Diplomacy & Crisis News

Stephen Silver

Economics,

Should Hollywood really get a bailout to help them during the coronavirus lockdowns?

Movie theaters are back—but moviegoers don’t appear to have returned along with them, in any great number.

America’s major theater chains began reopening in August, with many more opening in time for Labor Day, when Christopher Nolan’s “Tenet” was released theatrically. On Wednesday, AMC Theaters announced another round of reopening in California and Michigan, which means 80% of the chain’s U.S. theaters will be open by the second week in October.

However, just because the theaters are opening doesn’t mean moviegoers feel safe about returning. The theatrical box office has been paltry ever since the reopening began, with “Tenet” leading the box office last week with the low sum of $3.4 million, per Box Office Mojo. The Hollywood studios have responded by pushing most of the year’s major movie releases, including Disney’s “Black Widow,” into 2021.

As a result, a coalition of prominent people and groups associated with the motion picture industry, including actors, directors, producers and the umbrella organizations of the motion picture and theatrical exhibition industries, have written a letter to the leaders of Congress, asking for help. And the letter states that without such help, the industry faces doom.

“Cinemas are an essential industry that represent the best that American talent and creativity have to offer. But now we fear for their future,” the letter states, per The Hollywood Reporter. “Our country cannot afford to lose the social, economic, and cultural value that theaters provide. The moviegoing experience is central to American life. Theaters are great unifiers where our nation’s most talented storytellers showcase their cinematic accomplishments.”

The letter also warns that as many as 69% of small- and medium-sized movie theaters could go under, in the absence of government aid.

The letter was addressed to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer. Congress, per CNN, is currently in talks with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin about a new coronavirus aid package, and any help for the movie exhibition industry would likely need to come from such a package.

Those signing the letter include directors Wes Anderson, Judd Apatow, Noah Baumbach, Michael Bay, James Cameron, Sofia Coppola, Alfonso Cuarón, Clint Eastwood, Catherine Hardwicke, Barry Jenkins, Rian Johnson, Richard Linklater, Adam McKay, Jordan Peele, Martin Scorsese, M. Night Shyamalan, and dozens more. Also signing are actor Seth Rogen, James Bond series producer Barbara Broccoli, and the organizations the National Association of Theatre Owners, the Directors Guild of America and the Motion Picture Association.

One thing is notable about the letter: The position the industry has taken is to campaign for the government to help out movie theaters, and not to attempt to persuade moviegoers to support theaters by returning to them.

Stephen Silver, a technology writer for The National Interest, is a journalist, essayist and film critic, who is also a contributor to Philly Voice, Philadelphia Weekly, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Living Life Fearless, Backstage magazine, Broad Street Review and Splice Today. The co-founder of the Philadelphia Film Critics Circle, Stephen lives in suburban Philadelphia with his wife and two sons. Follow him on Twitter at @StephenSilver.

Image: Reuters

Stephen Silver

Politics, Americas

The FBI had warned the social media giant that the accounts had originated from inside that country.

For all of the talk about election interference from Russia, specifically on social media platforms, in 2016, and whether it might be replicated, Twitter has stopped what may be a coordinated effort from a different country.

Twitter’s Safety account on Wednesday said that, acting on a tip from the FBI, it “removed approximately 130 accounts that appeared to originate in Iran. They were attempting to disrupt the public conversation during the first 2020 U.S. Presidential Debate.”

“We identified these accounts quickly, removed them from Twitter, and shared full details with our peers, as standard. They had very low engagement and did not make an impact on the public conversation. Our capacity and speed continue to grow, and we’ll remain vigilant,” the company said.

Twitter also added some photos of the offending tweets, one of which came from an account called “JackQAnon.” Twitter also said that “the accounts and their content will be published in full once our investigation is complete.”

Twitter has said that the accounts “originated in Iran,” although Twitter has not said that the tweets had anything to do with the Iranian government, or any kind of coordinated effort by that government. Twitter did, however, remove more than 4,000 accounts that were indeed “linked to the Iranian government,” CNET reported in 2019. And there’s a chance that the tweets only drew the FBI’s attention due to some such connection.

Yoel Roth, Twitter’s head of site integrity, tweeted that “we’re grateful to the

@FBI for the tip, and are staying vigilant about threats to #Election2020—foreign and domestic.”

The tweets had “low engagement,” according to a tweet by Jason Brodsky of the United Against Nuclear Iran organization, although Brodsky also noted that “there are many accounts from Iranian officials with much higher engagement which should also be on @Twitter’s radar.” And he noted that some of the accounts appeared to be pro-Trump, despite the president’s withdrawal from the Obama-era nuclear deal and generally hostile in posture towards Iran.

This is not the season’s first Twitter controversy involving Iran. On September 1, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Sayyid Ali Hosseini Khamenei, sent a tweet referencing “the Israelis and filthy Zionist agents of the U.S.,” including “the Jewish member of Trump’s family,” which was presumably a reference to the president’s daughter Ivanka and his son-in-law Jared Kushner. Twitter did not remove the post, and Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, tweeted the same day that Khamenei’s “deeply hateful post clearly violates Twitter’s rules against comments that “dehumanize, degrade or reinforce negative or harmful stereotypes.’”

Following the debate, Greenblatt also sharply criticized President Trump for refusing to condemn the Proud Boys and telling them to “Stand Back and Stand By.” The ADL chief denounced the Proud Boys as “dangerous, violent people who are using these words as a rallying cry.”

Twitter recently said they will roll out a prompt that encourages users to read articles before they tweet them.

Stephen Silver, a technology writer for The National Interest, is a journalist, essayist and film critic, who is also a contributor to Philly Voice, Philadelphia Weekly, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Living Life Fearless, Backstage magazine, Broad Street Review and Splice Today. The co-founder of the Philadelphia Film Critics Circle, Stephen lives in suburban Philadelphia with his wife and two sons. Follow him on Twitter at @StephenSilver.

Image: Reuters

 

Austria offers a dispiriting preview of the future of progressive politics.

Peter Suciu

Security, Europe

The Su-34 is a very capable aircraft that Moscow is looking to keep flying for years to come.

Earlier this week a Russian Su-34 took part in the first-of-its-kind night-time flight into the lower stratosphere where it destroyed a hypothetical enemy while at supersonic speed. It was a notable accomplishment for the all-weather jet, which is capable of ground, surface and air attacks.

The Sukhoi Su-34 (NATO’s reporting name Fullback) is a two-seat, generation-four-plus multifunctional fighter-bomber that was developed to replace both the Su-24 sweep-wing strike fighter and the Tu-22 bomber. It was developed from the frontline Sukhoi Su-27 fighter jet at the Sukhoi Design Bureau under chief designer Maritosov. The aircraft has seen service in Syria—and it has been regarded as the most technologically advanced Russian Air Force aircraft deployed in the conflict—but it could also be used to defend Russian interests in the Arctic, which highlight the versatility of the aircraft and its abilities to operate in a variety of conditions.

The latest test, involving an aircraft from the aviation division of the Central Military District in the Chelyabinsk Region, further highlights that fact.

“During the training flights Sukhoi Su-34 crews carried out climbs to altitudes of about 15 kilometers, into the lower stratosphere,” the district’s press office told Tass. “Upon achieving supersonic speeds they practiced interception and elimination of a hypothetical enemy. The crews operated totally on their own, without contacting air defense stations on the ground, which made the task more complex.”

An air regiment of the Central Military District completed a program for the rearmament last October, which included the deployment of the Su-34. The last three jets were redeployed to the Chelyabinsk Region to complete a second squadron of the advanced aircraft.

The stratosphere is the second major layer of the earth’s atmosphere and it is where many large commercial aircraft routinely operate as it is where the least amount of turbulence is often found. The stratosphere is very dry with fewer clouds, and that also ensures better fuel economy while there is also less air friction, which can increase the true airspeed (TAS).

Multitask Fighter-Bomber

The Sukhoi Su-34 preformed its first flight on April 13, 1990 but it wasn’t until March, 2014 that it was authorized for service—however it was rumored to have seen combat service during the five day Russo-Georgian War in 2008. The aircraft has a maximum airspeed of 1,400 kilometers per hour near the surface and at high altitudes could reach 1,900 kilometers per hour. It has a range of flight for 4,500 kilometers without refueling.

Its weaponry consists of 30 mm gun GSh-30-1 and twelve weapon stations for air-to-air or air-to-surface missiles of different types, unguided rockets and aerial bombs.

The main task of the Su-34 is to destroy ground, surface and air targets as well as air defense-protected infrastructure. The fighter-bomber is also capable of effectively delivering strikes amid enemy resistance round the clock in good and bad weather and it is armed with a variety of weapons, while it can also be used to conduct air reconnaissance. Because of its combat features it is able to enter into highly maneuverable duels with enemy fighter jets and operate in bomber combat missions independently without the need for escort fighters.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com.

Image: Reuters

Et si nos ancêtres féminines avaient peint Lascaux, chassé des bisons, taillé des outils ? En calquant sur leur objet d'étude le modèle patriarcal et son ordre divin, les premiers préhistoriens ont construit des mythes infériorisant les femmes. La démarche scientifique conduit à prendre des distances (...) / Femmes, Histoire, Science, Idées, Agriculture, Céréales, Inégalités, Société - 2020/10

Rachel Bucchino

Politics,

Despite anticipations that Senate Republicans will resist an upcoming package, many viewed the meeting as progress towards a potential settlement.

Top congressional lawmakers met Wednesday to negotiate the next coronavirus relief bill, resulting in yet another failed attempt to reach a long-awaited deal and set partisan politics aside.

But this time, there may be a flicker of hope as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin arranged to convene and continue economic relief talks as the ongoing pressure from congressional colleagues linger to reach an agreement.

“Secretary Mnuchin and I had an extensive conversation and we found areas where we are seeking further clarification. Our conversations will continue,” Pelosi said in a statement, following their ninety-minute meeting in her office in the Capitol.

Mnuchin echoed the Speaker’s remarks to reporters before departing from the Capitol saying, “We made a lot of progress over the last few days. We still don’t have an agreement, but we have more work to do. And we’re going to see where we end up.”

Although Pelosi and Mnuchin didn’t reach a deal, the meeting was the first time the two had met since coronavirus negotiations sagged in early August due to the monetary scope of the package and specific provisions within it.

Democrats established a $2.2 trillion proposal—a bill that’s unlikely to become law considering House and Senate Republicans oppose it—to offer a slimmed-down version of the $3.4 trillion Heroes Act passed by the House in May. House Democrats, however, have delayed its vote in hopes that Pelosi and Mnuchin will agree on a heavily bipartisan bill. If the two don’t reach a consensus, Democrats said they’ll proceed with the vote by the end of the week.

The $2.2 trillion package includes almost $500 billion for state and local aid, a continuation of the $600 weekly bonuses for unemployment insurance, another round of stimulus checks, nearly $75 billion for coronavirus testing measures and funds for schools, the U.S. Postal Service, election security and more. It also provides emergency funds to the airline industry to prevent future furloughs, a sector that’s been hit hard due to the discouragement of travel amid the coronavirus pandemic.

Mnuchin’s counter to the big-spending package proposed by Democrats is similar to the roughly $1.5 trillion proposal drafted by the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus in the House earlier in September, according to The Washington Post. Pelosi has shown little willingness to shave the $2.2 trillion in spending for the next negotiated package, while Senate Republicans are reluctant to spend more than $1 trillion.  

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) squashed any sense of optimism for a bipartisan agreement before the election, as he said the two sides of the aisle were “very, very far apart.” McConnell failed to rally his colleagues’ support from the Senate in a scaled-down bill a few weeks ago that amounted to less than $1 trillion.

“We would like to see another rescue package,” McConnell said, referring to Pelosi’s proposal as “another massive measure that includes such things as health care for illegal immigrants, tax cuts for rich people in New York and California and other things that are totally unrelated to the coronavirus.”

"So I think it's safe to say we're far apart. I think Secretary Mnuchin and the Speaker are continuing to speak but we're very, very far apart," he told reporters.

As the United States surpassed two hundred thousand reported coronavirus deaths and millions of Americans remain unemployed with government aid depleted, Pelosi and Mnuchin face heated pressure to finally compromise and pass the next relief package. The Speaker, in particular, is being weighed down by moderate Democrats who are competing for re-election, as they disrelish being on Capitol Hill and prefer to campaign in their home states.

Some key provisions still in the talks that have stalled reaching an agreement are: whether to include legal liability protections as Republicans want them, but Democrats oppose; Democrats also want massive state and local aid, while Republicans balk at big-spending; and Democrats want a huge price tag, but Senate Republicans remain fiscally conservative.

Congress cooperated in the spring when the coronavirus first struck the United States, passing four bills that accounted for $3 trillion in aid, but Democrats and Republicans have struggled to act in the same manner in recent weeks. Negotiations between top lawmakers crumbled over the summer and ignited just a few days ago.

Despite anticipations that Senate Republicans will resist an upcoming package, many viewed the meeting as progress towards a potential settlement.

“Oh yeah, I think we’re gonna get a deal,” Financial Services Chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) said. 

Rachel Bucchino is a reporter at the National Interest. Her work has appeared in The Washington Post, U.S. News & World Report and The Hill.  

Image: Reuters

Peter Suciu

Security, Europe

It looks like the Royal Air Force may have found a way to do so.

Earlier this week the Russian Ministry of Defense announced that it had received the third S-400 Triumf missile air defense system regiment, but the question is whether the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has already made the system ineffective for targeting its aircraft. The S-400 was developed and produced by Almaz-Antey to provide protection from air strikes including cruise, tactical and operational ballistic missiles as well as intermediate-range missiles in a radio-jamming environment.

However, reports have circulated online that the Royal Air Force (RAF) along with the Royal Navy (RN), which have each increased patrols near Russian borders near where the S-400s and older S-300s are currently deployed, and have begun successfully jamming the radar systems. The S-400 and S-300 are designed to operate in conjunction to provide increased effectiveness of the Russian military’s Integrated Air Defense System (IADS).

The EurAsian Times reported that the United Kingdom’s military has scanned the frequencies of the defense system to enable aircraft to identify vulnerabilities in the Russian anti-aircraft platform. If that is true a window could be opened for stealth aircraft such as the F-22 Raptor or F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter to approach Russian airspace at a closer distance without being detected by the powerful radar on the S-400.

The Russian state media site Avia.Pro also suggested that the British military was studying for “holes” in the IADS, and that Russia may need to find a workaround to plug any weaknesses in its air defense platform.

Stealth Hunter or Hype

The S-400 surface-to-air-missile system has been touted as a stealth hunter, and as one of the most advanced long and medium-range surface-to-air missile platforms in use today. It was designed to detect and destroy aircraft as well as the aforementioned cruise and ballistic missiles, but is also capable of eliminating ground-based installations.

The platform, which entered service in 2007, has a range of up to 400 kilometers and its missiles can travel up to six times the speed of sound at heights up to 30 kilometers. The S-400 can also employ 40N6 long-range, hypersonic, surface-to-air missiles that can engage low maneuverable aerodynamic targets.

In theory at least, the S-400 was designed to nullify the stealth technology of fifth-generation aircraft such as the F-35. However, it remains questionable whether the radar can do little more than potentially track the advanced aircraft. In other words, tracking may be possible to some extent but actually targeting is another issue all together.

The fact that the S-400 was designed to track stealth aircraft was a key sticking point in U.S. relations with Turkey, which has sought to adopt the Russian-built platform while also seeking to be a partner in the F-35 stealth fighter jet program. The United States, and other NATO partners, saw this as a serious conflict—one that could potentially give the S-400 designers the extra insight to provide an advantage for the anti-aircraft platform. As a result Turkey was expelled from the F-35 program.

The question now is whether the RAF have truly found a weakness in the S-400 that would enable the F-35 and other stealth aircraft to continue to maintain that stealthy edge.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com.

Image: Reuters

An educator and rights defender who has spent more than 20 years rescuing exploited and trafficked children in Colombia, represents “the best of us”, the UN refugee chief said on Thursday, as she was named the winner of this year’s Nansen Refugee Award.

Stephen Silver

Technology, Americas

The roll out of the new technology continues.

Verizon announced this week that on October 1—which is Thursday—they will bring 5G home Internet to a new market, the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. They also announced the arrival of a new router meant to work with the technology.

The addition brings the 5G home service to a seventh market, joining Sacramento, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Indianapolis, and Detroit.

The 5G Home Internet costs $50 per month for Verizon customers and $70 per month for non-Verizon customers. Those signing up will get free YouTube TV for one month and Disney+ for one year, along with a free Stream TV device.

The new deployment coincides with the arrival of a new product, the 5G Internet Gateway, which is described by the company as “a first-to-market MMwave 5G CPE/Router,” which allows for speeds up to 1 Gbps.

“Verizon’s new 5G Internet Gateway is a game-changer for our customers,” Frank Boulben, SVP Consumer Marketing and Products at Verizon, said in the announcement of the new product. “With people spending more time at home during these challenging times, the expansion of 5G Home Internet to new markets with new and improved hardware will provide customers with the flexibility and reliability to enjoy more digital experiences and increased productivity from the comfort of their home.”

When 5G Home Internet was launched, Verizon said that “the first 5G wireless network built to connect your home with ultra-fast internet that’s ready for what comes next. With 5G Home Internet, there are no long-term contracts or additional equipment or installation fees and all taxes and fees are included.”

As for whether home 5G will ever replace Wi-Fi, the consensus among experts is either “no,” or “not yet.”

“While it’s certainly possible that 5G can replace WiFi, there’s a good chance that it won’t,” ActionTec wrote in a 2019 blog post. “5G has too many limitations—like capacity and coverage issues. Plus, 5G and WiFi are better as complements rather that competition.”

Verizon, as of mid-August, was off to an early start in the 5G smartphone wars, at least in the U.S.

Of the 4.1 million 5G-capable phones that had been sold as of mid-July, Verizon was in first place with 2.2 million, followed by AT&T at 629,000, T-Mobile at 501,000 and Sprint at 483,000. Sprint and T-Mobile have since merged, and their combined subscriber total would be second to that of Verizon.

However, the 5G smartphone market is changing by the month, with the arrival of new phones all the time. The Google Pixel 5 was announced this week, and the first 5G-capable iPhones are expected next month.

Stephen Silver, a technology writer for The National Interest, is a journalist, essayist and film critic, who is also a contributor to Philly Voice, Philadelphia Weekly, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Living Life Fearless, Backstage magazine, Broad Street Review and Splice Today. The co-founder of the Philadelphia Film Critics Circle, Stephen lives in suburban Philadelphia with his wife and two sons. Follow him on Twitter at @StephenSilver.

Image: Reuters

Governments should immediately address the inhumane conditions in detention faced by migrant workers who are also being blamed for spreading the coronavirus, a UN panel of independent rights experts said on Thursday.

Kris Osborn

Security, Americas

Improved sensor and communications connectivity will mean that fighter jets and soldiers can better share real-time targeting information.

The Army and the Air Force are planning a series of upcoming joint-service talks for the specific purpose of charting a collaborative, mutually beneficial attack network to better connect air and ground domains to one another in war. 

“We have a concept called Multi-Domain Operation which is our contribution, but it is really a contribution to the Joint All Domain Command and Control fight. What we want to do is come together as a team and take some of the things we are working on and some of the things they are working on and see to make sure that we converge together,” Gen. James McConville, Chief of Staff of the Army, told reporters during the service’s Project Convergence 2020 live fire experiment at Yuma Proving Grounds, Arizona.

Simply put, McConville explained that he wanted the Army to join and align with the Air Force’s ongoing JADC2 effort, explaining that some of their service’s transformational technology can bring great tactical benefit to the Air Force, and vice versa. 

“They have a great program going with Joint All Domain Command and Control and we want to be part of that. When you think about the things we provide to the joint fight, such as Long-Range Precision Fires which will enable us to penetrate Anti-Access/Area-Denial capabilities which the Air Force is concerned about,” he said. 

The mention of Long-Range Precision Fires, and its relevance to the Air Force is quite significant, as the Army is now testing Extended Range Cannon Artillery weapons able to reach 70km and a new Precision Strike Missile that can attack from 500km. The massive distances enabled by these weapons offer Army ground forces new tactical opportunities to attack and destroy enemy air defenses from land. This new ability obviously helps the Air Force as their planes try to close in on hostile areas. 

The Air Force’s JADC2 program, and multi-service connectivity, is specifically cited in a recent essay written by the Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Brown. His “Change or Lose” document calls for greater air-land-sea combat connectivity and challenges the service to fully embrace and execute key changes needed to outpace major power rivals. 

McConville and Brown will have a lot to talk about, because Senior Air Force developers are also moving quickly to facilitate Joint All Domain Command and Control program to better connect sensors and weapons between the services and decrease “sensor to shooter” time. Part of this involves Air Force work on a next-generation battle command technology called Advanced Battle Management System (ABMS), a networking-focused effort to link platforms, weapons and sensors to one another across a vast array of “meshed” or interwoven combat nodes. The concept is to connect unmanned systems, platform-mounted sensors, large weapons systems and IT-databases to one another in real-time with increasing speed. This kind of interoperability is, according to Air Force leaders, intended to serve as the foundation for the Air Force’s contribution to JADC2. 

At the moment, some ground, sea and air sensors are what could be called more “stovepiped,” meaning they are separate and less able to share combat-sensitive data in real-time. Addressing this challenge is exactly the kind of “change” the Air Force document is calling for, given that much greater levels of multi-domain networking will be necessary should there be a major-power warfare scenario. Current long-range enemy sensors are increasingly able to span across domains with extended ranges, requiring a need for America to improve its own multi-domain defenses. 

Some of the Army’s emerging programs, McConville said, are specifically engineered to better support the joint fight and enable cross-domain operations between the services. 

“We are going to have Air and Missile Defense Capabilities that they will be very concerned about because it is how they protect their bases. We will combine sensors and shooters together to all be part of the same team,” he added. 

These comments bring the Army’s Integrated Battle Command System (IBCS) network of missile defense radar and weapons nodes. The program, which recently completed several successful tests, is intended to network an entire sphere of otherwise disconnected sensor nodes to establish a continuous target track on incoming enemy weapons. This means sharing data between otherwise disconnected forward-positioned radar systems and massively decreasing the sensor-to-shooter window. With more complete information quickly at their fingertips, commanders will have more time with which to defend against attacks. Drawing upon IBCS-generated connectivity, the Army recently shot down two incoming maneuvering cruise missile targets by connecting its PATRIOT missile radar to a forward operating Sentinel radar to share data. Commanders had more time with which to make key defensive decisions and succeeded in destroying the fast-moving threats with interceptors. 

In fact, the IBCS system has successfully connected with an Air Force F-35 stealth fighter jet, a level of interoperability which was further demonstrated recently during Project Convergence 2020 at Yuma Proving Grounds, Arizona.

McConville mentioned expressing enthusiasm about this recent experiment in Yuma through which Army ground soldiers were able to exchange targeting specifics with overhead Marine Corps F-35B jet fighters.

“The fact that the F-35 can speak to the soldiers on the ground and the fact that we have a system that will determine what the best shooter is from multiple sensors is going to make the joint force much more capable,” McConville said. 

Interestingly, McConville finished his remarks with somewhat of a philosophical point, explaining that the entire thrust of the Army’s massive modernization transformation, which of course includes the massive acceleration of attack, is intended to prevent war. 

“It all gets back to deterrence and it all gets back to really peace through strength,” he said. 

Kris Osborn is Defense Editor for the National Interest. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University. 

Image: Reuters

Selon le gouvernement, la pandémie et le report de soins ont permis aux complémentaires santé de faire des économies. Il annonce donc une taxe, que les mutuelles promettent de répercuter dans leurs tarifs. Lesquels affichent déjà une hausse de 4 à 5 % en 2020. En conséquence, les bas revenus (...) / Santé, Société, Finance, Capitalisme, Inégalités, Protection sociale - 2020/10

Kris Osborn

Security, Americas

The Chinese telecom industry has close ties to the Chinese government—an entity long-known to make various attempts at espionage using technological infiltration into foreign markets.

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission is proposing to strip forty-five of the seventy-five megahertz of spectrum reserved for a special “safety band” to ensure safe-clear communication between first-responder vehicles, standard passenger vehicles and traffic controls at busy intersections, a move that has many U.S. government officials concerned about the possibility of Chinese technological and economic interference in the United States, given that the idea would move huge portions of the reserved “safety band” to unlicensed wifi operators.

“Losing the spectrum would make the U.S. less safe. The lack of a Safety Band for connected automated vehicles would compromise readiness from inside the U.S.,” a senior U.S. official told the National Interest.

Losing that much spectrum would require substantial modifications to the existing Safety Band and present potentially unintended security risks such as “opening the door to nefarious Chinese technology that was not inserted before,” the official explained.

Chinese interference is of particular concern for a number of specific reasons, not the least of which is the well-known reality that the communist country seeks to expand its global influence and control through investments in technology and regional economic interests.

China’s cyber espionage and efforts to infiltrate the U.S. industry, and technology, in particular, are well known and well documented. Integrating Chinese components and technologies into greater areas of the U.S. economy and telecommunications infrastructure naturally introduces risks of hacking, jamming, interference or other possible nefarious activities. Navigational systems and communications networks could, in the event of a crisis of any kind, be subverted by Chinese intruders seeking to impede U.S. operations. 

Chinese industrial espionage, particularly in the defense sector, is by no means unprecedented. For example, Chinese cyber espionage appears to have informed the reasons why China’s Wing Loong drone very closely resembles America’s MQ-9 Reaper, according to a 2014 commission report known as the 2014 Report to Congress of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review.

“U.S. cybersecurity company FireEye in September 2013 exposed an extensive PLA cyber espionage campaign targeting top aerospace and defense firms for information on U.S. drone technology,” the report states.

The 2013 Congressional report cites a 2012 Defense Science Board report which warns against Chinese defense-oriented cyber espionage, expressing concern that DoD might not be “prepared to defend against this threat.” The report goes on to cite the Defense Science Board report’s findings published in a 2013 Washington Post report stating that twenty-four “U.S. weapon system designs the board determined were accessed by (Chinese) cyber intruders.”

The Chinese telecom industry, the official explained, also has very “close ties to the Chinese government,” an entity long-known to make various attempts at espionage using technological infiltration into foreign markets. This can take the form of computer chips built for U.S. technical systems or even weapons, interference, or intrusions into global satellite markets, cyber espionage through commercial information and technology systems or more simple efforts to dominate or take over technical standards allowing for the insertion of Chinese technologies. 

“It is very difficult to make sure you only get secure things into the supply chain. Safety-critical systems are going to be threatened by China and, quite possibly, Chinese economically-driven espionage. This could disrupt U.S. traffic and safety communication. Accidents could happen at an alarming rate, and the loss of the Safety Band would also interfere with military radar test ranges,” the official said.

Kris Osborn is the defense editor for the National Interest. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.

Image: Reuters

The special economic zones are meant to quietly bring countries together before more public realignments. But do they?

Daniel Lyons

Politics, Americas

There is a real need to approach Section 230 reform thoughtfully and carefully. Simply unleashing the trial lawyers is neither.

As my AEI colleague Mark Jamison discussed yesterday, there is significant buzz on both ends of the political spectrum to reform Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the cornerstone of internet law. Last week, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) argued that the best way to stop Big Tech censorship is to weaken Section 230’s protections and unleash the trial lawyers on Silicon Valley; in his words, “let Americans sue!” As a law professor, I should perhaps be excited by the new job opportunities Hawley wishes to create for our graduates. But there are reasons to be skeptical of this move to shift tech oversight from Congress to the courtroom.

Section 230: Shield, not sword

Section 230 provides two important protections for internet-based companies. Section 230(c)(1) offers “posting immunity”: It assures that companies such as Facebook are not held liable for material that their users post online. Section 230(c)(2) also provides “takedown immunity”: It insulates companies from liability for removing user content that the company, in good faith, determines is objectionable. Together, these provisions give internet-based companies near-plenary authority to manage user-generated content, which shaped the social media revolution.

Conservatives like Hawley argue that many companies take advantage of this protection to tilt the political landscape by suppressing right-of-center viewpoints. Many conservative proposals, such as the White House’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) petition, would correct this perceived bias by limiting “takedown immunity.” NTIA would limit the categories of material that could be deemed “objectionable” and would define “good faith” to exclude entities that favor certain viewpoints.

Sue for what?

But limiting a company’s “takedown immunity” would not, by itself, permit aggrieved keyboard warriors to file suit. While Section 230 reform might remove a company’s legal shield, plaintiffs still need a sword. What law is violated by removing user-generated content?

There are a few contenders, but none are particularly strong. One could argue breach of contract: Removing a post violates the agreement between the user and the platform. But all major platforms reserve the right to edit content in their terms of service, making this claim a nonstarter. Others have argued that takedowns violate the user’s free speech rights. But with limited exceptions, the First Amendment prohibits only government interference with speech and does not bind private parties.

Perhaps one could bring an unfair or deceptive conduct claim if a company has promised to be politically neutral. But generally, these claims are difficult to bring, which is why companies rarely invoke “takedown immunity”: A recent review of 500 Section 230 cases by the Internet Association found only 19 involving Section 230(c)(2). (It also explains why Big Tech has little to fear from most proposals to reform takedown immunity.)

Hawley’s proposal: Beating shields into swords

This is where the Hawley bill differs from many other proposals on the right: It modifies posting immunity, not takedown immunity. In order to receive the protection of Section 230(c)(1), large edge providers must promise to design and operate their service in good faith. “Good faith” means “act[ing] with an honest belief and purpose” and “observ[ing] fair dealing standards,” and is violated by “intentionally selective enforcement” of the terms of service, including takedowns. Violation of this promise would allow the affected user to sue for $5000 or actual damages, whichever is more.

Hawley’s bill thus incentivizes companies to give users the sword that has thus far eluded plaintiffs. To receive posting immunity, companies must voluntarily agree to be sued by users who feel targeted for “intentionally selective enforcement” of the company’s terms. Unlike takedown immunity, posting immunity is critically important to modern platforms. Facebook, Twitter, and comment threads would operate differently if the host could be sued for a user’s defamatory speech or conduct. Hawley’s bill thus requires platforms to pick their poison: either allow users to sue for takedowns, or risk liability for user posts.

Setting aside potential constitutionality concerns, this bill represents a field day for trial lawyers. Terms like “honest belief,” “fair dealing,” and “intentionally selective enforcement” are not self-defining and will be litigated. Even if platforms win most cases, the litigation costs eviscerate one of the key benefits of Section 230, which is escaping at the motion to dismiss stage before costly discovery begins. With the possibility of a $5000 payoff for every user who feels slighted, platforms face the prospect of death by a thousand paper cuts.

Perhaps Hawley doesn’t mind. He is no friend of Big Tech and has broken from GOP colleagues on tort reform before. But the tech sector has been a beacon of American strength on the world stage, provoking jealousy from European and Chinese regulators. These companies help connect millions of Americans daily, which is especially valuable during the present pandemic. Dr. Jamison is right about the need to approach Section 230 reform thoughtfully and carefully. Simply unleashing the trial lawyers is neither.

This article first appeared at the American Enterprise Institute.

Image: Reuters.

William Jeynes

Politics, Asia

Diplomatic vists and new understandings with Japan, India, the UAE and Bahrain are all a part of the plan.

President Trump has taken keen notice of North Korean Supreme Leader, Kim Jong-un, as well as his “chief underwriter,” China. The dictator’s belligerent and provocative behavior, particularly his development of nuclear weapons, has caused Mr. Trump to develop an international strategy that has largely gone under the radar of the mainstream media. Nevertheless, the strategy is clearly apparent if one chooses to look at the evidence. President Trump has chosen to surround North Korea and China with a ring of nations that over time is likely to develop into a new emerging alliance.

For example, if most Americans were asked which international leader has President Trump met the most times during his administration, most would guess a European or North American leader. However, the answer is actually the former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a Washington D.C.-based foreign affairs and public policy think tank, “no foreign leader has ties with Trump than Abe.” In fact, they visited twenty times, had thirty-two phone calls and played five rounds of golf. This is a huge pivot from past decades, when the American commander in chief directed the most attention toward its allies in Europe and North America.

To be sure, Japan’s alarm over Kim Jong-un’s bellicose missile launches have caused the United States and Japan to enhance the closeness of their relationship. Recently, North Korea’s blowing up of the South Korean liaison office effectively ended peace talks with South Korea. Moreover, Kim Yo-Jong’s (Kim Jong-un’s sister) reference to South Korea as an “enemy” only made Japan more aware of the volatility of the Korean peninsula. China’s clandestine behavior along several dimensions that has greatly facilitated its economic rise, has only added a sense of urgency to the United States and Japan seeking greater ties.

During the last few years, President Trump has made similar moves toward establishing a better relationship with India. Granted, there has been a gradual trend toward better relations between the United States and India for roughly fifteen years. However, President Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi have taken note of China’s penetration of the policy-making decisions of various to South Pacific islands, Hong Kong crack downs, and its ongoing border disputes with India.

Therefore, President Trump and Prime Minister Modi have reached what many are calling a “strategic convergence.” President Trump’s visit to India in February, 2020, just before the coronavirus pandemic became such an overriding issue, should be understood in this context. It was indubitably symbolic of the enriched bilateral relationship that has emerged, because the two leaders view the threat of a more aggressive China, radical Islam, and rogue North Korea in similar ways. With this scenario in mind, an increased level of defense cooperation and intelligence sharing seems reasonable. President Trump’s attempt to develop closer strategic ties with India has paid off well. India’s foreign ministry describes the relationship between Trump and Modi as one of “friendship,” “mutual esteem,” and “exceptional warmth.” Those are very strong words that are a tribute to President Trump’s pivot toward surrounding China and the rogue state of North Korea.

The third part of the emerging triad of new emerging alliance are the moderate Arab states including the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. Although Saudi Arabia and Oman, other Arab moderate states, have not yet formally normalized their relations with Israel, Israel and Saudi Arabia have shared some degree of military intelligence on their common enemy, Iran. Once again, there is a growing cognizance of the threat posed by the capricious nations of North Korea and Iran and that China is their chief “underwriter.”

The Trump policy of “surrounding North Korea and China” appears all the wiser, because of what the Washington Post perceives as South Korea’s “quiet leaning toward Beijing.” The above trends in building stronger Asian and Middle Eastern alliances will likely remain in place no matter who wins the U.S. presidential election. As a result, ultimately, a trend may emerge in which President Trump may well be heralded for his international accomplishments, as much as his domestic ones.

William Jeynes is a Professor at California State University at Long Beach and a Senior Fellow at the Witherspoon Institute at Princeton.

Image: Reuters.

Biden shouldn’t be tempted by business as usual with Beijing.

Erik Khzmalyan, Armen Sahakyan

Security, Europe

Washington’s indecisiveness to contain Ankara’s belligerence runs the risk of entrapping the United States in never-ending conflicts that Turkey is facilitating.

With barely any mention of foreign policy, the first 2020 U.S. presidential debate further crystalized the argument that America is dangerously distracted from world affairs. Both the Democratic and GOP party leaders are preoccupied with the upcoming elections that promise to be one of the most contested in U.S. history. This political distraction is made worse by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, shifting much of the national discourse towards domestic affairs.

With thousands dead due to the pandemic, nations across the globe are forced to refocus the often-scarce resources to avert collapsing health care systems. For this reason, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres urged an international ceasefire to instead tackle “the true fight of our lives.”

Meanwhile, NATO-member Turkey is running loose, creating major headaches for Washington. Recent discussions surrounding Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s visit to Greece regarding the relocation of U.S. strategic assets from Incirlik Air Base to Crete do show some waning patience with Ankara, yet even if realized this may be too little too late. 

Left unchecked, Ankara’s destabilizing rampage threatens to set off the geopolitical ticking bomb stretching from the Eastern Mediterranean to North Africa to the greater Near East. 

Having usurped much of the state power following the alleged 2016 coup d’etat attempt, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been trying to realize his neo-Ottoman dreams. 

First, by brazenly accusing the United States of orchestrating the coup, Erdogan has lately intensified his aggressive posturing vis-a-vis Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and other pro-Western Arab states with the goal to establish himself as the new legitimate leader of the Sunni world.

Domestically, he used the coup as an excuse to initiate a nationwide elimination of political opponents, shutdown of the media, and arrest of academics and business owners to cement his one-person rule. 

Facing little to no consequences for its meddling in Syria, Libya, and other hotspots, Ankara has now turned its eyes to the South Caucasus. 

Turkey’s unprecedented direct, large-scale military involvement in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict marks the cross of a rubicon. With this tipping of scales in the regional power balance, it remains yet to be seen how chips fall along the nexus of Russian, Turkish, and Iranian interests.  

Azerbaijan’s September 27 large-scale invasion of Artsakh (Armenian historic toponym for Nagorno-Karabakh) in conjunction with Erdogan’s transfer of 4,000 Islamist terrorists from Syria to Azerbaijan as well as Turkey’s use of American-made weaponry including F-16 fighter jets, mark the biggest flareup of the conflict since the signing of trilateral ceasefire agreement in 1994.  

The United States has significant leverage to restrain Turkey. By putting a leash on Erdogan’s rogue adventurism, Washington can deescalate the situation to prevent the conflict from devolving into a total quagmire, which is exactly what Ankara is trying to achieve. 

The growing Washington consensus is that the days of Turkey as a reliable partner willing to bandwagon with the United States are over. Erdogan’s fervent anti-Americanism and overall disdain for the West have de facto turned Turkey into a regional pariah.

Once an alliance of like-minded nations, Ankara has devalued NATO, compelling many to question the raison d'etre of the organization altogether. After all, Turkey has done nothing but complicate America’s counterinsurgency operations in the Middle East, such as by supporting terrorist factions affiliated with ISIS and Al Qaeda. 

Washington’s indecisiveness to contain Ankara’s belligerence runs the risk of entrapping the United States in never-ending conflicts that Turkey is facilitating. 

A good starting point would be parting with illusions that Erdogan’s Turkey will eventually abandon the damaging behavior and become the democratic state that everyone hoped for.  

Having sacrificed the long-term regional stability at the expense of short-term political expediency, Washington has willingly closed its eyes on Ankara’s backslide in human rights, solidification of autocracy, and an ever-apparent divergent foreign policy.

In an increasingly repressive region, America should first and foremost defend Armenia’s vibrant democracy as a beacon of freedom. 

Additionally, the United States should hold Ankara and Baku’s hostile regimes responsible through diplomatic isolation, targeted sanctions, and arms embargo. 

Without facing consequences, the violent aggression perpetuated by these regimes will go unabated, harming U.S. and NATO interests in the region. America must act now.

Erik Khzmalyan is a geopolitical analyst based in Washington, DC. He holds an MA in Statecraft and National Security Affairs from the Institute of World Politics.

Armen V. Sahakyan serves as the executive director of the Armenian National Committee of America – Western Region.

Image: Reuters.

Seth J. Frantzman

Security,

The Iron Dome system and other aspects of Israel’s unique air-defense system are getting more attention in a world that has more drone and rocket threats and where conflicts and tension are growing from Asia to the Caucuses.

In a historic ceremony, the Israeli Ministry of Defense delivered the first of Israel’s famed Iron Dome batteries to the U.S. Army on Wednesday. The ceremony was conducted in northern Israel as the air-defense system developed by Israel’s Rafael Advanced Defense Systems was officially provided to the United States. The system will still need to be flown back to the United States or transported to another U.S. facility in the future.  

Oshkosh trucks, designed to carry the Iron Dome system were flown from the United States to Israel in September on the giant Ukrainian Antonov plane. Israel’s Ministry of Defense said that the Israel Missile Defense Organization (IMDO), in the Directorate of Defense R&D (DDR&D), of the Israel Ministry of Defense, “delivered the first of two Iron Dome Defense System batteries to the U.S. Army. On this occasion, a symbolic event was held at the Iron Dome production line of defense contractor, Rafael Advanced Systems.” 

Israel’s top brass and executives from Rafael were on hand for the event. Defense Minister Benny Gantz emphasized that the Iron Dome is part of Israel’s unique multi-layered air-defense system. It is the lower tier. The United States has supported Israel’s various air-defense missile systems such as Arrow and David’s Sling for many years. “The Iron Dome system . . . reflects the strength of the Israeli defense establishment. As a result of the effectiveness of this system, many deaths were prevented on the home front of southern Israel, and it has a significant impact on the battlefield. I am proud that this advanced system will also protect U.S. Army troops. This is an extraordinary achievement for both the Ministry of Defense and for Israel’s excellent defense industries,” Gantz said.

Gantz is the leader of Israel’s second-largest political party called Blue and White and a former Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces. He went to the United States in late September to meet his counterpart, Mark Esper. Israel wants to make sure it maintains its qualitative military edge amid the new deal with the United Arab Emirates. Israel may want new airplanes and helicopters to maintain its capabilities. “Among other things, we discussed procurement and information sharing in the field of technology. The completion of this agreement serves as further proof that the defense alliance [between the United States and Israel], is based on common values and interests, which are stronger than ever,” Gantz said. 

In addition to Gantz, the ceremony included the Minister of Economy, Amir Peretz, Head of the DDR&D, Dr. Dani Gold, Head of the IMDO, Moshe Patel Rafael Chairman, Uzi Landau, and Rafael CEO, Yoav Har-Even. The coronavirus pandemic and Israel’s lockdown appeared to have prevented a high-level U.S. delegation from attending. The Iron Dome battery was unveiled at the ceremony.

The Iron Dome battery has been of interest to the United States for years. It could help fulfill the needs of short-range air-defense, called SHORAD. It would have been helpful in Iraq against the constant attacks by pro-Iranian groups using 107-millimeter rockets. However, procurement processes are slow. Rafael partners with Raytheon in the United States on the Iron Dome system. “The first battery was delivered in record time, and the second battery will be delivered in the near future within the framework of the agreement. These batteries will be employed in the defense of US troops against a variety of ballistic and aerial threats,” Israel’s Ministry of Defense says.

The system has been credited with twenty-four hundred interceptions of enemy threats. Rafael Executive Vice President and Head of Rafael's Air and Missile Defense Division, Pini Yungman noted that the United States and Israel began this Iron Dome relationship with a series of tests and demonstrations in the ‘White Sands’ testing field in the United States. “To date, we have conducted three demonstrations and intercepted targets chosen by the U.S. Army for the Iron Dome system,” Yungman said. 

The Iron Dome system and other aspects of Israel’s unique air-defense system are getting more attention in a world that has more drone and rocket threats and where conflicts and tension are growing from Asia to the Caucuses. Israel’s defense systems are regulated for export by strict guidelines and programs that are linked to U.S. support or joint efforts are particularly sensitive. Recently Czech Republic expressed interest in acquiring Rafael’s Spyder air defense, a system of missiles that is also a short-range air-defense system. Czech also acquired the Israel Aerospace Industries MMR radar that is made by Elta, a subsidiary of IAI. Together the unique radar, missiles and defense systems Israel has put in place makes the country uniquely capable of detecting and defending against missile, drone and other types of threats.

Seth J. Frantzman is a Jerusalem-based journalist who holds a Ph.D. from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is the executive director of the Middle East Center for Reporting and Analysis and a writing fellow at Middle East Forum. He is the author of After ISIS: America, Iran and the Struggle for the Middle East (forthcoming Gefen Publishing). Follow him on Twitter at @sfrantzman.

Image: Reuters

Mohammed Ayoob

Security, Europe

There are too many external fingers in this Caucasus pie and unless this fire is doused quickly it has the potential to turn into a major regional conflict.

The latest flare-up in fighting between Armenian and Azerbaijani forces that began in July and escalated in mid-September comes closest to the full-scale conflict that ensued between them in the late 1980s and early 1990s as the Soviet Union was disintegrating. It was centred on Nagorno-Karabakh, a predominantly Armenian enclave situated within the boundaries of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic that formed a part of the Soviet Union from 1922 until 1991 when Azerbaijan declared independence. The conflict was triggered by the attempt on the part of the Armenian leadership in Nagorno-Karabakh to break away from Azerbaijan and join Armenia, which also emerged as an independent state following the Soviet Union’s demise.

The war ended with a ceasefire in May 1994 at the cost of 30,000 dead and hundreds of thousands rendered homeless. It not only left Nagorno-Karabakh as a de facto independent polity ethnically cleansed of its Azerbaijani minority but also additional Azerbaijani territory surrounding the enclave under Armenian control.

Observers attributed the Armenian victory to Russian military support that turned the tide against Azerbaijan. Despite the efforts of the Minsk group chaired by Russia, France and the United States to broker an agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the future of Nagorno-Karabakh, the dispute has continued to fester for a quarter of a century with occasional bursts of limited armed conflict, the most serious before the latest one occurring in 2016.

The Armenian antagonism toward Turks—and Azerbaijanis are Turkic people with close cultural ties to Turkey—runs deep. The mass displacement and death of Armenians in Anatolia during World War I as a consequence of part of the Armenian population siding with Russia intensified anti-Turkish feelings among Armenians. This ethnically based resentment was channelled also against neighbouring Azerbaijani Turks.

This interethnic hostility was exacerbated by Moscow’s policy towards the Caucasus and Central Asia that deliberately aimed at creating tensions between neighbouring ethnic groups in non-Russian, especially Muslim, parts of the USSR. This policy, first developed under Stalin, was aimed at preventing the emergence of coordinated resistance in these regions against Moscow’s heavy-handed rule, including the Russification of the non-Russian population.

Central Asia abounds in examples of this policy. Minority ethnic groups are strewn throughout Central Asian states as a result of incorporation of enclaves of such groups within ethnically defined and denominated states. Nagorno-Karabakh’s inclusion within Azerbaijan was one example of deliberate mixing of hostile ethnicities in the Caucasus with the same goal in mind.

The lid was kept on Armenian–Azerbaijani hostility, especially in Nagorno-Karabakh, as long as both Azerbaijan and Armenia formed part of the Soviet Union. However, with the disintegration of the USSR, interethnic antagonism resurfaced with greater vigour, leading to the war between the two countries that lasted until 1994.

It’s not clear why the conflict has reignited now after having been dormant for more than two decades. There’s speculation that it could have as much to do with internal challenges to both regimes that have prompted them to create nationalist xenophobia to divert the anger of their populations.

Both sides have blamed each other for starting the fighting, which has now spread beyond the Azerbaijani border with Nagorno-Karabakh to the international boundary between the two countries. The president of Azerbaijan and the prime minister of Armenia have rejected suggestions of talks to bring the conflict to a close despite such calls by the United Nations, Russia and the United States.

The conflict has raised concerns about the stability of the South Caucasus region since major pipelines carrying oil and gas to world markets traverse this area. The South Caucasus Pipeline, also known as Baku–Tbilisi–Erzurum Pipeline, carries natural gas from the Shah Deniz gas field in the Azerbaijan sector of the Caspian Sea to Turkey. It runs parallel to the Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan oil pipeline that carries oil from the Azeri–Chirag–Deepwater Gunashli field and condensate from Shah Deniz across Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey to the Ceyhan marine terminal on the Turkish Mediterranean coast. Crude oil from Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan is also transported via this pipeline.

Equally, if not more, alarming is the danger that if the confrontation escalates it may draw in external powers, Turkey and Russia in particular, that would widen the scope of the conflict. Turkey has traditionally been a staunch supporter of Azerbaijan and condemned Armenia in no uncertain terms for beginning the conflict when fighting broke out in September. Russia considers Armenia a strategic ally, supported it militarily in earlier bouts of fighting with Azerbaijan and is treaty-bound to come to Armenia’s defence if the war spreads beyond Nagorno-Karabakh across the international frontier. But, it also considers Azerbaijan a strategic partner and has supplied arms to Baku. Russia will therefore have a major problem on its hands if the conflict escalates. Moreover, if Russia and Turkey line up on opposite sides of this conflict it will greatly harm Russia’s attempt to woo Turkey away from NATO, especially since the two countries are already supporting opposing camps in Libya and Syria.

Israel and Iran also have stakes in the conflict. Israel is a major supplier of arms to Azerbaijan, and Iran, despite its attempt to appear neutral, has long supported Armenia. Both Iran and Azerbaijan are Shia but Azerbaijan’s irredentist claim after independence on the northern Iranian provinces of East and West Azerbaijan has more than neutralised their religious affinity.

There are too many external fingers in this Caucasus pie and unless this fire is doused quickly it has the potential to turn into a major regional conflict.

Mohammed Ayoob is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of International Relations at Michigan State University.

This article first appeared at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

Image: Reuters.