outside of some air combat, did little against the Germans. The first major ground fighting between the United Kingdom and Germany didn't occur until the Norwegian campaign.

All in all the inactivity by the Allied nations was pretty damning considering that only 23 German divisions were left to face almost 110 divisions of the Allies. Even with the military incompetence of the French generals who, despite the fact that the implementation of armored vehicles in World War I lead to their victory, failed to implement a combat strategy that effectively utilized armored units and adhered to World War I military doctrine.  The Allied nations left Poland to be ravished by the Germans, and later the Soviets, when decisive action early on could have ended the war quickly. This inaction would have tremendous consequences for decades to come as both the Allied power inaction, and the United States ignoring of the possibility of a Japanese attack, has been one of the justifications for a very aggressive foreign policy since then.  Millions of deaths could have been prevented if the United Kingdom and France had only acted more aggressively.

The phrase 'hindsight is 20/20' is often used as a response to could've, should've and would've situations.  But the fact is that the allied nations inactivity was utterly inexplicable.  Nazi Germany was very open about it's desires to establish a Greater Germany Reich, which would have included taking territory from the French, and the bloodless invasion of Czechoslovakia should have made it abundantly clear that Nazi Germany was testing the waters.  When the Germans invaded Poland there should have been no doubt between the allied nations, they were next on the agenda. It's one thing to dismiss something as bellicose rhetoric or saber rattling when a nation doesn't escalate, like North Korea, but it is entirely another matter when a nation unambiguously push the boundaries. 

While Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Germany when it came to Czechoslovakia could be seen as a betrayal, and a gross miscalculation, it is somewhat understandable.  Britain had only recently fought a bloody, and to many British largely pointless, war and sought to avoid another bloody conflict that would exhaust an already weakened empire.  I understand the logic, though based on a faulty premise, behind appeasement on Czechoslovakia.  But once Germany had exposed its willingness to use force to achieve its ends, they should have acted decisively. The fact that they didn't was a terrible travesty with consequences that are still reverberating today.

Stratfor: Canada's Geographic Challenge

Here is another Geographic Challenge video from Stratfor. This one featuring our cousins in the wintry north.  Canada is in a unique position due to its relation to the United States. On the one hand close proximity means that Canada has the added protection of naturally being in the US defense umbrella; and access to the largest economy in the world.  Canada is America's largest supplier of oil and natural gas.  At the same time Canada's proximity means a loss of some of its sovereignty -can anyone imagine Canada significantly going against America geo-politically? - and it is very much intertwined into American markets, 49% of its imports are from America, to the point that you could almost consider Canada and America as one economy. Anyways, enjoy the video

China Owes America Money?!

A strange statement to make I know. Currently China holds over a trillion dollars in US debt securities and there has been a lot of hand wringing over that fact; personally I consider the trillions of dollars held by the FED and Social Security Trust to be a bigger issue. So when someone makes the claim that China owes the US a lot of money, it draws me interest. According to the daily caller, China may owe US investors billions of dollars and it may total over a trillion. 

First things first, I wasn't convinced that this was entirely true, but it looks like Fox news did pick up on the story and the American Bond Holders Foundation looks legit at first glance. Now the crux of this entire issue is that this debt was accrued from 1900 to 1938 by the Republic of China, a technically defunct organization if we considered the People's Republic of Taiwan as separate entity. However, there is precedent of new political entities assuming the debt obligations accrued prior to its existence, the Russian Federation assumed many of the debts of the defunct U.S.S.R. The issue is does the PRC owe the debt that was accrued prior to it coming into power?  China has been mum on the matter, not outright refuting it according to the articles I have read, but ignoring it as well.

I don't really have an opinion on the matter since I just stumbled onto it, but it is interesting nonetheless. Assuming this is entirely legitimate, jury is still out, and considering that there is extensive debt owed to the US, how would this play in the geopolitical and economic game going on between the two nations?

And The Dance With North Korea Continues

That dance is one where North Korea rattles its saber, sometimes the saber rattling is nothing more than bellicose rhetoric, sometimes it's a missile launch and in some instances a skirmish with South Korean military forces.  The end result is usually the same, the United States, South Korea and Japan ready their military forces in a show of strength. Russia and China advocate that all the nations involve must exercise caution to minimize the threat of escalation, in reality the threat of escalation probably isn't that high since China will signal to North Korea if they are pushing the buttons too hard. In the end the US and South Korea decide it will reach out, a.k.a appease, North Korea, if certain conditions are met.

Interesting Development In South China Sea

Looks like Japan has made a rather bold move, not just in regards to the Senkaku Island dispute, but in regards to the ongoing Taiwan issue as well.

The Importance Of The South China Sea In Two Images

 

I've been writing about the South China sea and the growing focus of the US trying to contain China and China trying to avoid containment.  Here are two images showing why future saber waving and bellicose rhetoric and continued US focus is assured in this part of the world.

 

Crude Oil Shipments

 

 

LNG Shipments

 

 

These images make it increasingly apparent why China claims the areas it does for its exclusive economic zone and why the nations of Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Philippines, Taiwan and even Korea and Japan have a vested interest as well.  I've detailed China's fears of US containment and the threat that of having the straits of Malacca choked off, this image just brings that point home.

 

For the other Asian nations it isn't just that about national pride or the natural resources on the sea bed floor, the entire sea is literally fuel lifeline of Asia. While exclusive economic zones aren't the same thing as territorial waters, under the complete jurisdiction of the nation that controls them, it isn't the same thing as open unclaimed ocean either. The other Asian nations won't acquiesce to Chinese claims, outside of the readily the  apparent economic reasons, because to do so would be to say that under the influence of China. What would that mean?

 

Ever gone on a cruise in the Caribbean or Gulf of Mexico? In almost every port of call you will see a US coast guard cutter. The US presence is everywhere and you cannot get away from it, which isn't all that bad considering that piracy is rather rare in that part of the world.  The Gulf of Mexico is indisputably under the domain of the United States. This is what China wants for the South China Sea, and what the other Asian nations don't want.

 



Launch From North Korea Imminent

At least according to the Pentagon, who say they believe that North Korea is preparing to launch one or more of its ballistic missiles.  Now before everyone starts hypothesising nuclear armageddon or an outbreak of war on the Korean peninsula we need to remember that no one has mentioned where the missile will go.

If the we believed that there was an imminent threat of a ballistic missile being launched into South Korea then we would have already mobilized our forces to neutralize those ballistic batteries; I am 100% certain of that. We also need to acknowledge that North Korea has fired missiles, sometimes ballistic missiles, before from its east coast into the sea of Japan. 

Long story short I am not particularly alarmed by the news headlines, though everyone and their mother on the major news outlets will be wringing their hands.  North Korea has a history of this kind of behavior, and despite all the rhetoric from our politicians and pundits, they aren't crazy (just evil) and I doubt they would cross the line. Toe it via rhetoric? Certainly. Bend it with border skirmishes? At times. North Korea is pretty certain that those kind of actions won't result in full out war. Launching a ballistic missile into South Korea, or Japan, would be a different story all together. At least that is my take, and I could be horribly wrong, guess well see.

Geopolitics: Laser Weaponry

As you've no doubt probably read already, the US Navy unveils a ship mounted laser capable of shooting down unmanned drones and disabling smaller boats. Being like the majority of red blooded American males I have an inherent fascinating with weapons of war, doesn't mean that I don't think some of these weapon systems or programs are a waste of money, and given my interest in geopolitics I am fascinated by the geopolitical ramifications.

First off, I always have operated under an assumption that a military body, or a government, will not reveal a weapons system unless, they either want to score points on the geopolitical scene, or they have something better out there.  This, of course, ignores nations like Iran or North and their Potemkin military technology announcements. So when the US navy announces that they have a working, albeit just in field tests, laser weapon system it makes me ask wonder about a few things.

1) How well have they worked out the many practical operational limitations around laser weaponry systems?

A pretty simple question with a pretty simply answer. They obviously have something they think is workable, but how workable is what they may be trying to find out.

2) Why did they choose an amphibious transport ship and not an aircraft carrier or one of the Aegis destroyers?

I think this is a pretty interesting question. Apart from the obvious , the article made it very clear that this weapon was still very much in operational testing, there are some interesting, almost conspiratorial ideas. 

Either these weapon systems have long been installed on a select number of our destroyers and today is simply the first anything has been said about it, or the US navy has something even bigger in the works that may already, or be near, operational completion.  Of course, a US Defense official stresses that the laser does not posses full capability, but its a nameless source and so it's veracity is hard to determine.

3) Why did the US navy, given their propensity to shroud other military programs such as the stealth bomber in secrecy, announce such a program?

Laser weaponry would be a game changer in terms of military combat.  Near instantaneous, for all intents and purposes, and much more accurate than any kinetic based weapons system. This would give what ever military that had it a serious advantage over its competitors, especially in regards to certain types of combat.  There is of course space based combat and a lasers ability to knock out enemy satellites would be extremely valuable but I am going to focus on something else.

The Navy plans to use the laser to combat missiles and other threats from the air, to ward off threatening ships and to stop other foreign threats. Eventually the system will be able to stop an incoming missile.
 

The article mentions that this ship is being deployed to Iran. While I don't want to downplay the importance of such a weapons system in that portion of the world, I don't think we are designing such a system because of the Iranians. It's for the Chinese. For further context, here is this image:

A few years ago China announced the DF-21, the worlds first confirmed ballistic missile. This is of course assuming that the US and Russia never developed an anti-ship ballistic missile system and I remain doubtful that they haven't.  The DF-21, if it works as intended, would be able to strike at enemy ships throughout the South China sea and past the archipelago of small and major islands that are potential forward bases in any potential naval blockade of China.

What is interesting is that, so far, the US has claimed that there is no workable defense, if the ballistic missile system works as the Chinese intend, at this place and time. This has forced a shift in US military strategy to relying more on our ballistic destroyers and less on relying on carrier power projection alone.  Naturally it has also increased our interest in a weapons system that we have been researching for quiet some time.

One thing we always have to be aware of when the government makes a press release is that there is what the government says and what it says. In my mind, this press release is a message to the leadership of China. What it says is that while they may have a ballistic weapons system capable of destroying an aircraft carrier the US will develop, or perhaps already has, a weapons system that can counter it.

Whether or not we have such a system we can't say with any real certainty. A single article from mainstream news source, that only cites an unnamed defense official, isn't enough to make me take anything written in the article as anything near approaching the truth. In fact, this whole entire article could be nothing more than a giant psych out, though the US has long been interested in laser weaponry and I wouldn't doubt for a second we have the capability.

It will be interesting to see how China, Iran and even Russia react to this new development in military technology.

Stratfor: Entering a New Geopolitical Age

Here is a free article from the head of Stratfor concerning the globe entering a new era beyond the post-cold war era. It's pretty good, and covers the EU, US and China. He lists out the real problems and issues facing each of the powers, though you will notice he does omit some items concerning the United States.  The two major ones I suspect individuals in this corner of the net will notice is the absence of acknowledging the absolute danger our unsustainable debt, the threat posed by a potential monetary collapse, our declining civil liberties and the issue with immigration. 

The first two are items Stratfor has always been rather weak on. Their analysis of global events is excellent in my opinion but they have a blind spot when it comes to the United States and its economic and fiscal matters. However, Stratfor has, correctly in my opinion, outline some key fundamental reasons why the US wields so much geopolitical power. The issue now is will our very real problems overwhelm our natural advantages. Obviously Mr. Friedman, due to the omission in his analysis, would say yes while others on the manosphere would so the exact opposite. I am somewhere in the middle. My concern with our economic situation is less about our geopolitical power as much as it is our personal well being. I do not, for a second, think that the US would elect what Britain or the USSR chose to do when faced between maintaining their empires or sacrificing more of their peoples well beings.

As for the the declining civil liberties, Mr. Friedman has addressed the issue in the past and stated that one of his fears was that no power can remain a true republic and an imperial power, though two are mutually exclusive. I believe civil liberties are very important in the ability for a nation to project power as John Adams once said, and I am paraphrasing: "A nation's power is dependent on it's liberties of it's people. And the nation with the largest population with the most free people will be the most powerful." But at the same time even on the long term time frame of real politics the effects of declining civil liberties can take some time to be realized.

Lastly, as for immigration, while Mr. Friedman did not address the issue in this article, he has in the past. In fact, in his book, the Next 100 Years, he maintains that in the later half of this century that the issue of immigration will be the most important issue concerning the United States and it's ability to project power.  The American Southwest has always been a borderland between Mexico and America. America currently occupies it now because it is far more powerful, both in wealth, military and population than it's southern neighbor and because of that we control the south west.  This was not always the case in the past and it may not always be the case in the future. Mr. Friedman thinks that there is a real possibility of a secessionist movement or even a war between Mexico, which he thinks will become a potential rival, and the US if the issue of immigration and assimilation is not adequately addressed. 

Either way, you may agree or disagree with some or all of his assessments but it is worth a quick read.