International Security Course–Fall 2020

The Trump administration’s continued refusal to give President-elect Biden and his Transition Team access to the Presidential Daily Briefing is unsurprising in its pettiness but stunning in its abject disregard for national security – particularly at the height of a public health crisis and corresponding economic downturn that has left the United States especially vulnerable. At the direction of the president, the head of the General Services Administration has refused to certify the results of the presidential election, blocking Biden’s access to daily briefings and classified intelligence.

Vice President-elect Harris is in a strange position given that she is a sitting senator and receives regular classified briefings but is bound by congressional rules not to share the information with Biden – creating an unprecedented information gap between the two. Luckily, Biden has access to some of the best minds in the world of policy and academia (Rice, Powers, Blinken, McCrystal, and a deep bench of experts who served the Obama and Clinton administrations). Nonetheless, these experts are not currently serving in government and thus have no access to real-time classified reports or cable traffic.

This is extremely unsettling amidst a shake up and purging of top officials at the Pentagon, DHS, and intelligence agencies, a drawdown in Afghanistan, and reports that Trump was seriously considering (though apparently dissuaded from) a strike on Iran to cap off four turbulent years in office. To say nothing of the need for close coordination to combat COVID-19 and organize a countrywide vaccine distribution.

I recognize this has subject has little connection to the readings assigned for this week, however, it’s a pressing security issue of immediate concern. There is a deep and tragic irony that in an election year in which we saw so little foreign meddling, the U.S. has managed to do so much harm to itself by sowing distrust in the democratic process, disregarding norms, and dispensing with decency.

The Nagorno-Karabakh war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, who are fighting to get control over this region. In the last two decades, Armenians have had control only because it served Russia’s interest, the war has modified the balance of interests in the region, bringing unfavorable conditions for Moscow, because it has created openings for regional interventions by Turkey, the United States, and others. Therefore, Russia encourages Azerbaijan military offensive, a powerful security rationale that implies a strong Russian interest in deterring a war that might change the regional status quo. Preserving a favorable status quo, by strategic logic is the central security interest of a regional hegemon like Russia.

Currently, Russia is aiming to create insecurity among the Armenian population that they cannot survive as a state without them. Moreover, in order to increase the feeling of the threat Russia allowed Azerbaijan to get back all its territories around Nagorno-Karabakh, making it harder defending in the future, Azerbaijan’s victory also underlines the military vulnerability of Armenia itself. Russia will look to persuade Armenia’s population and leadership to agree to closer integration with Russia.

 

This article by the Inter Press Service starts off by asking an interesting question: “will overwhelming fire power and WMDs become obsolete if biological weapons, currently banned by a UN convention, are used in wars in a distant future?” The answer a yes, according to Dr Natalie J. Goldring, a Senior Fellow and Adjunct Full Professor with the Security Studies Program in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University.

Basically the article points out how the whole world has been under “siege” by the virus. Over 58 million people have contracted the virus and almost 1.5 million have died of it. It also draws our attention on how the pandemic has also destabilized the global economy with world poverty and hunger skyrocketing to new highs. And all this, without “a single shot being fired” in an eight-month long war against a spreading virus.

Furthermore, the article is showing that “if a terrorist group were able to carry out the complex tasks of creating and using biological weapons, an intentional release of a biological weapon could be even more deadly than COVID-19”. That is why, it is important that countries with vetoes at the UN must prevent the development of this type of weapon and also assist the rest of the world in increasing their capacity to respond to infectious diseases.

But there is another aspect the article is addressing. It states that, “Countries with large military forces often threaten to use those forces to achieve foreign policy and other goals.” And therefore, by continuing to develop and deploy these weapons, States increase the risk of nuclear theft and give other countries incentives to develop nuclear weapons in response. So, it is imperative that those in the circle of power find an equilibrium in the “talking and doing” of what they stand for.

http://www.ipsnews.net/2020/11/potential-weapon-kills-1-5-million-worldwide-without-single-shot-fired/

Today the U.S has announced that it will withdraw 2,500 American troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq by Jan 15, 2021. Just five days before president- elect Joe Biden would holds inauguration in the white house.

The United states has approximately 4,500 US troops in Afghanistan and 3,000 troops in Iraq. Secretary of defense Christopher Miller has announced that it is no reduction in capability and that this is policy plan would not change neither U.S objectives neither goals. However, Mark Esper which was previous defense secretary before getting fired last week has been pushing back on this plan and asserting that the preconditions on the ground have not yet been met.

 

One more major hot topic agenda added to president elect Joe Biden to deal with once he’s in office. Joe Biden will face dramatic foreign and domestic issues from the Covid pandemic to racial divisions, economic recession, Iran, china and all the other typical foreign issues. Essentially, if this plan does not turn out to be a good decision it will cause sever damaging. If Al-Qaeda or ISIS are seeking this reduction of 2,500 troops to exert influence by bloody means then this would be a huge problem to Joe Biden will have to face. Al-Qaeda already supports the decision as well with the U.S. agreement with Taliban[1]. This plan typically falls within President Trump’s policy of Isolationism and NATO members are warning from this plan. Whether this plan will have a positive or negative effect is only a matter of little time that we would be able to see and estimate.

[1]Barbara Starr, “ US announces further drawdown of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq before Biden takes office.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/17/politics/afghanistan-iraq-withdrawal-pentagon/index.html

 

From this week’s readings, I gained a new perspective on nuclear weapons, and the various ways countries pursue the development of nuclear weapons programs.

I had always assumed the path to develop a nuclear weapon capability was all more or less the same. Countries without a nuclear opinion want one if for nothing else then as a prestigious status symbol and keeping up with the international Jones’s.  And while most countries are eager to have nuclear weapons, the notion of mutually assured destruction is a deterrent from actually using them.

However, in the reading by Scott Sagan and Benjamin Valentino, I realized that the historical notion of nuclear weapon deterrence should not be assumed to last forever. The authors describe the “logic of consequence” in the reading might not hold up against shifting international norms, divergent ideologies, and regional political instability.

What stood out to me the most from this week’s reading is the various pathways countries pursue to develop nuclear weapons programs. It’s one thing to think about why a country might pursue a nuclear weapon, but there seems to be much more utility in studying how they go about developing them.

The Narang reading points to four typologies: hedging, sprinting, hiding, and sheltered. The hedging pursuit seems the least destructive to international peace. If countries can develop their nuclear weapons programs without completing an actual nuclear weapon capability, then perhaps mutually assured deterrence remains relevant to preventing the use of nuclear weapons.

At the same time, If an increased number of countries want to develop a hedging strategy for a nuclear weapons program, how is such activity monitored and controlled by the international community? While technical hedging may not pose significant risk factors, hard hedging or Insurance hedging is easy. Their potential to include dual-use delivery vehicles has the potential to pose significant threats.

As Narang points out, as a country moves closer to developing a capable nuclear weapon program, the level of regional instability increases. This includes economic turmoil and the increased potential for violent military confrontation. Narang mentions that the level of duress a country experiences influence the rate at which they might pursue a functional nuclear weapon.

From the readings, it appears the motivating drivers of nuclear weapons development programs are ouroboros in nature.

Could a revitalized international deterrence strategy for the 21st Century include a responsibility from the United States, Russia, and China to prevent duress from occurring within a country?

I found this table really insightful in thinking about how a country’s nuclear weapon strategy changes over time.

For example, as the table above illustrates, Iran appears to have changed their approach several times over the decades from Technical Hedging in 74′-78′; to  Hiding strategies between 81′-03′; and their current strategy of  Hard hedging.

Thinking along the lines of how a country purses it’s nuclear weapons interests could be a useful framework to analyze shifting geopolitical power balance between nations and drill down to understand a specific country’s broader military and economic strategic pursuites. IN other words, a given country’s nuclear strategy may be closely correlated to its overarching military and economic strategy, and as its nuclear strategy changes, so do geopolitical regional balances.

 

 

 

I found this article from the Guardian to be quite interesting given we are discussing nuclear weapon ands related topics in class at the moment. What really drew my attention to this article is the entity which is supporting the UN Anti Nuclear Treaty and its perhaps what who we least expect to get involved in things such as this.

In the United Kingdom, the leadership of the Church of England is calling for the UK to join other 50 nations in the international treaty that seeks to ban nuclear weapons in hopes that it would bring about a peaceful future for all of humankind. The treaty is scheduled to be initiated in January 22 of the new year as 50 nations have approved of it. However the major nuclear powers of the world have gotten on board including the United States as they described this a “strategic error.” Also worth nothing in the article that my current  employer the International Committee of the Red Cross was mentioned in the article as the President of the ICRC, Peter Maurer, praised this moment as “a victory for humanity, and a promise of a safer future.”

The treaty is poised to play a pivotal role deterrent effect on the proliferation of nuclear arms. The bishops of the church of England stated “For so many of the nations of the world to speak clearly of the need to ban these weapons of mass destruction is an encouraging and hopeful sign.” They have called on the UK to join this effort as well as the UK has yet to sign it as a means of “to give hope to all people of goodwill who seek a peaceful future.” While they do that nuclear weapons will not go away overnight, they see this as a step “on the journey towards becoming a nuclear-free world.”

While reading this article, I think back to Isaiah Wall of the United Nations that is right across the street from UNHQ. I pass it all the time going to UNHQ to take care of work tasks and the wall quotes the passage from the Book of Isaiah, Chapter 2, verse 4: “”They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” While the dream of a nuclear weapons free world is still fresh in the minds of nations around the world and the UN, it is still far from reach given that all nations are yet to come on board with this concept. Who knows what significance this anti nuclear treaty will bring to the world, only time will tell. But just because of nuclear weapon free world is far from reach at the moment, does not mean its impossible to achieve and to have hope in it, just ask the clergy of the Church of England.

One of the scariest potential fallouts of a nuclear-armed Iran is the ultimatum it would issue to Iran’s geopolitical rival Saudi Arabia. It ostensibly leads to a Saudi Arabia which would see no other alternative than to acquire the bomb themselves. There is reason to believe that the refractory period between a hypothetical first Iranian nuclear test and a successful test for their Saudi counterparts may be shorter than commonly believed.

Perhaps the closest case-study which most resembles the nuclear proliferation issue between Saudi Arabia and Iran is the situation that arose between geopolitical foes Pakistan and India. India successfully tested its first nuclear test – codenamed “Smiling Buddha” – in May 1974. The test coincided with talks with the Pakistanis aimed at normalizing the relations between the two countries. The nuclear revelations quickly led to Pakistan withdrawing from the talks and resolving to commit to a nuclear program of its own. However, it took Pakistan twenty-four years to get its hands on the bomb.

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have always enjoyed a close relationship, with some policy analysts going as far as characterizing it as a “special relationship.” It has been reported that Saudi Arabia even played the role of a financial backer in Pakistan’s nuclear program. There are legitimate fears that Pakistan may export a nuclear device to the Saudis in the event that Iran gets the bomb. MBS made several state visits to Pakistan immediately following the ratification of the JCPOA agreement which drew the ire of the Saudis. In addition, an unspecified military cooperation agreement was signed between the two countries in early 2016.

At the turn of the 21st century, The Gulf Cooperation Council began looking into nuclear power as its primary consumption of energy, attempting to diversify its power source from the region’s traditional reliance on domestically produced fossil fuels. Throughout the 2000s, both the UAE & Saudi Arabia have also taken subtle measures that, some may argue, serve as a countervailing effort against Iran’s contentious nuclear program under the guise of the peaceful acquisition of nuclear energy technology. So far, within the GCC, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Saudi Arabia have the most advanced nuclear power production plans; Abu Dhabi began construction of its first nuclear reactor, Barakah-1, in July 2012, and it is planned to follow this with three further reactors. Should Saudi Arabia’s plans be realized, the Kingdom could become the Middle East’s largest nuclear power producer over the next 20 years. Current plans involve the construction of 16 nuclear power plants, which would supply one-sixth of the Kingdom’s anticipated electricity needs by 2032.

Given that rapidly rising levels of domestic energy consumption have already made the GCC a regional energy consumer which rivals the combined energy demand of Latin American countries, this endeavor also holds significant potential for nuclear energy to become deeply entangled in the region’s existing geopolitical context. The significance of the GCC’s nuclear plans extends to the region’s wider regional relationships, including those with nearby Iran, whose nuclear program has been a source of tension between Tehran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for decades. After Iran, the UAE and Saudi Arabia will possibly be the Middle East’s only power producers, and the first Arab countries with access to nuclear technology. Although the GCC states have emphasized their exclusively civilian interest in nuclear power, the option to develop a nuclear weapons program once the technology is in the country is, of course, a possibility that can never be fully discounted. The acquisition of this technology would elicit calls from international leaders to have GCC states adopt additional protocols within existing nuclear proliferation treaties. GCC efforts to develop local uranium enrichment or plutonium reprocessing facilities could threaten multilateral cooperation with other actors within the region.

If the GCC continues in the pace of domestic nuclear production, member states would also be tempted to rely even more intensively on US protection from Iran, which could be considered a double-edged sword. Moreover, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have recently embraced closer defense ties with Russia, which would allow the GCC to balance strategic alliances in the act of confronting Iran with imminent diplomatic entreaties. Furthermore, the European Union (EU) also has vested interests in the Gulf region, remaining particularly dependent on the safe and steady access to relatively cheap energy supplies. On the other hand, Gulf countries are primarily interested in getting access to EU technology and manufactures. Moreover, they are increasingly interested in investing in diverse economic sectors within the EU.

More importantly, the EU is concerned with the rise in nuclear energy production principally due to geographical proximity and the possible consequences in terms of environmental and soft security issues. Though a risk of direct attack towards the EU is not likely, these concerns stem from the probable consequences of eventual nuclear attacks in the Middle East such as an increasing influx of migrants, the risk of energy supply disruptions, the harm to EU economic interests within the region, and the imaginable environmental consequences of a nuclear attack. As a result, the concern over the nuclear race in the region remains at the top of GCC & EU diplomatic agendas.

 

Sources:

https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/172379/Gulf_Nuclear_4008.pdf0.pdf

El-Katiri, Laura. “The GCC and the nuclear question.” Oxford Energy Comment (2012).

Perkovich, George. “Nuclear developments in the GCC: risks and trends.” the Gulf Research Center’s Gulf Yearbook 2008 (2007).

 

As Trump continues to Tweet his frustrations away, and blatantly lying or, according to Twitter “making disputed claims” he has turned his back on Fox. As Trump continues to claim election fraud over baseless, desperate, alleged examples, even Fox News has stopped parroting everything that comes out of Trump’s mouth. As Fox News and top Republicans, including Melania and Jared, try to encourage the President to concede to Biden, he has now turned against Fox and is encouraging his followers to instead focus on NewsMax and OANN (One American News Network). As soon as Fox stopped supporting his narrative, Trump threw the network under the bus and has now grouped them in with the rest of the “fake mainstream media”. Fox News Network’s YouTube channel is now flooded with dislikes and comments denouncing their “bias” coverage – all done by former loyal viewers.  The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the cable channel Newsmax has been highlighted as a competitor media to Fox. The article reports that the channels viewership and popularity skyrocketed after the election, further promoting Trump’s allegations. Though plans remain tentative, it does bring attention to the fact that Trump is not ready to leave the political spotlight. There are rumors that he may run again in 2024, and if he were to find an outlet set on promoting him, who is to say his popularity won’t rise? Though Biden may have won, the race was way too close for comfort bringing attention to the fact that tensions may continue all over the country. As many Trump supporters refuse to accept any mainstream sources of news, what other sensational and out-of-touch outlets will they turn to?

This past Thursday Saudi Arabia’s King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, asked the world to put their collective foot down on any effort by Iran to continue to develop nuclear and ballistic missile programs. In a region rife with conflict, the king acknowledged Iran’s expansionism and proxy wars that they are conducting throughout the region. Saudi Arabia and Iran have been fighting in Yemen for over 5 years now. With this aggressive attitude Iran has been taking, the addition to nuclear capabilities provides a serious threat for Saudi Arabia and its allies. 

Now with the writing on the wall of the end of the Trump era, Saudi Arabia may be losing one of the biggest anti-Iran voices in the political sphere. Even though many believed Trump exiting the Iran nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration opened the door for Iran to acquire a nuclear warhead. A Biden administration has pledged to return to the 2015 nuclear pact made with Iran as a way to ensure we don’t allow them to create nuclear missiles. The fear of allowing a country to even create nuclear energy is because it may be difficult to ensure if they are also developing a ballistics program to eventually coincide with it.

With the new and unexpected partnerships that Saudi Arabia has been developing, such as one with Israel, the pressure to ensure Iran does not obtain nuclear capabilities has never been higher. As Saudi Arabia deals with endless human rights issues and the very public killing of Jamal Khashoggi- I would not expect many world leaders to jump at the opportunity to stand by their side and take a “decisive stance” against anyone.

 

Al Jazeera. (2020, November 12). Saudi king urges world to take ‘decisive stance’ against Iran. Retrieved November 16, 2020, from https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/11/12/saudi-king-urges-world-to-take-decisive-stance-against-iran