Wednesday, March 23, 2016

Europe is a sitting duck for terrorists

European security has collapsed, perhaps irretrievably. So many prospective terrorists are now operating in Europe that security services have lost the capacity to monitor potential threats. There is no historical yardstick against which to gauge the breakdown of law enforcement in Europe. Most remarkably, the wound is self-inflicted.

Two suicide bombers today shut down Brussels, home to NATO as well as the European Union, killing at least 21 bystanders and severely injured 35 at the city’s airport and the Maelbeek metro station. Air and rail transportation has stopped and mobile telephone networks are saturated. The authorities presume that today’s attacks avenged the capture of Salah Abdeslam, the last man at large from the cell that executed the Paris attacks last Nov. 13.

Several thousand trained terrorists reached Europe among more than a million migrants in 2015–4,000 by one account in the UK media, or 1,500 according to NATO Commander Gen. Philip Breedlove in Congressional testimony March 1. In fact, security services have no possible way to verify the bona fides of migrants. The cost of a Syrian passport and passage to Europe is about US $3,000. ISIS and other terrorist organizations can send as many terrorists as they wish to Europe, and a very small cell can shut down a major city.

That leaves the West with unpleasant choices. America has had few large-scale terrorist incidents since Sept. 11, 2001 because it spends $80 billion a year on intelligence operations, including intensive monitoring of Muslims living in the United States, and because it admits very few immigrants from prospective centers of terrorism. American public opinion overwhelming favors less immigration. One poll shows that a majority of Americans support Donald Trump’s proposal for a temporary ban on all Muslim immigration by a margin of 46% to 40% (with 14% undecided). Today’s events are good news for the Trump presidential campaign.

Europe continues to favor mass immigration on humanitarian grounds. Despite the electoral gains of the anti-immigration Allianz für Deutschland earlier this month, more than three-quarters of German voters favored candidates who support Angela Merkel’s immigration policies. The German authorities do not know who the refugees are, and in many cases where they are. According to Germany’s Die Welt, thousands of migrants have left refugee camps; at least 7,000 are missing from reception centers in the state of Brandenburg alone. Very few of these are prospective terrorists, to be sure, but the collapse of controls makes it impossible for security authorities to track prospective terrorists.

This does not necessarily imply that ISIS and other terrorists will conduct a major attack every week. The point is that the frequency of attacks is now a matter of the terrorists’ choice. Mass attacks like the November atrocity in Paris and today’s suicide bombings in Brussels establish ISIS’ credibility. But ISIS does not want to provoke a European reaction; it wants to establish a foothold in Europe so tenable that European authorities will not be able to dislodge it in the future.

Europe has the simple choice of allowing humanitarian disasters to occur on its borders, or losing control of its own security. Germany has already chosen the second alternative, and today’s events will have no effect on Berlin’s attitude towards migrants.

Did 1988 battle anniversary hint rise in Vietnam-China tensions?

Images from 1988 sea battle between Vietnam and China

Has Vietnam signalled a shift in its China policy by allowing public observances of a deadly confrontation with Chinese forces in the Spratly Islands nearly three decades ago?

The naval clash between Vietnam and China over Johnson South Reef, aka Gac Ma Island, was the last battle between the two communist neighbors. It occurred on March 14, 1988 when Chinese forces launched an attack on the island that was formerly under Vietnamese control. This resulted in the deaths of 64 Vietnamese soldiers, the sinking of two Vietnamese ships and China’s occupation of the reef as well as other islets and rocks in the Spratly Islands ever since.

Despite Vietnam’s heavy loss of human life and territory, the military incident was soon deliberately ignored by the Vietnamese government following a 1990 summit between Hanoi and Beijing in Chengdu that led to a normalization of ties in 1991.

In fact, for nearly three decades after that secret meeting, the clash was seen as a very sensitive, if not taboo, topic in Vietnam. Neither was the incident taught at schools or aired in political discourse. Recollection of the clash was often avoided by the one-party state’s highly censored media.

Any attempts by local activists to mark the bloody skirmish, moreover, were thwarted or forcefully interrupted by police.

Mood swing

However, there have been growing signs of a remarkable change in the official mood regarding the event in recent years, culminating in the battle’s 28th anniversary this year.

Prior to and on March 14, the seemingly non-existent clash was vividly recalled and widely covered by Vietnam’s media. State and party outlets deferentially called the 64 killed soldiers “heroes” or “martyrs” and explicitly described the incident as a battle against “Chinese invasion forces.”

A high school in Ho Chi Minh City observed one minute of silence to commemorate the battle, which was hitherto virtually unheard of to many young Vietnamese. A song composed to honor the 64 fallen soldiers was published in Tuoi Tre, one of the country’s main and most-read newspapers.

Former Gac Ma soldiers and their sacrifices have been recognised and honored. The families of the 64 fallen soldiers have been supported by the government.

Not official but …

Though the Vietnamese government didn’t officially mark the battle’s 28th anniversary, memorial services for the fallen soldiers were organised at many localities across the country. Hundreds of war veterans, soldiers and local officials and people participated in these commemorative events, which were all reported by party and state outlets, including the ruling party’s two media mouthpieces, namely Nhan Dan (People) Newspaper and the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) Online Newspaper.

Reporting the memorial ceremony in Da Nang, Nhan Dan depicted the 64 killed soldiers as the “martyrs who died in a battle against Chinese forces to protect Gac Ma Island, part of Vietnam’s Truong Sa (Spratly) archipelago.”

Nhan Dan as well as other media outlets quoted a speech by Hoang Van Hoan, senior lieutenant colonel and former political commissar of Brigade 83, one of the units directly involved in the 1988 battle. In it, Hoan stressed the service was held not just to honor the 64 fallen heroes but also to remind younger generations of their duties to protect their country’s territory.

Most unusually, to the surprise of activists and many observers, rallies to remember the event and to denounce China’s growing aggressiveness in East Sea (the Vietnamese name for the South China Sea) in Ha Noi and Ho Chi Minh City on March 14 weren’t disrupted by the authorities.

All of these developments around the battle’s 28th anniversary are noteworthy since Vietnam is a tightly controlled country, where public protest is prohibited and media strictly censored. Until recently, any reference to its past conflicts and unresolved maritime disputes with its giant neighbor were extremely sensitive.

They are even more telling given the fact that the party hierarchy has been very measured – and for many Vietnamese, too restrained – in its handling of disputes with China over the Spratly and Paracel Islands in the South China Sea.

In this context, there’s no doubt that Vietnam’s main state media outlets, notably the party’s two official mouthpieces, were able to use such unambiguous language to depict the incident because the CPV’s leadership allowed them to do so.

Party’s motives

The question being asked is why the party hierarchy permitted more public discussion, commemoration and coverage of the 1988 battle this year.

There are a number of reasons for this. One is that calls not to ignore past skirmishes with China have become increasingly numerous and vocal. They come from both outside and within the CPV.

For example, many people in academic and media circles have increasingly stressed that their country must not disregard the battles against China, including the 1974 Paracel battle, the 1979 border war with China and the 1988 Spratlys clash. Instead, it’s being argued that the people must be fully informed about these events and that they should be taught at Vietnamese schools.

In an interview with Tuoi Tre on March 13, a senior official in the party’s Central Propaganda Department also said it’s very necessary to provide the Vietnamese people with full and truthful accounts of past events in Sino-Vietnamese relations. He also said the country’s state media and political system must take responsibility for this.

The relaxation in official attitudes has also taken place because perceptions of China within the CPV’s hierarchy has changed. While it’s unclear whether the recent changeover in party leadership is a factor, it’s evident that the leadership is now more expressive and critical of China’s historical and current behaviors.

South China Sea factor

The fundamental reason why the Vietnamese public has vehemently called on the CPV to reconsider its past and present relations with China – and the ruling party has been apparently willing to do so – is China’s growing assertiveness in the South China Sea.

If the placement of China’s HD 981 oil-drilling rig in Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in May 2014 marked the lowest ebb in Vietnam’s relationship with China since 1991, the latter’s latest series of aggressive actions in the disputed sea further compounded Hanoi’s concerns about China’s ambitions.

These “actions” consist of Beijing’s deployment of missiles on Woody Island in the Paracel Islands chain, which is also claimed by Vietnam, and its rapid militarization and massive reclamation of islands, including the Johnson South Reef, in contested waters surrounding the Spratly Islands.

China’s assertiveness in the South China Sea in past years has forced the CPV to increase Vietnam’s military capabilities. Hanoi was the world’s eighth-biggest arms importer from 2011-2015 according to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Vietnam has also moved to upgrade its relations with major powers, notably the US.

The ratchet is now being turned on Vietnam’s public posture on Sino-Vietnamese history. Beijing’s recent aggressive and expansionist agenda has convinced the CPV that it no longer needs to avoid mentioning its past conflicts with China. In a further turn of the lever, Hanoi is also more willing to use the coverage and commemoration of these events as a means to express its discontent over China’s behaviors.

Whilst Vietnam’s past conflicts with China are still far from being recalled in the same manner and to the same degree as its two deadly wars against France and the US, the party’s new permissiveness in recalling the 1988 battle marks a significant change in the way the CPV deals with Vietnam’s past and its present relations with its northern giant.

Xuan Loc Doan is a research fellow at the Global Policy Institute. He completed a PhD in International Relations at Aston University, UK in 2013. His areas of interest and research include Vietnam’s domestic and foreign policy, ASEAN’s relations with major powers, and international politics in the Asia-Pacific region.

Tuesday, March 22, 2016

Indonesia becomes 10th largest contributor to UN security forces


Illustration. Indonesian soldiers who are members of the UN Peacekeeping Force was preparing to depart to field duty in Lebanon. (FOTO ANTARA / Eric Ireng)

Indonesia has managed to become the 10th largest contributor to the United Nations (UN) Peacekeeping Forces among the 124 contributing countries.

This important achievement is recorded in the ranking list of troop-contributing countries to the UN peacekeeping missions, which was published by the agency on Thursday (March 17).

According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Indonesian government has currently sent 2,843 military and police personnel to take part in 10 UN peacekeeping missions such as the UNIFIL in Lebanon; UNAMID in Darfur, Sudan; MINUSCA in the Republic of Central Africa; MONUSCO in the Democratic Republic of Kongo; MINUSMA in Mali; MINURSO in West Sahara; MINUSTAH in Haiti; UNMIL in Liberia; UNMISS in South Sudan; and UNISFA in Abyei, Sudan.

The contribution of Indonesian troops to the UN peacekeeping missions is in line with the implementation of the constitutional mandate (UUD 1945), which states that the nation needs to "participate in the establishment of the world order."

The consignment of troops for the UN Security Forces is also considered as an instrument of Indonesias foreign policy achievement as well as the improvement of capacity and professionalism of the nations military and police personnel.

It is part of the efforts to achieve the vision of four thousand Indonesian personnel of the UN peacekeeping forces as stipulated in the National Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMN) 2015-2019.

In line with the vision, the Indonesian government will continue to send one composite battalion comprising 800 military personnel, 140 police personnel, and 100 police officers in 2016.

The realization of assigning troops for peacekeeping is part of Indonesias contributions and the promise delivered by Vice President Jusuf Kalla at the Leaders Summit on Peacekeeping, held on the sidelines of the 70th UN General Assembly in New York, the United States, in 2015.

 

PHILLIPINES’ Military Modernization: Unprecedented But Insufficient


With his term set to end in June, it’s an appropriate time to review the Philippines’ military modernization efforts under the administration of President Benigno Aquino III. During his six years in office, military modernization has advanced at a scale unprecedented since the Marcos era – but it remains insufficient.

After the Philippines gained its independence in 1946, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) were established with American military aid. The AFP encompassed three complete services with considerable capability, but the rampant Islamic and Communist insurgencies since the late 1960s, as well as Macros’ governance by martial law, shifted the AFP’s attention toward internal security and slowed the pace of military modernization. For instance, while regional countries, such as Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand, introduced anti-ship missiles in the 1960s and 1970s, the Philippines did not follow suit and remains “missile free” to this day.

The People Power Revolution of 1986 terminated Marcos’ authoritarian regime, but the ensuing political and economic turmoil further disturbed Manila’s defense investments, and the closure of American bases seriously slashed the funding for military. Despite the seizure of Mischief Reef by China in 1995, substantial external security challenges did not alter this trend. The AFP even retired its aging fighter F-5 fighter jets in the early 2000s without providing for replacements.

Before Aquino, the Philippines’ military modernization was limited and functional. Generally, the AFP purchased and/or was given used equipment that would barely sustain existing capabilities, in addition to the are procurement of new assets. This approach marked the extent of military modernization during the four previous presidents, although more American military aid was provided during Arroyo’s term for the Philippines’ participation in the “war on terror.” However, Manila’s defense investments were not enough to institute long-term and sustainable procurement planning. As a consequence, Manila found itself unable to upgrade or replace various aging assets including vessels and artillery pieces.

The Philippines’ poor economy is commonly cited as an explanation for its limited defense investments, but other developing regional countries, such as Myanmar and Vietnam, have made greater strides in modernizing their arsenals over the same period. Difficult civil-military relations may be an additional major factor for the Philippines, as the Senate has rejected special budgets for defense investments several times.

Under Aquino, however, Manila has been able to obtain an unprecedented amount of arms in the past six years. The Scarborough standoff with China in 2012 and other Sino-Filipino maritime conflicts provided the necessary atmosphere for a military build-up; Aqunio’s generally high approval rates also helped ease the process. During this time, Manila has received a lengthy list of used assets as part of military aid programs: five landing craft from Australia, five UH-1 utility helicopters from Germany, 28 M-113 armored personnel carriers (APCs) from Israel, seven UH-1s, two C-130H transporter aircraft, two Hamilton class cutters, 23 Humvee ambulances, 114 M-113 APCs, and one coastal search radar from the United States.

Furthermore, the AFP has pursued new military acquisitions, including 12 South Korean FA-50 light fighters, three Spanish CN-295 transporter aircraft, an Indonesian land platform dock (LPD), 13 Italian A-109 light attack helicopters, eight American Bell-412 utility helicopters, two Indonesian C-212 transporter aircraft, and more than 200 South Korean military trucks, in addition to 18 Italian SF-260 trainers and eight Pole W-3 helicopters decided upon by the previous administration. Moreover, if its luck holds, Manila may be able to settle deals regarding new frigates, maritime patrol aircraft, close support aircraft, and amphibious assault vehicles in the near future. However, it must be noted that some military procurement projects, such as advanced fighters and shore based anti-ship missiles, are still being denied by the Philippine Senate.

Those projects are generally intended to sustain the existing functions of the AFP, which are mostly focused on internal security and other routine functions. But some of the new additions could gradually reshape the Philippines’ strategy. For example, the FA-50 combat aircraft, first delivered last November, finally ended a ten-year period without fighter jets in the Philippine military. The new aircraft allow air superiority to return as an important element in Manila’s defense strategy. As for the LPD, although the AFP is unlikely to carry out an amphibious operation, especially in the face of modern military threats, its large capacity will strengthen the capability for disaster relief, which is a regular mission for the AFP, especially during typhoon season. Finally, with larger vessels and new aircraft, the AFP has the means to substantially participate in joint exercises with foreign counterparts, something that was difficult to do with the AFP’s antique assets.

Despite the unprecedented scale of recent efforts, the Philippines’ military modernization since 2010 is still not enough. For one thing, the AFP has no effective means (e.g.,anti-ship missiles) to counter China in the West Philippine or South China Sea. As a result, Manila has almost no maneuver space for escalation in maritime conflicts with Beijing. The United States’ extended deterrence may supplement the Philippines’ insufficient force, but, given the AFP’s weak maritime combat capability, American intervention would be tantamount to shouldering the entire burden of a hypothetical conflict against China. Without firm resolve, decision makers in Washington would be reluctant to get involved to this extent, especially if Manila does not demonstrate enough commitment to its own security.

Apart from the maritime sphere, the AFP’s onshore forces are short in territorial defense capabilities. The Philippine Army’s and Marine Corp’s current mainstay, — infantry with limited artillery — is designed for counter insurgency rather than defending against external invasion. Just as the air force and navy do not have sufficient means to stop an invading force before it reaches the coast, the ground troops are unlikely to thwart invasion either. Historically, the Filipino people have conducted guerrilla warfare several times and the large number of civilian firearms would facilitate such combat, but such tactics are unlikely to alter the strategic situation.

Over the past six years, the Aquino administration has indeed improved the AFP’s operational conditions by introducing new and used assets at a rate that far outpaced previous presidents. That said, the country still have a long way to go before a self-sustaining defence capability. In addition, several of the Philippines’ presidential candidates currently do not seem strongly supportive of military modernisation. If Aquino’s successor downgrades defense investments, it will make the efforts over the past six years less meaningful. By for The Diplomat The Diplomat

Sumatran rhino sighted in Indonesian Borneo for first time in 40 years


The first live sighting of a Sumatran rhino in Kalimantan, the Indonesia part of Borneo, in over 40 years. Photograph: Ari Wibowo/WWF


The smallest of the three Asian rhino species, hairy rhino numbers have plummeted to fewer than 100 on Earth due to hunting and habitat loss, with the last wild populations in Kalimantan, Borneo, and the island of Sumatra.

Experts said the capture of a female rhino on 12 March was “outstanding” and “unprecedented”, and marked the first live sighting of one in the area in over 40 years rather than on camera trap or by evidence such as footprints and dung.

“That’s a very, very rare thing,” said Simon Stuart, a rhino expert at the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, who said the dense rainforest and remote nature of the area made sightings difficult. “Finding a single Sumatran rhino is good news given we can’t even account for 100 in the world.”

 

The female Sumatran rhino, which is estimated to be between four and five years old, was safely captured in a pit trap in Kutai Barat in East Kalimantan on 12 March.
“It’s really a very exciting find,” said Glyn Davies, conservation director at WWF-UK, which captured the rhino using a wooden pit in order to protect it. Part of the reason the beasts were so hard to find is they are “very, very secretive,” he said. The rhino have been sighted in Sumatra more recently than in Kalimantan.
Once widespread across south-east Asia, from northern India to southern China, the Sumatran rhino (Dicerorhinus sumatrensis), was declared extinct in the wild in Malaysia last year, making Indonesia their final stronghold. But their low numbers, combined with a lack of international funding and political commitment locally for an action plan led conservationists in 2015 to warn the final ones might go extinct.
The Borneo female will now be re-homed in a sanctuary around 100 miles from where she was captured. Stuart said that because of previous experiences where poachers had arrived weeks after specific locations for Sumatran rhino sightings had been declared, it was important that the location of its new home was kept “really, really vague.”

 
A further 15 Sumatran rhino have been identified in Kalimantan with camera traps, but Stuart and Davies said it was too early to say whether those and the animal captured were enough for a viable breeding population. The female of the species need to breed regularly or can develop tumours that render them infertile.
Last year the only male Sumatran rhino in the western hemisphere was transported on a 55-hour journey from Cincinnati zoo to Sumatra, to help the remaining population to breed.
 

The United States on Tuesday slapped a special terrorist designation on Indonesia's most high-profile backer of Islamic State, blocking any US assets he might have, banning dealings with him by Americans and opening the way for US law-enforcement action against him


The United States on Tuesday slapped a special terrorist designation on Indonesia's most high-profile backer of Islamic State, blocking any US assets he might have, banning dealings with him by Americans and opening the way for US law-enforcement action against him

The State Department said Santoso, a militant in Poso in central Sulawesi who has been on the run for more than three years, had been added to its list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGT). Santoso, like many in Indonesia, goes by one name.

"As a result of this designation, all property subject to US jurisdiction in which Santoso has any interest is blocked and US persons are generally prohibited from engaging in any transactions with Santoso," the department said in a statement.

It said Santoso was the leader of the Mujahidin Indonesia Timur (MIT), a group already on the State Department's SDGT list, that had been responsible for numerous killings and kidnappings in Indonesia over the past few years.

"Today's action notifies the US public and the international community that Santoso is actively engaged in terrorism," the department said.

It said the SDGT designation enabled "coordinated action across the US Government and with our international partners to disrupt the activities of terrorists, including by denying them access to the U.S. financial system and enabling US law enforcement actions."

Reuters

 

Why Australian business needs to wake up to Indonesia



The reality is that Indonesia has changed, and changed enormously. The world’s view of and engagement with Indonesia has also changed. But Australia’s engagement with Indonesia has arguably remained unchanged from when Keating spoke back in 1994.

Indonesia has become a much larger economy. GDP has roughly quadrupled since 1994, and per capita GDP has nearly tripled. The difference is accounted for by the absolute growth in the population, which has risen from 192 million in 1994 to about 256 million this year. Since 1994, Indonesia’s GDP has grown by around 4.8 per cent annually on average. That is about 1 per cent annually more than the global economy over that period. If not for the impact of the Asian financial crisis in the late 1990s, Indonesia’s economy would have expanded even more quickly.

Governance in Indonesia has also improved. In 1999, for instance, the World Economic Forum (WEF) ranked Indonesia in the bottom decile of the countries it surveyed for its Global Competitiveness Report (GCR). In the GCR for 2007–08, Indonesia was in the lower part of the second quartile. In the latest GCR, for 2015–16, Indonesia is in the top quartile. WEF researchers have found positive trends in levels of corruption and governance since 2008–09.

This economic miracle has not gone unnoticed. Inwards foreign direct investment (FDI) was under US$7 billion annually in 2005–07, prior to the global financial crisis. Since 2011, it has been running at around US$20–25 billion annually. The total stock of inwards FDI has risen from 8.4 per cent to 28.5 per cent of GDP.

One might expect that Australian enterprises have been at the forefront of FDI investors. But in 2015, Australian direct investment in Indonesia trailed that of Malaysia, Japan, South Korea and Thailand. Other countries that accounted for similar amounts of FDI into Indonesia as Australia in 2015 included Italy, Taiwan and France.

This is despite the fact that the opportunities for Australian business in Indonesia are huge. The number of people in Indonesia’s consumer class is expected to grow from 45 million in 2015 to 135 million in 2020. This will result in a very rapid rise in demand for a broad range of goods and services. In the healthcare sector alone — where Australia has a distinct competitive advantage — there is need for hospitals and clinics, healthcare professional training, aged care, laboratory facilities and diagnostics, tele-medicine (particularly outside Java) and medical equipment and devices (about 85 per cent of which are currently imported from outside Indonesia).

In the education sector Indonesia’s National Educational Certification Agency (BNSP) has identified a number of areas where Australian organisations might provide content and deliver training and assessment. These areas include aviation services, online services, tourism and hospitality services, health services, logistics services, agricultural-based products and a number of manufactured products. Renewable energy is another sector with potential. The Indonesian government wants to boost renewables’ share of the country’s energy mix from the current 5–6 per cent to 19 per cent by 2019.

Unfortunately, this has not been recognised in the teaching of Asian languages in Australian universities. In 1994, a working group headed by a Queensland civil servant named Kevin Rudd, who would later become prime minister, prepared a report for the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) that highlighted the importance of Asian languages for Australian schools. Since then, results have been very mixed, in regards to Bahasa Indonesia at least. In the last few years, increasing numbers of Australian tertiary students have headed to Indonesia to study. But enrolments in Indonesian language courses fell by 37 per cent over the decade to 2010 and have yet to recover.

The narrative needs to be changed, and very quickly. Since Keating’s speech, the story has been that there are huge opportunities for Australia in its giant neighbour to the North. But the brutal reality is that not much has changed in Australia’s engagement with Indonesia. The Australian business community and the Australian government needs to move very quickly if they are not to lose those opportunities to others who have already recognised the extraordinary transformation of Indonesia. If this narrative does not change quickly Australia will have missed the boat to Indonesia.

Stéphane Chatonsky is Managing Director at Ivest, a corporate advisory firm specialising in Asian-based market entry strategy, M&A and investments.