Russia Threatens Pre-Emptive Strike On NATO Missile Defense Shields

Reblogged from the Huffington Post:

Russia’s top military officer has threatened to carry out a pre-emptive strike on U.S.-led NATO missile defense facilities in Eastern Europe if Washington goes ahead with its controversial plan to build a missile shield.

President Dmitry Medvedev said last year that Russia will retaliate militarily if it does not reach an agreement with the United States and NATO on the missile defense system.

(Source: The Huffington Post)

US-Chinese Relations and the Tricky Case of Chen Guangcheng

In the middle of the night on April 22nd, Cheng Guangcheng, a human rights lawyer in China, slipped past his 100+ captors and walked into the night. Though blind, he was able to walk many miles and swim across a river to reach his supporters, who would be able to pick him up and eventually deliver him to the US embassy in Beijing. Guangcheng has been in American custody since April 27^th, though his whereabouts are being kept from the public—especially from the Chinese government, which has created a nightmarish standoff between Chinese officials and American diplomats.

Cheng Guancheng is known as an open opponent of China’s one child policy and the methods that are used to ensure its success, which include forced sterilizations and abortions. He also uncovered information revealing that the government would detain individuals’ family members to ensure that they would go through the aforementioned procedures. With this knowledge, Guangcheng launched a class action lawsuit against the government of the Linyi Prefecture, Shandong province. Though his lawsuit was rejected, he continued to seek justice by turning to the foreign press.

Shortly thereafter, the government of the Linyi Prefecture sought to meet with Guangcheng to persuade him to stop his activism. He refused. From there on, Guangcheng would be in continuous interaction with government officials: being placed on house arrest beginning in September 2006, being sent to prison following what can be called a “show trial”, and then eventually returning to house arrest, where he and his wife and children remained captive until last week.

Though Hilary Clinton called Mr. Guangcheng’s treatment by the Chinese government “alarming” and asked for his release, prior to last week, the American government had yet to take decisive action. With Guangcheng now in American custody, the delicate balance of power between American and Chinese officials has been broken for the first time since the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. The result has been hostile negotiations, the significance of which go beyond Guangcheng, encompassing contentious political, economic, and military issues.

Both nations have something to lose from these arbitrations. If China were to allow Guancheng to leave China and seek asylum in the United States, they would set a precedent for other political dissenters to do the same, and portray the Communist party as weak. On the other hand, if they were to demand that Guangcheng be turned over to authorities, they would reveal to the rest of the world that they have not evolved beyond their historically authoritarian and unfair government system—an image that they have been trying to shed as they have developed economically.

The United States, on the other hand, has perpetuated its image as being protectors of freedom worldwide, and if they hand Gauncheng over to the Chinese authorities, they would be putting this image in jeopardy.  Such a move would also be a political liability for President Obama, who has been portrayed as “weak” in his handling of China.

The United States does, however, still maintain a close-knit economic relationship with China because of the capital the nation provides. This has prevented the government from taking stances on human rights violations in the past. But there is no longer any room for ignoring this issue, as the media continue to tell the story of Chen Guangcheng. For the political leaders who are navigating the process of negotiation, the real question stands on where compromise can be made. With any compromise, it seems that both the United States and China will be placed in a no-win situation.

-Kayla Lawrence

Israel, Iran, and the Nuclear Dilemma

On April 30, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told The Foreign Press Association that ”as long as there is an existential threat to our people, all options to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons should remain on the table.” This statement, while appearing unpromising for the region’s stability, came only five days after Israeli military chief Binyamin Gantz told Ha’aretz, “I think the Iranian leadership is composed of very rational people.” American officials and outside analysts recently stated that the chances of a future war had significantly decreased, due to the revival of direct negotiations and greater flexibility from an Iranian government under tighter economic sanctions. This progress, combined with internal disagreements from Israel, suggests the possibility of confronting Iran’s nuclear program without military force.  

On April 24, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in an interview with CNN that he would not bet the world’s security on Iran’s rationality, just one day before General Gantz affirmed his belief in the Iranian government’s rationality. Just one day later, Barak said that it appeared unlikely Iran would halt its nuclear program, while at the same time other Israeli officials insisted there was no disagreement in the nation’s leadership on how to approach Iran’s nuclear program. Nonetheless, Barak’s analysis that sanctions were unlikely to succeed contradicted Gantz’s prediction hours earlier that Iran would decide against building a weapon because of weapons and the threat of a military strike.

Other dissenting voices also came from Israel: on April 27, Yuval Diskin, the former head of Israel’s internal security service, criticized Netanyahu and Barak for their messianic leadership and accused the government of misleading the public on the effectiveness of a military strike; Meir Dagan, the former chief of Israel’s spy agency, has frequently criticized the idea of an Israeli strike on Iran. On April 29, former prime minister Ehud Olmert criticized Netanyahu’s foreign policy as disrespectful to the United States and dismissive of the international community and urged against unilateral action.

The divisions between officials in Israel show that there is no monolithic pressure for a military strike. Whatever course of action the US takes going forward, it will have the support of some from Israel and will face dissent from others. Given the flexibility the Iranian leadership displayed in April’s negotiations, perhaps because of the threat of increased sanctions, prospects look promising for a non-military approach to Iran.

-Regina Wang

A Year After Secession, War Still Rages Between Sudan and South Sudan

When South Sudan seceded from Sudan last July, there was some expectation that the conflict between Arab Muslims in the north and black Christians in the south would come to an end, or at least decrease. However, almost a year later, fighting between the two groups has not calmed, because of one factor that seems to dominate the modern world: oil. 

When South Sudan seceded they took with them 90% of the area’s oil, located along the two nations’ contested border, and turned off the pipeline to the North. Sudan does not have the resources necessary to import oil, and there are fears of a rapid increase in oil prices that would deal a blow to the country’s already suffering economy. This has resulted in a ‘civil’ war between the two divided yet connected nations.

In the last few weeks, the war has escalated, with the two nations now partaking in what CNN’s Nina Elbagir calls “a high stakes game of chicken.” Undercover operatives are being set across the border to wreak havoc, which has only increased tensions. A large coalition of South Sudanese is based in the Sudanese capital of Khartoum, and as recently as last Friday, Sudan supposedly [as these are just beliefs not yet substantiated through investigation] blew up a Southern Sudan oil facility.

Ultimately, the swift and violent bac- and-forth actions taken by both nations have resulted in the destruction of many oilfields owned by the two countries, not just hurting their opponents, but their own interests economically. South Sudan has already decided to cut off ninety-eight percent of its oil production in January—a direct result of Sudan’s seizure of a shipment of oil caused by a conflict over transit fees. This has resulted in a complete stop for the fledging nation’s development of infrastructure. It also means that South Sudan does not have the resources to carry out a war.

Sadly, like many political disputes, civilians are most effected. Hundreds of thousands of refugees live along the border, and because of the extreme nature of the conflict, many aid organizations are afraid of going to the border region. And with the conflict constantly escalating, aid will not be arriving soon.

What the two battling nations need right now is help from international organizations such as the African Union, to come in and mediate a fair and effective resolution. Though there has yet to be a precedent for the success of any resolutions passed between the two parties because of a lack of accountability, at this point in time no other options remain. At the moment, however, all that can be heard are reprimanding words from international leaders such as President Obama, who released a message of disapproval on Friday, and organizations such as the United Nations and the African Union. Decisive action such as the arbitration of a cease-fire in return for food aid, needs to be taken [perhaps by the Permanent Court of Arbitration] to restore some semblance of peace and security for the people of both nations, not just admonishing words.

-Kayla Lawrence