(20) EU summit concludes but debate on EU future, unity continues - Global Times

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1037222.shtml


Enviado desde mi iPad

(19) Australia reshapes foreign policy in new era - Global Times

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1036852.shtml


Enviado desde mi iPad

(18) BRICS paradigm breaks new grounds in geopolitical order - Global Times

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1036927.shtml

BRICS paradigm breaks new grounds in geopolitical order

US President Donald Trump's "America First" rhetoric and the complications of Brexit are making supporters of the old world order more and more anxious. More specifically, with US withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and expecting its partners and allies to take care of their own security arrangements, the onus now lies on emerging economies to take the lead in ensuring peace and stability in their immediate peripheries.

In the aftermath of a decade-long global economic slowdown, where the old G7 has already given way to G20, new groups like BRICS have been successfully creating a whole set of innovative new strategies in addressing various development challenges.

Others like the Eurasian Economic Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the Indian Ocean Rim Association - which include many emerging economies - are also revamping their regional institutions and policies.

BRICS is also breaking new grounds in sustaining cross-continental partnerships among countries that were once ridiculed for their economic and socio-political policies.

BRICS was once coined as an investment term by British economist Jim O'Neil of Goldman Sachs who described the member countries as investment destinations for G7 economies with promise of better per-dollar return.

Now, the organization has become a game-changer diplomatic club led by China, which has since 2014 become the world's largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity. This transformation of BRICS has also been facilitated by the continued global economic slowdown since 2007.

Meanwhile, BRICS has earned respect and credibility by successfully launching many out-of-the-box initiatives including its New Development Bank of Currency Pool, and China has launched the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) which clearly makes Bretton Woods institutions look outdated in addition to being discriminatory and autocratic.

The UK, which voted to leave the European Union, chose to be a founding member of the AIIB; thus, influencing several other European members to follow its lead. Likewise, the Washington Consensus, with its 10 guiding principles of structural adjustment program seeking rapid growth in various developing countries that had led to major debt crisis, has since been replaced by the Beijing Consensus that seeks to emphasize strong state regulation of free market economies.

Without a doubt, BRICS has also expanded its mandate to include the security issues like combating terrorism discussed in the 2014 BRICS Summit. Even though member states like Brazil and South Africa have experienced economic slowdown and internal instability, strong leadership from Russia, China and India have held sway over them and displayed great vision and true grit.

Episodic interruptions have not had much effect on their cohesive partnerships. BRICS members have not just created far more equitable structures but also flexible mechanisms like organizing mini-summits on the sidelines of other multilateral summits like G20, nuclear security summits or climate change summits. This reflects increasing confidence of BRICS leaders.

Western critics often compare BRICS to G20 and continue to point out the insignificance of the bilateral ties between Russia and Brazil and the frustration and strife in the relationship between China and India. On the contrary, BRICS has continued to come up with their out-of-the-box visions and strategies. Whereas the military alliances and military bases were the drivers of the old world order, which emphasized the division among states, the emerging new world order seems to focus on infrastructural logistics that seek inter-societal connectivity, thus, emphasizes regional partnerships. It also redefines regions based on intensity of interests and interactions instead of narrow bandwidth of physical proximity.

As BRICS paradigm breaks new grounds in geopolitics, it seeks to replace geo-strategy with geo-economics and views development as a source of security rather than embracing security over peace. Though BRICS nations have yet achieved these goals, they show strong commitments to work toward realizing these emerging new paradigms.

The author is a professor at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn Follow us on Twitter @GTopinion

(17) Building up nuclear deterrence best response to THAAD - Global Times

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1037016.shtml

Building up nuclear deterrence best response to THAAD

Some equipment for the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-missile system, including launch vehicles, has been delivered to South Korea for deployment. Beijing has also started to impose sanctions on Seoul. However, the US is the initiator and the major promoter for the THAAD installation. How China should react to US strategic provocations is more crucial.

Economic sanctions against the US are unlikely. THAAD producer Lockheed Martin is the world's most powerful weapons manufacturers, and is beyond China's grasp. Given the US' economic scale, economic sanctions against it will be strategically unfavorable to China.

South Korea is a different story, with a much smaller economy and is highly dependent on China. We have more leverage in sanctioning it. 

However, the US must pay the price for the THAAD deployment. The THAAD system is key for the US' "rebalance to Asia" strategy and its global anti-missile system so as to contain Russia and China's military capabilities, and secure its dominance in intercontinental ballistic missile deployment. China should take countermeasures to upset such plans.

China is the only nuclear state that has pledged not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons on non-nuclear states. It has kept a low profile over its nuclear armaments.

However, China has abundant financial capacity to expand its nuclear arsenal and upgrade strategic missiles. The THAAD deployment on China's doorstep has broken the previous strategic balance, and China should counter it with more advanced nuclear warheads and missiles.

We should not only recover losses from THAAD and rebuild the regional balance, but also become more powerful and reliable in nuclear deterrence.

A rapid increase in the number and quality of China's strategic nuclear weapons will be a painful price for the US. This isn't a nuclear arms race. China has no need or intention to engage in an endless arms race. While Beijing strives to safeguard its core interests, Washington pursues global hegemony. Given its growing financial budgets, China isn't worried about a limited "arms race."

Beijing should make it clear to Washington that the THAAD deployment will definitely lead to China's increasing nuclear prowess. If the US further intensifies its anti-missile attempts and strategic containment, China may reconsider its pledge of not being the first to use nuclear weapons.

The Sino-US relationship seems to be returning to a stable state, but the nuclear game between the two will continue for a long time. China must be clear-minded about not trading its national security for temporary prosperity in ties with the US.

THAAD poses threats to both China and Russia. Joint work against the system is the new bond of the Sino-Russian comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination, and will strike a heavy blow to the US. 

(16) The Economist explains: What is the “deep state”? | The Economist

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2017/03/economist-explains-6

The Economist explains What is the "deep state"?

And where does it come from?

THE Trump era is reshaping not just American politics but also its lexicon. Terms such as "fake news", "alt-right" and "post-truth" have entered mainstream use, and kicked up debates about what they actually mean in the process. "Deep state" is the latest to gain attention, as leaks from inside the administration frustrate Donald Trump's supporters. Right-wing websites such as Breitbart News warn of a "deep state" that wants to "terminate" Mr Trump. Some extreme sites talk of a "war" between the deep state and the president. "If it comes to it, prefer the deep state to the Trump state," Bill Kristol, a conservative critic of Mr Trump, recently tweeted. But what does the term actually refer to?

American pundits have often used "deep state" interchangeably with the bureaucracies of the military and spy agencies, especially those bits that leak against the government. Mr Trump's relations with his spies have been tense since the intelligence community determined that Russia had tried to influence the election in his favour. He has publicly challenged their assessments of his team's ties with Russia, chastised them for past intelligence failures and compared leaks against him to practices in Nazi Germany. His supporters cite "deep-state" leaks embarrassing to Mr Trump's administration as evidence of a shadowy network of unelected government officials undermining the president. (The president has not publicly used the term.) 

But the deep state started life as something else entirely. Citizens in Turkey, where the term originated, have long worried about the derin devlet ("deep state"), which refers to a network of individuals in different branches of government, with links to retired generals and organised crime, that existed without the knowledge of high-ranking military officers and politicians. Its goal was purportedly to preserve secularism and destroy communism by any means necessary, outside the regular chain of command. Starting in the 1950s Turkey's deep state sponsored killings, engineered riots, colluded with drug traffickers, staged "false flag" attacks and organised massacres of trade unionists. Thousands died in the chaos it fomented.   

In its present avatar, "deep state" seems set to go the way of "fake news" in American discourse, a once-useful term rendered meaningless by promiscuous repetition, often in reference to quite different things. Turkey is a pioneer here too. After a handful of city councils in Germany recently cancelled rallies in support for Mr Erdogan, Turkey's foreign minister offered a simple explanation: "This is a systematic move of the German deep state".

And where does it come from?

THE Trump era is reshaping not just American politics but also its lexicon. Terms such as "fake news", "alt-right" and "post-truth" have entered mainstream use, and kicked up debates about what they actually mean in the process. "Deep state" is the latest to gain attention, as leaks from inside the administration frustrate Donald Trump's supporters. Right-wing websites such as Breitbart News warn of a "deep state" that wants to "terminate" Mr Trump. Some extreme sites talk of a "war" between the deep state and the president. "If it comes to it, prefer the deep state to the Trump state," Bill Kristol, a conservative critic of Mr Trump, recently tweeted. But what does the term actually refer to?

American pundits have often used "deep state" interchangeably with the bureaucracies of the military and spy agencies, especially those bits that leak against the government. Mr Trump's relations with his spies have been tense since the intelligence community determined that Russia had tried to influence the election in his favour. He has publicly challenged their assessments of his team's ties with Russia, chastised them for past intelligence failures and compared leaks against him to practices in Nazi Germany. His supporters cite "deep-state" leaks embarrassing to Mr Trump's administration as evidence of a shadowy network of unelected government officials undermining the president. (The president has not publicly used the term.) 

But the deep state started life as something else entirely. Citizens in Turkey, where the term originated, have long worried about the derin devlet ("deep state"), which refers to a network of individuals in different branches of government, with links to retired generals and organised crime, that existed without the knowledge of high-ranking military officers and politicians. Its goal was purportedly to preserve secularism and destroy communism by any means necessary, outside the regular chain of command. Starting in the 1950s Turkey's deep state sponsored killings, engineered riots, colluded with drug traffickers, staged "false flag" attacks and organised massacres of trade unionists. Thousands died in the chaos it fomented.   

In its present avatar, "deep state" seems set to go the way of "fake news" in American discourse, a once-useful term rendered meaningless by promiscuous repetition, often in reference to quite different things. Turkey is a pioneer here too. After a handful of city councils in Germany recently cancelled rallies in support for Mr Erdogan, Turkey's foreign minister offered a simple explanation: "This is a systematic move of the German deep state".

(15) Why Iran's Cruise Missile Test Near Strait of Hormuz is 'Annoying' Signal for US

https://sputniknews.com/military/201703041051264389-iran-cruise-missile-us/?utm_source=adfox_site_41917&utm_medium=adfox_banner_2004819&utm_campaign=adfox_campaign_626011&ues=1

Why Iran's Cruise Missile Test Near Strait of Hormuz is 'Annoying' Signal for US

The Iranian military has tested a brand new Nasir cruise missile during large-scale naval drills in the Indian Ocean that took place from February 26 until March 1. Commenting on the launch, Iranian Defense Minister Brig. Gen. Hossein Dehqan said that the cruise missile has hit the specified target with maximum precision.

© AFP 2017/ EBRAHIM NOROOZI / JAMEJAM ONLINE

Pirates and Iranophobia: Why Tehran is Staging Large-Scale Naval Drills in the Indian Ocean

The final stage of Iran's Velayat 95 drills took place in the Strait of Hormuz, the Sea of Oman and North of the Indian Ocean. The area of the drills covered two million square kilometers (over 770,000 square miles).

Various naval units, including submarines, missile-launching destroyers, surface and subsurface units, missile and electronic warfare systems, drones, fighter jets and marines took part in the military exercises. Missile tests, intelligence operations, deployment of submarines and rescue operations were conducted as part of the drills, involving a range of naval equipment including submarines and helicopters manufactured in Iran.

The Velayat 95 drills are the last in a series of military exercises, which were announced in June 2016 by the Iranian Navy. The Nasir missile can be placed on ships, submarines, aircraft and self-propelled coastal complexes.

Military expert and retired Colonel Viktor Litovkin said in an interview with Radio Sputnik that the Iranian missile has been in  mass-production since the beginning of 2010.

"It's difficult to call the missile brand new; it [Nasir] is quite well-known. This cruise anti-ship missile can be launched not only from surface vessels, but from submarines and jets. This time it has been tested from ground-based complexes. Its flight-range is up to 35 kilometers. The missile can track the landscape and acquire targets based on information from an inertial navigation system. They [the Iranians] added laser guidance. And this is a premier," Litovkin said.

He added that the Iranian Navy is participating in the large-scale drills near the Strait of Hormuz, a strategically important "oil corridor" through which lies the main shipping route of Middle Eastern oil export. That's why the drills concern the United States, the expert believes.

"Iran wants to be the dominant country in the Middle Eastern region. Iran has 'an axe to grind' against the US allies [in the region], Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and Israel. This annoys the US. Iran conducts exercises near the Strait of Hormuz where oil tankers belonging to the US replenish the supply of fuel. Iran, therefore, demonstrates that it can block this area at any time. Moreover, American warships are always in the Persian Gulf area, where a major US military base is located. Iranian boats have repeatedly approached American frigates and destroyers signaling an attack. Americans don't enjoy it," he explained.

The US has already expanded sanctions against Tehran over Iran's missile program, Litovkin continued. However, in his opinion, after the current cruise missile test, no sanctions will follow from the international community.

© AP Photo/ Mostafa Qotbi/IRNA

Iran to Stage Military Drills in Defiance of US Sanctions

"The UN Security Council resolution [on Iran's nuclear deal] doesn't mention cruise missiles; it's about ballistic missiles. The Nasir is not the type of the rocket a UNSC meeting could be convened," he concluded.

Iran's naval drills come amid an escalation of tensions with the new US administration. After the inauguration of US President Donald Trump, Washington-Tehran tensions escalated amid Iran's ballistic missile test and the new US sanctions against Iran. Moreover, Trump has repeatedly criticized the Iran nuclear agreement, saying that it is a "bad deal" and "disastrous for Israel."

In addition, the exercises come after reports emerged suggesting that the US had allegedly proposed Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Jordan and Egypt to form a US-backed defense pact which would share intelligence with Israel and counter Iran's influence in the region.

(14) Why Trump's Foreign Policy Leaves More Questions Than Answers

https://sputniknews.com/politics/201703101051463422-trump-us-foreign-policy/

Why Trump's Foreign Policy Leaves More Questions Than Answers

Donald Trump's foreign strategy and NATO policy still leave more questions than answers, Professor Hiroshi Nakanishi of Kyoto University notes in his article for Sankei Shimbun.

"Although more than a month has passed since Donald Trump assumed the office, his foreign strategy remains shrouded in fog," Professor Nakanishi underscored.

According to the Japanese academic, in addition to the belated appointments in the Trump cabinet, there is also the problem of leadership within his team.

"The Secretary of Defense [James Mattis] and Secretary of State [Rex Tillerson] belong to the major wing of the Republican Party, but President Trump's associates have adopted a 'radical' position, seeking to reshuffle the existing order," he suggested.

© AFP 2017/ PAUL J. RICHARDS

Trump's Pick for Russia Envoy 'One of the Better Choices President Could Have Made'

This controversy could have been at the root of the Trump administration's seemingly inconsistent position towards US allies and the NATO bloc.

To illustrate his point, Nakanishi drew attention to Vice President Michael Pence and Secretary of Defense Mattis' visit to Europe in mid-February. The US officials took part in a NATO Summit in Brussels and a security conference in Munich.

One may say that the reaction of the Europeans to their messages was ambiguous: some calmed down, while the others got visibly agitated, the professor noted.

The US officials underscored the importance of NATO, in some sense contradicting Trump's earlier statement that the Alliance was an obsolete organization.

At the same time, however, Mattis and Pence demanded that the European NATO member states increased their defense spending.

Commenting on the matter, Nakanishi noted that, as of yet, only a few European countries have met the  goal of spending 2% of their GDP on the Alliance. In spending 3.5% of their GDP on the bloc's needs the US still bears the main financial burden.

Although Washington's arguments looked fair, there was rather modest applause for the suggestion from Pence to increase the defense spending, the academic noted.

© REUTERS/ Ints Kalnins

U.S. soldiers stand next to the M1 Abrams tanks that will be deployed in Latvia for NATO's Operation Atlantic Resolve in Garkalne, Latvia February 8, 2017

"However, the problem is not only in the defense budget. Mattis and Tillerson criticized Russia, but did not deny the possibility of reviewing US policy towards Moscow. They highlighted the role of NATO in the Middle East, but did not outline concrete measures [the Alliance should take in the region]," Nakanishi stressed.

"Such an ambiguity is the result of the fragmentation of foreign policy ideas in US power circles," he believes.

© AFP 2017/ Joshua LOTT, Odd ANDERSE

EU-US Ties 'Unlikely to Become Easier' in Near Future Due to Trump Team's Stance

There is yet another problem: the academic expressed concerns about the Trump administration's attitude toward the European Union. Following the Second World War Washington supported the idea of creating a unified European space.

While the Republicans continue to follow this course, Trump and his associates never miss a chance to criticize the bloc and openly praise the UK's decision to leave the EU.

 The academic noted that Trump's contradictions with Europe may also have serious implications for Japan. Tokyo should not be too optimistic about the future of US-Japanese relations, he warned, adding that Japan needs to team up with European leaders and work out common strategic goals with the EU.

Rossiya Segodnya's political commentator Dmitri Kosyrev doesn't share Nakanishi's pessimism.

In his February op-ed for RIA Novosti Kosyrev pointed out the differences in Trump's approach toward his European and Asian Pacific allies.

The Russian political analyst pointed out that the Trump administration is seeking to bolster its Asian Pacific alliances as a counterweight to China, Washington's major economic and geopolitical competitor in the region.

"In fact, we can say that Trump has begun his real foreign policy by establishing the system of relations around China, the main geopolitical rival [of the US]. Europeans and their ideological allies can wait," Kosyrev wrote.

(13) EU summit reveals sharp divisions within Europe and tensions with US - World Socialist Web Site

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/03/10/eusu-m10.html

EU summit reveals sharp divisions within Europe and tensions with US

 

By Johannes Stern
10 March 2017

The annual Euro Summit meeting of the 28 EU heads of government, which began Thursday, was dominated by sharp transatlantic tensions and a deep crisis of the European Union (EU).

Conflicts between Germany and the United States intensified ahead of Chancellor Angela Merkel's first meeting with President Donald Trump next week. On Monday, Peter Navarro, Trump's economic adviser, described the US's trade deficit with Germany as a "serious matter" and as "one of the most difficult issues" for American trade policy.

"I think that it would be useful to have candid discussions with Germany about ways that we could possibly get that deficit reduced outside the boundaries and restrictions that they claim that they are under," Navarro said in Washington.

Germany has responded to Washington's increasingly belligerent rhetoric by attempting to bind Europe together under its leadership and prepare "for a trade war with the United States," as the Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper put it.

The European powers are seeking to exploit Trump's cancellation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership to expand economically into Asian markets. In a piece entitled "Europe counters Trump" the Süddeutsche Zeitung reported on the draft statement for the summit: "At their meeting in Brussels, the EU heads of government want to stand up to Trump's 'America first policy'…and are determined to fill the hole that the United States will leave behind following Trump's withdrawal from world trade."

The EU is striving to rapidly conclude a trade agreement with Japan, which is the second-largest Asian economy after China, and is currently negotiating free trade deals around the world with a further 20 countries, among them Singapore and Vietnam.

Before travelling to Brussels, Merkel noted in a statement to the German parliament "that Europe will act together against unfair and protectionist trade practices, and firmly defend its interests, whenever and wherever this is necessary." In the future, she said, the EU had "to be capable of carrying out independent crisis management." Germany was "reliant not only on having access to the single market, but also to global markets."

In order to pursue these global interests militarily, Germany and other European powers are seeking to establish a European army. Ahead of Thursday's summit, a meeting of European foreign and defence ministers on Monday agreed to the creation of a joint command centre for military interventions. According to diplomats, the headquarters will begin work this month and be fully operational by June.

Germany's aspirations to rise to the position of Europe's hegemon, and its mounting conflict with the United States, which as a military protective power and arbitrator has supported European unity since the end of World War II, are intensifying the already sharp divisions within the European Union.

This found expression at the summit in a sharp dispute over the re-election of European Council President Donald Tusk. Although the Polish government vehemently opposed the re-election of Tusk, a former Polish prime minister, the summit extended his term in office. The election of a politician into a senior position within the EU against the will of his own government is an unprecedented event in the history of the EU. Tusk is a member of Poland's largest opposition party, Civic Platform (PO), which is engaged in a bitter dispute with the governing PiS.

PiS chairman Jaroslaw Kaczyński described Tusk prior to the summit as "Germany's candidate." Poland's foreign Minister, Witold Waszczykowski, spoke in the aftermath of the election of a "diktat from Berlin." "We now know that it is an EU in which Berlin calls the shots," he told the Polish media. The Polish delegation announced it would block all further decisions at the summit with its veto.

In an effort to keep the right-wing, anti-Russian Polish government on board, Berlin has adopted a more strident tone against Russia. German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel (SPD) demonstratively stopped off in Warsaw on his way to a visit in Moscow. Along with the three Baltic States, Poland is among the four Eastern European countries where NATO is in the process of deploying 4,000 military personnel, together with tanks and other heavy weapons. Gabriel visited the battalion being led by the German army in Lithuania last week.

Speaking in Moscow, Gabriel vehemently defended the first stationing of German troops in Eastern Europe since the genocidal war launched under the Nazis and blamed "the violation of borders in the centre of Europe" on Russia.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov rejected Gabriel's accusation that his country was threatening NATO's eastern members. "We have different statistics on that," he stated. In fact, Russia was being "encircled by NATO weapons, NATO units… NATO ground troops are appearing on our borders, including from the Federal Republic of Germany."

The intensifying crisis in the Balkans was also on the agenda of the EU summit. The region was being subjected to "challenges and tensions," the EU's foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini warned in Brussels, "far more than ever." She warned that the Balkans were increasingly becoming "a chessboard for great power games."

Britain accused Russia at the beginning of the week of fomenting tensions in the region. Moscow was involved in the "undermining of countries in the Western Balkans," which was "completely unacceptable," British foreign Minister Boris Johnson stated. In truth, it is the Western powers that are fomenting conflict in the Balkans. In the 1990s, they tore Yugoslavia apart and bombed it. Less than a year ago, in spite of Russian warnings, NATO accepted Montenegro as a new member in the military alliance.

The growing tensions over the Balkans are only the most visible manifestation of the parallels in Europe to the run-up to the First World War over a hundred years ago. With world capitalism gripped by an ever-deepening economic and political crisis in every country, divisions within Europe and between the European powers and America increasingly take the form of protectionism, backed by rearmament and the threat of military force.

(12) Top U.S. General: America’s 'Nuclear Modernization Can No Longer Be Deferred’

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2017/03/09/us-nuclear-modernization-cannot-defer/

Top U.S. General: America's 'Nuclear Modernization Can No Longer Be Deferred'

AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

by Edwin Mora9 Mar 2017201

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

The U.S. military cannot afford to wait when it comes to modernizing and recapitalizing America's nuclear capabilities, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told lawmakers.

In written testimony prepared for Wednesday's House Armed Services Committee hearing on the military assessment of nuclear deterrence requirements, Air Force Gen. Paul Selva, the vice-chairman, noted that the armed forces had placed nuclear deterrence, including weapons, infrastructure, and personnel, at the top of their modernization priorities list.

He added:

Nuclear modernization can no longer be deferred. Previous decisions to defer modernization have resulted in overlapping acquisition programs today, which present two major consequences.

First, any disruption to the current program of record or future acquisition plans will introduce risk to our strategic [nuclear] deterrent… Second, the cost of funding modernization and replacement of the entire nuclear enterprise all at once is substantial.

Current projections already show that the Pentagon is expected to increase spending on the nuclear deterrent by billions, from about 3 percent (nearly $20 billion) of its fiscal year 2016 budget to more than double (6.5 percent) the amount in the late 2020s when the budget is likely to be higher.

"Despite these risks and costs, there is no higher priority for the Joint Force than fielding all components of an effective nuclear deterrent, including weapons, infrastructure, and personnel," Selva told lawmakers.

"The fundamental role of U.S. nuclear forces is to deter a strategic attack against the United States, its allies, and its partners," he added. "Simply put, nuclear weapons pose the only existential threat to the United States and there is no substitute for the prospect of a devastating nuclear response to deter that threat."

Although the general stressed that it is high time to overhaul American's nuclear capabilities, he noted that the United States is currently capable of responding to an unforeseen emergency.

Gen. Selva pointed out that Russia and China pose the top strategic nuclear threats to the United States but added that the inventory of adversaries is growing.

"No one should doubt that our weapons, delivery systems, the infrastructure that supports them, and the personnel who operate, monitor, and maintain them are prepared today to respond to any contingency," he declared. "Our current challenge, however, is to maintain this high level of readiness and capability as long as the policy and strategy of this nation depends in part on nuclear weapons for its security."

Currently, the U.S. military's nuclear deterrent capabilities stand near a crossroads.

"We are now at a point where we must concurrently recapitalize each component of our nuclear deterrent," explained the general during his verbal testimony. "The nuclear weapons themselves, the triad of strategic delivery platforms, the indication-and-warning systems to support our decision processes, the command-and-control networks that connect the president to our field forces, and our dual-capable tactical aircraft that can be equipped with nonstrategic nuclear weapons."

For more than two decades, the U.S. military has been forced to defer some nuclear force modernization to deal with other more urgent needs while ensuring that the country's nuclear capabilities and infrastructure remain safe, reliable, and secure.

"In making those decisions we have squeezed about all the life we can out of the systems we currently possess," Selva told lawmakers. "So that places an extra premium on a very deliberate long-term investment strategy to replace those systems as existing systems age out of the inventory."

Air Force Gen. John Hyten, the commander of U.S. Strategic Command, testified alongside Selva.

He noted that other nations, including U.S. adversaries, have continued to modernize and revamp their nuclear abilities as America squeezes the life out of its nuclear weapons stockpile, delivery systems, and other essential infrastructures at a time when the U.S. is facing unpredictable threats posed by the current multi-domain, multi-challenge security environment.

"Maintaining strategic deterrence, assurance and escalation control capabilities requires a multifaceted long-term investment approach and a sustained commitment to maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent," noted Gen. Hyten, adding that "nuclear deterrent is only as effective as the command and control that enables it to function."

Nuclear weapons continue to play a significant role in keeping the U.S. homeland safe.

Nevertheless, America has drastically reduced "the role and prominence of nuclear weapons in our defense planning" and "both the number of deployed weapons and the overall size of our stockpile" since the end of the Cold War, testified ret. U.S. Air Force Gen. Robert Kehler before the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

In his written testimony, he noted that "shaped by presidential initiatives and arms reduction agreements, by 2018 the number of weapons deployed on triad systems will be barely one‐tenth of Cold War highs."

(11) After impeachment, South Korea may reset relations with China and North Korea - The Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/afterimpeachment-south-korea-may-reset-relations-with-china-and-north-korea/2017/03/10/4e8af46e-050d-11e7-9d14-9724d48f5666_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_skorea-1145a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.2d85c08497b8

After impeachment, South Korea may reset relations with China and North Korea

SEOUL —

The historic ouster of President Park Geun-hye on Friday means that South Korea will hold elections within 60 days to elect a new leader. That will come as a relief for South Koreans, exhausted by months of scandal and impeachment proceedings, but it should also assuage U.S. policymakers. 

In the three months since Park was suspended over corruption allegations, plunging the country into limbo, the regime in North Korea has launched five ballistic missiles and a volley of threats, and is accused of ordering the assassination of the leader's half brother. 

Add to that China's anger over the deployment of a U.S. missile defense system to South Korea and uncertainty about the change in administration in Washington, and the lack of leadership in South Korea could hardly have come at a more sensitive time. 

Today's WorldView

What's most important from where the world meets Washington

"A political vacuum like this in a key ally that borders a major nuclear threat is not good for the U.S.," said John Delury, an American political scientist in Seoul. "I think it's been underestimated as a danger and as a destabilizing factor." 

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will encounter this problem firsthand when he arrives in Seoul next week for discussions about North Korea with a South Korean counterpart who is on the way out. Tillerson will also hear about the rise of a progressive candidate who could take a sharply different approach toward China and North Korea from the impeached president — and from the United States.

A protester wearing electric lights attached attends a rally in Seoul calling for impeached President Park Geun-hye's arrest , Friday, March 10, 2017. (AP Photo/Ahn Young-joon)

[ South Korean president removed from office over corruption scandal ]

The Trump administration is now conducting a policy review to decide how to deal with North Korea's threats, and there is plenty of talk in Washington about "kinetic options" — a euphemism for some kind of military action. Meanwhile, in Tokyo, some ruling party lawmakers are now openly pushing for Japan to develop the capacity to preemptively strike North Korea. 

That's the kind of talk that South Korea should be shutting down, Delury said. In addition to its nuclear and missile programs, North Korea has conventional artillery lined up along the demilitarized zone and aimed at Seoul, a city of 25 million people. 

"The role of a South Korean president, whether liberal or conservative, is to be the person who gently takes that option off the table," Delury said, referring to a preemptive strike. "The South Korean president has to be saying, 'If you take out their missile pad, they take out our capital.' But that hasn't been happening." 

Park was immediately dismissed from office Friday after South Korea's Constitutional Court upheld a legislative impeachment motion, ruling unanimously that she had "continuously" broken the law.  

Elections will now be held in early May, and the latest opinion polls show Moon Jae-in, a progressive who unsuccessfully challenged Park for the presidency in 2012, holding a strong lead. 

Moon is a proponent of the "sunshine policy" of engagement with North Korea — the liberal idea from the late 1990s that engagement can help open up the closed state and narrow the gap between the two Koreas.  

Here's why South Korea's president has been impeached

Embed Share

Play Video1:58

South Korean President Park Geun-hye will be removed from power for her role in a corruption and influence-peddling scandal. (Jason Aldag, Anna Fifield, Gillian Brockell/The Washington Post)

This sunshine policy came to an end in 2008 with the election of a conservative president who took a tough approach toward North Korea, a stance maintained by Park.  

[ U.S. military deploys advanced defensive missile system to South Korea, citing North Korean threat ]

Following North Korea's nuclear test at the beginning of last year, Park's government closed the inter-Korean industrial complex that was the linchpin of the sunshine policy, unequivocally stating that South Korean cash was going through economic engagement projects directly to weapons programs. 

Moon, however, has said he would like to resume engagement with North Korea and would go to Pyongyang for talks with its leader.  

"If Moon wins the general election, he will emphasize South Korea's alliance with the U.S. and a strong defense posture," said Lee Chung-min, a professor of international relations at Yonsei University. "But his heart will lie in fostering deeper engagement with the North and negotiating an early summit with Kim Jong Un." 

Moon has also signaled an openness to reviewing the Park government's agreement to host the United States' Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) antimissile battery. 

The agreement was reached last year to protect against North Korean missiles, and the system was due to arrive in South Korea this summer. But in a surprise announcement, the Pentagon said the first shipment arrived in South Korea on Monday. 

This has sparked widespread speculation in South Korea that the United States expected Park to be impeached and wanted to make the deployment more difficult to reverse. The U.S. military command in South Korea said the deployment was being carried out according to schedule. 

China has vehemently objected to the arrival of THAAD in the region, viewing its deployment as an American attempt to keep China, not just North Korea, in check. To try to coerce South Korea to change its mind, Beijing has imposed painful restrictions on South Korean imports of everything from toilet seats to pop music. 

"We are all very clear that the crux of the problem between China and South Korea is that South Korea is ignoring China's concerns and is deploying the THAAD antimissile system with the United States," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said Friday.

"We once again urge South Korea to focus on the interests of the Chinese and Korean people," he said.  

[ China's anger over U.S. antimissile system poses challenge to Trump ]

But analysts say that even if the progressive Moon becomes South Korea's next president, he will face difficulties in backtracking on THAAD or returning to the sunshine policy. 

"While China might expect a U-turn over THAAD if Moon becomes president, it will be extremely difficult for Moon to do that, since THAAD is being placed primarily for the defense of the United States Forces in Korea," said Lee, the Yonsei professor. 

Trump could seek to dissuade Moon by making South Korea pay more for its defense costs and speeding up efforts to renegotiate the Korea-U.S. free trade agreement. "Despite Moon's inclination to oppose THAAD deployment, he will not undo it at the expense of worsening ties with Trump just as Moon begins his term in office," Lee said.

Likewise, it would be difficult to go back to the kind of sunshine policy of previous liberal presidents, said Robert Kelly of Pusan National University. "I don't think there is much support for major engagement any more," he said. 

This is partly because public opinion has changed dramatically thanks to two North Korean attacks in 2010 that left more than 50 South Koreans dead, as well as the Park government's assertion that engagement money was funding weapons development. 

"I think Moon would have to fight hard to get that kind of engagement off the ground — he'd be pushing against the Americans and against his own people," Kelly said. 

But for South Koreans who wanted Park out, there is a sense of opportunity. 

"Today is just the beginning," said Kim Kyoung, a housewife who attended every rally against the impeached president and returned to central Seoul on Friday night to celebrate Park's departure. "South Korea developed very quickly, but now we have an opportunity to move slowly and help our democracy mature."  

Congcong Zhang in Beijing contributed to this report. 

 Read more

[Little-known governor runs as the hope and change candidate in South Korea]

[China tried to get the U.S. to negotiation with North Korea. The U.S. declined.]

Today's coverage from Post correspondents around the world

Like Washington Post World on Facebook and stay updated on foreign news 

(10) South Korea Removes President Park Geun-hye - The New York Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/09/world/asia/park-geun-hye-impeached-south-korea.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

South Korea Removes President Park Geun-hye

By CHOE SANG-HUN•MARCH 9, 2017

Supporters and opponents of President Park Geun-hye of South Korea took to the streets on Friday after the court issued a ruling to remove her from office, capping months of turmoil.

By REUTERS. Photo by Kim Hong-Ji/Reuters. Watch in Times Video »

SEOUL, South Korea — A South Korean court removed the president on Friday, a first in the nation's history, rattling the delicate balance of relationships across Asia at a particularly tense time.

Her removal capped months of turmoil, as hundreds of thousands of South Koreans took to the streets, week after week, to protest a sprawling corruption scandal that shook the top echelons of business and government.

Park Geun-hye, the nation's first female president and the daughter of the Cold War military dictator Park Chung-hee, had been an icon of the conservative establishment that joined Washington in pressing for a hard line against North Korea's nuclear provocations.

Now, her downfall is expected to shift South Korean politics to the opposition, whose leaders want more engagement with North Korea and are wary of a major confrontation in the region. They say they will re-examine the country's joint strategy on North Korea with the United States and defuse tensions with China, which has sounded alarms about the growing American military footprint in Asia.

Ms. Park's powers were suspended in December after a legislative impeachment vote, though she continued to live in the presidential Blue House, largely alone and hidden from public view, while awaiting the decision by the Constitutional Court. The house had been her childhood home: She first moved in at the age of 9 and left it nearly two decades later after her mother and father were assassinated in separate episodes.

Judges at the impeachment ruling at the Constitutional Court on Friday. The downfall of Ms. Park is expected to shift South Korean politics to leaders who want more engagement with the North. Yonhap, via European Pressphoto Agency

Eight justices of the Constitutional Court unanimously decided to unseat Ms. Park for committing "acts that violated the Constitution and laws" throughout her time in office, Acting Chief Justice Lee Jung-mi said in a ruling that was nationally broadcast.

Ms. Park's acts "betrayed the trust of the people and were of the kind that cannot be tolerated for the sake of protecting the Constitution," Justice Lee said.

As the verdict was announced, silence fell over thousands of Park supporters who rallied near the courthouse waving South Korean flags. Soon, they tried to march on the court and called for "destroying" it. When the police blocked them, some of the mostly elderly protesters attacked the officers with flagpoles, hurling water bottles and pieces of the sidewalk pavement. Two pro-Park demonstrators, ages 60 and 72, died during the unrest.

Ms. Park did not comment on the ruling, and remained in the presidential palace after her removal from power. But In Myung-jin, the leader of Ms. Park's conservative Liberty Korea Party, said he "humbly respected" the ruling.

With the immunity conferred by her office now gone, Ms. Park, 65, faces prosecutors seeking to charge her with bribery, extortion and abuse of power in connection with allegations of conspiring with a confidante, her childhood friend Choi Soon-sil, to collect tens of millions of dollars in bribes from companies like Samsung.

By submitting to us, you are promising that the content is original, does not plagiarize from anyone or infringe a copyright or trademark, does not violate anyone's rights and is not libelous or otherwise unlawful or misleading. You are agreeing that we can use your submission in all manner and media of The New York Times and that we shall have the right to authorize third parties to do so. And you agree to our Terms of Service.

By law, the country must elect a new president within 60 days. The acting president, Hwang Kyo-ahn, an ally of Ms. Park's, will remain in office in the interim. The Trump administration is rushing a missile defense system to South Korea so that it can be in place before the election.

After the ruling, Mr. Hwang called key Cabinet ministers to put the nation on a heightened state of military readiness, saying the lack of a president represented a national "emergency." He also warned North Korea against making "additional provocations."

The last time a South Korean leader was removed from office under popular pressure was in 1960, when the police fired on crowds calling for President Syngman Rhee to step down. (Mr. Rhee, a dictator, fled into exile in Hawaii and died there.)

In a sign of how far South Korea's young democracy has evolved, Ms. Park was removed without any violence, after large, peaceful protests in recent months demanding that she step down. In addition to the swell of popular anger, the legislature and the judiciary — two institutions that have been weaker than the presidency historically — were crucial to the outcome.

"This is a miracle, a new milestone in the strengthening and institutionalizing of democracy in South Korea," said Kang Won-taek, a political scientist at Seoul National University.

Celebrating after the verdict by the Constitutional Court in Seoul, the capital, on Friday. By law, the country must elect a new president within 60 days. Chung Sung-Jun/Getty Images

When crowds took to the streets, they were not just seeking to remove a leader who had one year left in office. They were also rebelling against a political order that had held South Korea together for decades but is now fracturing under pressures both at home and abroad, analysts said.

Ms. Park's father ruled South Korea from 1961 to 1979. He founded its economic growth model, which transformed the nation into an export powerhouse and allowed the emergence of family-controlled conglomerates known as chaebol that benefited from tax cuts and anti-labor policies.

Ms. Park was elected in 2012 with the support of older conservative South Koreans who revered her father for the country's breakneck economic growth.

But the nexus of industry and political power gave rise to collusive ties, highlighted by the scandal that led to Ms. Park's fall.

The scandal also swept up the de facto head of Samsung, Lee Jae-yong, who was indicted on charges of bribing Ms. Park and her confidante, Ms. Choi.

Supporters of Ms. Park trying to pass the barricade of police buses to protest the ruling. As the verdict was announced, silence fell over the supporters who rallied near the courthouse. Jung Ui-Chel/European Pressphoto Agency

Samsung, the nation's largest conglomerate, has been tainted by corruption before. But the company has been considered too important to the economy for any of its top leaders to spend time behind bars — until now. The jailing of Mr. Lee, who is facing trial, is another potent sign that the old order is not holding.

In the wake of the Park scandal, all political parties have vowed to curtail presidential power to pardon chaebol tycoons convicted of white-collar crimes. They also promised to stop chaebol chairmen from helping their children amass fortunes through dubious means, like forcing their companies to do exclusive business with the children's businesses.

With the conservatives discredited — and no leading conservative candidate to succeed Ms. Park — the left could take power for the first time in a decade. The dominant campaign issues will probably be North Korea's nuclear weapons program and South Korea's relations with the United States and China.

If the opposition takes power, it may try to revive its old "sunshine policy" of building ties with North Korea through aid and exchanges, an approach favored by China. That would complicate Washington's efforts to isolate the North at a time other Asian nations like the Philippines are gravitating toward Beijing.

Moon Jae-in, the Democratic Party leader who is leading in opinion surveys, has said that a decade of applying sanctions on North Korea had failed to stop its nuclear weapons programs. He has said that sanctions are necessary, but that "their goal should be to draw North Korea back to the negotiating table."

Supporters of Ms. Park scuffling with the police. Some officers were attacked with flagpoles, water bottles and pieces of the sidewalk pavement. Jung Yeon-Je/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

He believes that Ms. Park's decision to allow the deployment of the American missile defense system — known as Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or Thaad — has dragged the country into the dangerous and growing rivalry between Washington and Beijing; China has called the system a threat to its security and taken steps to punish South Korea economically for accepting it.

Conservative South Koreans see the deployment of the antimissile system not only as a guard against the North but also as a symbolic reaffirmation of the all-important alliance with the United States. Mr. Moon's party demands that the deployment, which began this week, be suspended immediately. If it takes power, it says it will review the deployment of the antimissile system to determine if it is in South Korea's best interest.

As South Korea has learned, it cannot always keep Washington and Beijing happy at the same time, as in the case of the country's decision to accept the American missile defenses.

Yet Ms. Park's impeachment was also a pushback against "Cold War conservatives" like her father, who seized on Communist threats from North Korea to hide their corruption and silence political opponents, said Kim Dong-choon, a sociologist at Sungkonghoe University in Seoul.

Ms. Park's father tortured and executed dissidents, framing them with spying charges. Now, his daughter faces charges that her government blacklisted thousands of unfriendly artists and writers.

"Her removal means that the curtain is finally drawing on the authoritarian political and economic order that has dominated South Korea for decades," said Ahn Byong-jin, rector of the Global Academy for Future Civilizations at Kyung Hee University in Seoul.

Analysts cautioned that political and economic change will come slowly.

As Mr. Moon put it recently: "We need a national cleanup. We need to liquidate the old system and build a new South Korea. Only then can we complete the revolution started by the people who rallied with candlelight."