Diplomacy & Crisis News

Rachel Bucchino

Politics,

Republicans will turn up the heat on Democrats over court-packing as the Amy Coney Barrett hearings begin next week.

Republicans continue to press Democratic nominee Joe Biden and running mate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) in recent days over whether the pair would “pack” the court if conservative-leaning Amy Coney Barrett gets a seat on the bench, a question that the two have avoided to answer. If the Democrats were to proceed with court-packing, it would represent a momentous step that would erode another guardrail of American democracy and turn the court into a rubber stamp for the president rather than a separate branch of government. The last time it was attempted was in 1936, when Franklin Roosevelt suffered a humiliating defeat in Congress after he tried to add new members to the Supreme Court. Would Biden and the Democrats seek to go down the same road?

Biden faced the court-packing question at a campaign stop in Phoenix on Thursday, providing yet another bland response. “You will know my opinion on court-packing when the election is over,” Biden told reporters at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. “The moment I answer that question, the headline in every one of your papers will be about that rather than focusing on what’s happening now. This election has begun. There’s never been a court appointment once the election has begun.”

Court-packing — a radical idea that broadens the highest court by adding more judges than what exists now — would tilt the Supreme Court to be more left-leaning if Biden is elected and Democrats rally enough federal level support to pass the law. Although the constitution doesn’t state how many justices must sit over the court, Republicans argue that there have been nine justices on the Supreme Court for well over a century, so swelling the bench would radically interfere with the highest court’s practice and history.

“I think the reason they won’t answer it is because their answer is yes,” Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas) told the Daily Caller on Thursday, “and they know that’s incredibly impossible so they’re trying to hide just how radical their agenda is.” “They are ready to pack the court. If they win, if they take a majority, if we have Biden, Schumer and Pelosi in charge, I believe they will pack the court,” Cruz added.

At the vice-presidential debate Wednesday night, Vice President Mike Pence pressured Harris to provide a clear answer if the Democratic ticket plans to pack the court, accusing her of giving a “non-answer” when asked about the issue in the past. Harris refused. “The American people deserve a straight answer,” Pence said. "And if you haven’t figured it out yet, the straight answer is they are going to pack the Supreme Court if they somehow win this election.”

The issue of court-packing resurfaced after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in mid-September when Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) vowed to push for President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee before Election Day. If the Republican-controlled Senate passes Barrett’s nomination, she would become the third Supreme Court justice appointed by Trump and potentially impose an ideological tilt that would put conservatives in power on the bench, 6 to 3.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told his colleagues that “everything Americans value is at stake” if Senate Republicans convene to fill Ginsburg’s seat, as the lifetime appointment would mend ideology on the highest court for generations. Schumer, who potentially faces a challenge from AOC in 2022, moved decisively to the left: “Let me be clear: If Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans move forward with this, then nothing is off the table for next year. Nothing is off the table.”

McConnell, the leader of the effort to swiftly fill the vacant seat, has been labeled as a hypocrite by Democrats because he blocked Merrick Garland, an appeals court judge, when former President Barack Obama nominated him to succeed Justice Antonin Scalia after he passed away in February 2016, arguing that the nomination should wait until after voters decide the 2016 election. The majority leader added that a vacant Supreme Court justice seat should not be filled during election season, a reversal from his initiative now.

Whether Biden and Harris will seek to pack the court if Barrett is granted the seat, in the event that the Democratic ticket wins the election. Nearly 11 candidates during the Democratic presidential primaries were open to the idea of court-packing, including Harris. Biden, however, did not support it “because we’ll live to rue that day,” he said last July. “We add three justices; next time around, we lose control, they add three justices,” Biden said last October. "We begin to lose any credibility the court has at all.”

If Biden provides a clear indication that he intends to pack the court, the stance would likely deter moderate or independent voters that he needs to win the tight race to the White House. In recent weeks, Biden said giving a response to the question “will shift the focus” of the election.

“That’s what [Trump] wants. He never wants to talk about the issue at hand and he always tries to change the subject. … The discussion should be about why he is moving in a direction that’s totally inconsistent with what the founders wanted. The Constitution says voters get to pick a president who gets to make the pick and the Senate gets to decide,” Biden told WBAY News last month. “We’re in the middle of the election right now,” he added. "You know, people are voting now. By the time this Supreme Court hearing would be held, if they hold one, it’s estimated 30 to 40 percent of American people already have voted. It is a fundamental breach of constitutional principle. It must stay on that and it shouldn’t happen.”

As the Barrett hearings next week loom large, however, Republicans will turn up the heat on Democrats over their court-packing plans. It could prove to be a potent political weapon in a turbulent election.

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. 

Kris Osborn

Security,

The military wants to use lots of unmanned-manned and unmanned-unmanned pairings to win on the battlefield.

The Army’s use of manned-unmanned teaming, wherein human operators control air and ground robotic vehicles to conduct reconnaissance, carry supplies or even launch attacks has long been underway. This developmental trajectory is demonstrated by the Army’s most recent successes with unmanned-unmanned teaming. 

Progress with drone to drone connectivity, from ground to ground and ground to air is fast gaining momentum following successful recent experiments where the Army passed key targeting data from larger drones to smaller mini-drones in the air. This happened in September at Yuma Proving Grounds, Ariz., during the Army’s Project Convergence experiment, wherein the ability to massively shorten sensor-to-shooter time and network time-sensitive combat information was demonstrated between drones. 

During the experiment, an Army Gray Eagle drone networked with a forward operating mini-drone called Air Launched Effects. This, as Army leaders described, extended the range, scope and target envelope for attack missions well beyond “line of sight” and what service leaders described to me as the “visibility line.” Moreover, Gen. John Murray, Commanding General of Army Futures Command, told The National Interest that more drone-drone operations were planned for coming years. 

“You saw unmanned-unmanned teaming with two air vehicles that were completely autonomous. We are going to continue to expand that. Next year, we are looking at four and then we will continue to scale that up,” Murray said at Project Convergence in Yuma. 

The technology is also connecting ground-operated robotic vehicles to aerial drones through platforms such as Textron Systems Ripsaw vehicle. The RIPSAW M5 medium-sized Robotic Combat Vehicle, now being developed as part of an Army program, is an armed robot-vehicle engineered with advanced sensors, scalable armor, high-fidelity targeting sensors made by FLIR Systems, weapons and advanced algorithms for autonomous navigation and networking operations. 

Textron developers emphasize that the RIPSAW is built to be scalable, meaning it can accommodate different weapons, suspension, drive-train and chassis configurations. It also has a diesel range extender which allows it to expand its combat range out to 400 miles. 

In recent experiments and tests with the Army, Textron has demonstrated the ability for the RIPSAW to operate in conjunction with an aerial drone called SkyRaider. The ability for a ground robot vehicle to share surveillance, targeting and force-position data with an aerial drone brings new tactical dimensions to ground warfare. Of course it increases stand-off range for human soldiers operating in a command and control capacity, but also expands the scope of the battlefield, something the Army expects will greatly impact the future of warfare. As sensors and weapons-ranges continue to expand, areas of combat operations will only become larger, better networked and more dispersed. A forward aerial drone could, for instance, operate over hostile areas to identify points of entry for robotic ground vehicles to attack enemy fortifications. 

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: Textron.

Martin Weiser

Security, Asia

This story illustrates what is wrong with coverage of North Korea. Too many assume North Koreans believe anything.

Since April, academics and politicians in South Korea have been rushing to address the problem of false reporting on North Korea. Progressive legislators held a discussion with civil society in May on how to respond to fake news on North Korea, while Kyungnam University’s Institute of Far Eastern Studies recently published a report and then a whole book on the topic.

The instigator was an April DailyNK report that sparked global rumours about North Korean leader Kim Jong-un’s supposed ailing health and possible death following heart surgery. The outlet later issued a correction after several reporting mistakes came to light — ‘heart surgery’ was in fact a cardiovascular procedure and ‘sources’ was actually a single source. When Kim Jong-un appeared in early May after an unusual absence, he did have a mark on his right wrist that could imply a medical procedure, but South Korean intelligence had long stressed there were no signs of health problems as alarming as speculated.

The story made clear that sensationalist reports on North Korea cannot be blindly trusted — the context, ambiguities, inconsistencies and news agency biases have to be carefully considered in the process of digesting information on North Korea. Anonymous single sources strongly colour what information eventually reaches readers.

Despite renewed vigilance, in late May another apocryphal story reached a global audience thanks to South Korean media. South Korean outlet Dong-A Ilbo and others reported that North Korea’s newspaper of record Rodong Sinmunhad finally ‘debunked the myth of Kim Il-sung’s teleportation ability’. South Korean outlet Chosun Ilbo claimed this was a ‘rare admission’ from North Korea, adding that ‘some bright spark in the propaganda department in the 1950s invented the story’.

Radio Free Asia even quoted the South Korean Ministry of Unification as stating it ‘marked the first time that [North Korean] state media flatly denied that a Kim family myth was true’. In South Korea, the story found its way onto television via Chosun Ilbo-affiliated ChosunTV, declaring that this was the first time the North had made such an acknowledgement. Broadcaster KBS reached an even wider South Korean audience with their ‘Inter-Korean Window’ segment reproducing the same narrative.

All of these assertions were so outrageously wrong it is surprising that no outlet or scholar, South Korean or foreign, sought to set the record straight.

The actual story published in Rodong Sinmun on 20 May was a reprint of a Kim Il-sung anecdote that quoted him as saying: ‘Actually, humans cannot move by folding space and disappearing and reappearing’. This was part of his response when asked in November 1945 about his apparent ability to ‘teleport’ (chukjibop) — employing stealth tactics to evade capture as a guerrilla fighting the Japanese.

Rodong Sinmun’s 20 May story did not reveal a new ‘rare admission’, as South Korean outlets claimed — and versions of it had previously been published in the North already in 2015 and 2018 in the same newspaper. Just months after Rodong Sinmun first featured the story in 2015, South Koreans were still told by Yonhap that Kim Il-sung is deified in Northern schools using his alleged ability to teleport as an instance. The 2015 and 2018 North Korean reports included that same sentence on teleportation being impossible, but it was only in May 2020 that reporters took an interest.

The earlier North Korean reports could have been found easily. Journalists just needed to search the Rodong Sinmun website for the word ‘teleportation’ to find the 2018 report. South Korea censors all North Korean websites, but journalists are not deterred by this as the reporting demonstrates.

Even easier would have been to use commercial services like Korea Press Media or KCNAWatch, which few South Korean media outlets seem to do, though the South Korean state has censored these as well. In any case South Korea’s main library for North Korean material, run by the Ministry of Unification, offers a database that no journalists seem to have used to confirm fact.

The original source for the story appears to be a major North Korean publication, the Anecdotes on Kim Il-sung Collection, released in a number of volumes between 2013 and 2017. Volume six, covering November 1945, was released in 2015, coinciding with the first time the story was run by Rodong Sinmun.

This makes it impossible to tie Rodong Sinmun’s 20 May ‘admission’ to the failure of the 2019 Hanoi Summit or some recent propaganda strategy of Kim Jong-un, as some South Korean outlets claimed. And South Korea’s Ministry of Unification never stated that the May 2020 piece was the first time that North Korea had denied the ‘myth’. Radio Free Asia was the only outlet that carried this claim and it is not included in their Korean version. There are also no sentences in the Korean article that could be misunderstood that way. Either the translator or the English writer, known for omitting or bending fact, generated this Ministry ‘quote’ without an editor catching the additional fake news.

This story illustrates what is wrong with coverage of North Korea. Too many assume North Koreans believe anything. Few appreciate that the North Korean government holds dear the socialist dogma, one that inherently assumes religion, magic and unicorns as blatant superstition. Reporters need to be more willing to invest time and care in reporting on North Korea for accuracy and integrity, lest they become what they mock. For now, too little is done to catch or correct blatant mistakes, whether internally or externally and before publication or after, making healthy discussion around North Korean issues ever more difficult.

Martin Weiser is an independent researcher based in Seoul.

This article first appeared at the East Asia Forum.

Image: Reuters.

Religious violence is growing despite the pandemic.

Years of diplomatic efforts have failed, but the two sides will need to talk to prevent a regionwide war.

Ethen Kim Lieser

Technology,

Could TCL breakout from being known for HDTVs and make a big move into smartphones? This new phone screams a resounding yes. 

Chinese tech giant TCL is more well known for its strong lineup of budget and mid-tier HDTVs, but it is also trying to gain some global traction in the smartphone market.

It appears that the company has found a winner with its 10 Pro—which was released in late spring—and can now be had for a bargain-bin price of $380 (be sure to clip the coupon) on Amazon.

This particular model, often seen as a strong competitor to the Samsung Galaxy A line and the iPhone SE, is perfect for those who want to stay in the Android universe and not break the bank—but know that it still packs plenty of punch.

What immediately strikes you is the highly attractive sleek and modern design. And the screen—a curved 6.47-inch AMOLED display—that it contains is immersive, vibrant, and sharp, perfect for watching TV shows and movies and scrolling through social media sites. You can also rest easy knowing that the display has full-HD resolution and HDR 10 certification.

Also know that multitasking likely won’t be an issue, as the 10 Pro boasts the Qualcomm Snapdragon 675 processor and the 6 GB of RAM is more than enough for everyday usage. Even while gaming, the experience is excellent overall despite sometimes stretched out load times. There’s also 128 GB of storage, of which 113 GB is available out of the box.

The 10 Pro features a healthy set of cameras that can get the job done—just not on the levels of higher-end and more expensive smartphones out there. The quad-lens camera system combines a 64-megapixel primary wide-angle shooter with a 16-MP ultrawide one, a 5-MP macro camera, and a 2-MP sensor that is more for low-light shots. Not to be outdone, your selfies will be taken by a 24-MP camera.

For some people, the camera lenses ramp up the saturation too much, which do provide plenty of color, but the end result is that photos often lose its more lifelike aspects. Still, for a sub-$400 phone, it’s hard to be too critical of the cameras.

If you’re worried about getting through a full day without charging your smartphone, you can rest assured that the 10 Pro will surpass your expectations. TCL’s offering comes with a generous 4,500-mAh battery that has been shown to keep the device running for eleven to twelve hours—that’s markedly better than the Galaxy A51 and iPhone SE. However, be aware that wireless charging is not supported.

Ethen Kim Lieser is a Minneapolis-based Science and Tech Editor who has held posts at Google, The Korea Herald, Lincoln Journal Star, AsianWeek, and Arirang TV. Follow or contact him on LinkedIn.

Aux yeux de beaucoup de Brésiliens, la multinationale Odebrecht incarne les dérives d'un capitalisme de connivence. / Afrique, Amérique latine, Brésil, Capitalisme, Commerce international, Développement, Économie, Énergie, Entreprise, État, Mondialisation, Multinationales, Parti politique, (...) / Afrique, Amérique latine, Brésil, Capitalisme, Commerce international, Développement, Économie, Énergie, Entreprise, État, Mondialisation, Multinationales, Parti politique, Protectionnisme, Diplomatie - 2013/10

Doug Bandow

Security, Asia

Pyongyang will attempt to communicate with America through a parade. It won’t be a message Washington wants to hear. But that is the price of the Trump administration failing to effectively follow up on the president’s diplomatic breakthrough.

North Korea’s Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un may show his hand for future dealings with America on October 10. The anniversary of the founding of the Korean Workers’ Party (KWP) is always an important occasion, but 2020 is the seventy-fifth anniversary of the formation of what passes for a communist party.

Although he caucused with communist states, Kim Il-sung, originally appointed by Moscow as its occupation frontman, never admitted being beholden to anyone. Alone among communist states, the North displayed not one image of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or any other communist notable. After all, what would juche represent if the nation’s founding ideals were based on the ramblings of a couple of long-dead Germans?

However, the claim of North Korean exclusivity means the KWP celebration is likely to be substantial despite the country’s economic troubles and the world’s coronavirus pandemic. Most everyone in Pyongyang, at least, will be watching. Foreign analysts and journalists will study the parade closely. Which makes it a perfect opportunity for the Kim regime to showcase a new weapon capable of striking the United States.

President Donald Trump’s dramatic opening to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea effectively ended a year after it started, in February 2019 at the failed Hanoi summit. The administration’s continued demand for full denuclearization before the DPRK received any meaningful concessions doomed additional talks. So Pyongyang largely disengaged from diplomacy with the United States and around the globe. Even unofficial contacts withered.

Yet Kim did not return to the North’s traditional policy of brinkmanship. Most notably, he did not restart nuclear and long-range missile testing. Nor did he launch another invective assault, highlighted by insults directed at the president—such as famously calling Trump a “deranged U.S. dotard.” Last December Pyongyang threatened to resume verbal combat if the president renewed hostilities, but there have been few rhetorical contretemps since.

The North more directly and roughly rejected Seoul’s attempts at conversation, likely because the former sees little positive to be gained so long as the Moon government refuses to challenge U.S. sanctions policy. However, the recent killing of a South Korean official in unclear circumstances prompted an apology of sorts from Kim, which might presage a softening attitude. Or perhaps Kim is veering toward conciliation with the South to prepare for an increasingly likely Biden administration, which seems unlikely to resume Trump-style summitry.

The parade provides an excellent opportunity to make implicit threats and increase tensions without testing American red lines. Resuming ICBM and/or nuclear testing would break a commitment, ostentatiously accelerate military developments, and increase threats to the U.S. homeland. The consequences would be unpredictable, but possibly dangerous.

For instance, Trump, especially if looking for a miracle deus ex machina to win reelection, might restart his “fire and fury” policy. Although a President Joe Biden likely would be more measured, his first reaction would not be to ease sanctions and attend summits. Indeed, with Iran likely much higher on an incoming Biden administration’s agenda, he might decide on a tougher response to North Korea to gain leverage in reinstating and/or renegotiating the nuclear deal with Tehran.

In contrast, a parade exhibition is less provocative. It is as likely to showcase possibilities, desires, wishes, dreams, and bluffs as realities. The threats are more theatrical and look more theoretical, offering more opportunity to dissuade Pyongyang from moving forward without considering military options.

Nevertheless, the DPRK could put on quite a show. A 38 North analysis of satellite data indicates that the North Koreans have built temporary shelters large enough to hold missiles and transport vehicles. The Carnegie Endowment’s Ankit Panda predicted: “The North Koreans are going to come out with potentially scores of solid propellants, medium range missiles.”

Although even mid-range missiles are nuclear-capable and able to strike U.S. bases in the region, their limited range makes them less fearsome for Americans and American policymakers. So something more is likely. The regime hasn’t showcased an ICBM since early 2018, when the Kim-Trump show debuted. As 2020 dawned Kim promised a “new strategic weapon,” which remains as yet unseen. It most likely is one or more long-range missiles.

An apparent transporter-erector-launcher (TEL) was spotted at the capital’s parade ground, which could be significant. Chad O’Carroll of NKNews noted that “North Korea suffers from a historic inability to develop its own heavy launcher vehicles, so the country has only shown small numbers of medium and long-range missiles at military parades. Therefore, if many heavy launcher vehicles are shown transporting an expanded missile arsenal at the parade in October, it would mean the country has markedly improved its capabilities.”

Such a missile display—even if mock-ups were used—would provide a powerful reminder to Washington on why negotiations are in America’s as well as North Korea’s interest. Moreover, the North might emphasize numbers by parading several ICBMs. Some analysts believe that the number of storage units suggest deployment of as many as a dozen. The larger the number, the more difficult for the United States to either preempt or defeat an attack. However, displaying what might merely be a model is not likely to panic America and drive a president or president-elect to act precipitously.

Another possibility would be to highlight development of an SLBM, or submarine-launched ballistic missile. However, the smaller weapons would look less formidable on parade. The threat also would be less. Although submarine-launched missiles have a formidable reputation, the North is far from having a workable fleet capable of carrying SLBMs and the United States has long invested heavily in anti-submarine technology to counter the Soviet Union and now China. Pyongyang could more cheaply and effectively increase the number of mobile land-based missiles.

North Korea also likely aspires to develop multiple independent re-entry vehicles, which allow one missile to carry several warheads. There are no reports that Kim’s engineers have produced such a device, which also would not be much of a parade prop. Some conventional weapons look impressive, but the regime has been devoting its limited resources elsewhere for years. Which is another reason the North is likely to emphasize its missiles in the parade: in this field Pyongyang’s progress has been significant, including the development of ICBMs and solid fuels.

Whatever occurs at the parade likely will constitute the North’s full “provocation” ahead of the Nov. 3 election. Pyongyang would prefer a Trump victory, but any dramatic threats would undermine the president and/or might trigger a violent reaction.

However, additional provocations are probable after the election. The DPRK might seek to encourage another presidential foray into dealmaking if Trump wins; reminding him of the North’s capabilities would encourage him to be more flexible and offer smaller deals involving at least some sanctions relief.

If Biden is victorious, the North probably will raise tensions to increase its leverage with the new administration. Creating a sense of crisis might be the only way to force Korea onto the Biden agenda. And to encourage a more active stance and willingness to negotiate than was evident in the Obama administration.

As in the past, Pyongyang will attempt to communicate with America through a parade. It won’t be a message Washington wants to hear. But that is the price of the Trump administration failing to effectively follow up on the president’s diplomatic breakthrough. The next administration should recognize that the North doesn’t plan to abandon its nukes and shape policy accordingly.

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, he is author of Tripwire: Korea and U.S. Foreign Policy in a Changed World and co-author of The Korean Conundrum: America’s Troubled Relations with North and South Korea.

Image: Reuters.

The need for the World Food Programme, the recipient of the 2020 Nobel Peace Prize, to exist is starker than ever. From conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo, to flooding in South Sudan, and the civil war in Yemen, man-made and natural disasters are leaving tens of millions of people unsure if they will have enough food for themselves and their families to survive on.

Desmond Lachman

economy, Americas

A delay in a second stimulus package while the coronavirus is wreaking havoc across the country would increase the odds that the U.S. economy will experience a double-dip economic recession.

History will judge the American political class harshly if Congress and the White House prove themselves unable to compromise on a fiscal stimulus package before the November election. 

A delay in a second stimulus package would increase the odds that the U.S. economy will experience a double-dip economic recession. Additionally, it would make it all the more difficult for the United States to extricate itself from its worst economic recession in the past ninety years. It would do so as an increasing number of households and companies would be forced into bankruptcy and debt default.

That the U.S. economy now needs another sizable fiscal stimulus package would seem to be beyond question. As Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell keeps noting, the high-frequency data, including the recent disappointing employment numbers, strongly suggest that the U.S. economic recovery is already stalling and in need of more policy support. Worse yet, it is doing so at a time that the economy has regained only around half of the twenty-two million jobs that it lost in the pandemic’s wake.

Heightening the urgency of the need for an early fiscal boost are growing indications that the US economy could soon be hit by economic shocks coming from at home and abroad. 

At home, the health experts are warning of the real risk of a damaging second wave of the pandemic as the fall and winter months approach. Were that to happen, it could result in at least the partial rolling back of the lockdown’s easing that would be a drag on the economy. As to the potential shocks that could emanate from abroad, both the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are now warning of a very much less favorable international economic environment in general and the risk of a record wave of emerging market debt defaults in particular.

Further heightening the need for an additional fiscal stimulus package is the desperate economic straits in which many households and small businesses now find themselves. The supplemental unemployment insurance benefits for those losing their jobs as a result of the pandemic ran out at the end of July. Meanwhile, the generous Paycheck Protection Program that helped small businesses keep open and stave off bankruptcy ran out in August. Without additional early support, all too many of these businesses will permanently go under.

Making the lack of a compromise between Congress and the White House all the more difficult to understand is that both sides acknowledge that the economy is in urgent need of major budget support. While Congress thinks that a package of some $2.4 trillion, or over 10 percent of GDP, is needed, even the White House is suggesting that a fiscal boost on the order of $1.5 trillion, or around 7 percent of GDP, would be appropriate.

Beyond the dollar amount of any new package, what further separates the two sides is the composition of any such package. Both sides agree that there should be another round of checks sent out to lower-income households and that additional support should be provided to small businesses and to the airline industry. However, the White House disagrees with Congress’s idea that the $600 a week supplemental insurance benefit should be reinstated or that generous aid should be provided to troubled state and local governments.

In today’s charged political climate, it would seem to be all the more urgent to have Congress and the White House reach a compromise on a fiscal boost before the November election. With the economic recovery already stalling and with unemployment still very high, the economy can ill-afford another few months of policy inaction. Yet that is what is all too likely to happen in the event that an agreement is not reached before the election especially were the election results to be challenged or were there to be a change in administration.

Earlier this year in the depth of the recession, in the country’s best interest, parties from both sides of the aisle put aside their differences to enact the CARES Act—the largest peacetime fiscal stimulus on record. With the U.S. economy still so fragile and so vulnerable to another leg down, one would hope that bipartisan agreement can once again be reached to address the current difficult economic situation. Unfortunately, however, all the clues seem to suggest little likelihood of that happening anytime soon.

Desmond Lachman is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He was formerly a deputy director in the International Monetary Fund's Policy Development and Review Department and the chief emerging market economic strategist at Salomon Smith Barney.

Image: Reuters

Mark Episkopos

Security, Asia

Be on the lookout for a new ICBM or SLBM.

The Kim Jong-un regime is preparing to mark the 75th anniversary of the founding of the ruling North Korean Workers’ Party with a major military parade, where North Korea is poised to unveil several of its latest missile systems.

On October 10th, thousands of troops and masses of vehicle columns will line the streets of Pyongyang with all of the pomp and tightly rehearsed choreography befitting a major North Korean holiday. The last North Korean military parade was held in September 2018, following the Singapore summit between President Trump and North Korean leader Kim earlier that summer. In keeping with the spirit of then-ongoing denuclearization talks, North Korea opted not to display either of its new strategic weapons or its older stock of nuclear weapons delivery systems, at that celebration.

But a constellation of recent military and technical circumstances suggests that Pyongyang aims to use the 2020 parade as a high-profile venue to flaunt a slew of nuclear-capable missile systems. Late last month, reports emerged of a spike in activity at North Korea’s Sinpo Shipyard. The Sinpo Shipyard is the primary construction site for North Korea’s upcoming Sinpo-C ballistic missile submarine, the presumed successor to North Korea’s Soviet-derived Sinpo-B submarine line. North Korea has likewise made strides in developing and testing a nuclear-capable submarine-launched missile (SLBM) that can be deployed outside of Washington’s land-based THAAD network of missile defenses in East Asia, potentially posing an existential threat to critical South Korean infrastructure. Given the recent strides made in both of these projects, there is good reason to expect a Pukguksong-3 SLBM launch during the upcoming parade. This was already done last year, but likely from a submersible barge—demonstrating a Pukguksong-3 launch from a fully operational submarine, perhaps even a Sinpo-C prototype, would be a compelling testament to North Korean naval modernization.

The 75th-anniversary celebration could also become a showcase for North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) technology. Late last year, Kim announced at a Workers’ Party meeting that “the world will witness a new strategic weapon to be possessed by North Korea in the near future.” This could mean several different things in the context of the upcoming parade. South Korean news agency Yonhap, citing South Korea officials, posits that North Korea could be preparing to unveil a new long-range ballistic missile. This may be the solid fuel, nuclear-capable ICBM that a growing number of Korea experts believe is currently being developed by Pyongyang.

Another, somewhat more tame possibility is a parade demonstration of North Korea’s reported capacity to indigenously produce transporter erector launchers (TEL’s) for ICBM’s, which previously had to be imported and converted. A vehicle strongly resembling a TEL was recently spotted at the Mirim Parade Training Ground in the vicinity of Pyongyang, suggesting that TEL’s will take part in the parade. A larger supply of functioning TEL’s allows North Korea’s nuclear arsenal to be more widely deployed, enhancing both its first and second-strike capabilities.

For North Korea’s leadership, the 75th-anniversary parade raises issues of political timing. On the one hand, Pyongyang has recurrently threatened to destabilize U.S. politics ahead of the upcoming presidential election; to this end, a North Korean ICBM demonstration could burden the embattled Trump administration with a fresh foreign policy controversy a mere three weeks from election night. On the other hand, North Korea tends to save its major military provocations until shortly after new U.S. presidents are sworn in. If Pyongyang plays its nuclear hand now and Donald Trump goes on to lose the election, North Korea risks diluting what could later be a source of diplomatic leverage against a prospective Joe Biden administration.

Mark Episkopos is a frequent contributor to The National Interest and a PhD student in History at American University.

Image: Reuters.

Amid escalating hostilities in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights appealed on Friday for an urgent ceasefire and for greater protection to be given to those caught up in the violence. 

Warfare History Network

History, Asia

Despite its shortcomings, the Grumman fighter more than held its own against Japan's Zero fighter at Coral Sea, Midway, and in the battles over Guadalcanal.

Key Point: Although the Wildcat was not as graceful as its opponent, American pilots exploited the plane’s weight to negate the Zero’s agility.

The Grumman F4F Wildcat is usually described as chunky, “square,” squat, or stubby—not exactly adjectives that suggest grace or elegance. The Wildcat is also frequently criticized for being slow, heavy, and lacking in maneuverability, especially in comparison with its main adversary, the famous Japanese Zero fighter. Despite its shortcomings, the Grumman fighter more than held its own against the Zero at Coral Sea, Midway, and in the battles over Guadalcanal.

Designers at Grumman intended the Wildcat to be rugged and heavily armed, a fighter that could absorb punishment as well as attack with six .50-caliber machine guns. The Zero, on the other hand, was built to be light and maneuverable at the cost of strength and toughness. It was certainly graceful and nimble, but it did not have the armor or the self-sealing fuel tanks that would have made it better protected but less agile.

The Wildcat in Combat

In performance, the Zero greatly outclassed the Wildcat, but because of their plane’s rugged design and construction, Wildcat pilots were able to survive attacks by Zeros that would have killed their Japanese opponents.

Japanese ace Saburo Sakai was greatly impressed by the Wildcat’s ability to withstand damage. “For some strange reason, even after I had poured about five or six hundred rounds of ammunition directly into the Grumman, the airplane did not fall but kept on flying,” Sakai wrote after a fight with a Wildcat. “I thought this very odd—it had never happened before— and closed the distance between the two airplanes until I could almost reach out and touch the Grumman. To my surprise, the Grumman’s rudder and tail were torn to shreds, looking like an old torn piece of rag.”

Sakai concluded with a note of amazement, “A Zero which had taken that many bullets would have been a ball of fire by now.”

Lieutenant Commander James Flatley, who commanded USS Yorktown’s fighter group at Midway, discovered that the best way to fight the Zero was to use the Wildcat’s weight and speed to advantage—gain altitude and dive at full throttle no matter what the enemy did. This tactic allowed Wildcat pilots to zoom through any screening Zeros and attack enemy bombers.

“Sooner or later they had to take you on on your terms,” Flatley explained. “If you should be jumped from behind, they had difficulty following, particularly when you rolled at high speed.”

These tactics produced results. During the Guadalcanal campaign, Wildcat pilots decimated Sakai’s fighter wing, which was stationed at Rabaul and made up entirely of Zeros. Although the Wildcat was not as graceful as its opponent, American pilots exploited the plane’s weight to negate the Zero’s agility.

This article first appeared on the Warfare History Network.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

Cover of the June 30, 2016 issue of ‘Excelsior’ carried an illustration of a Russian soldier on horseback with a refugee child in his arms. The picture was captioned, ‘The Symbol of Protection of the Armenians by Russians.’

Whether it be the conflict in Syria, skirmishes in Crimea, Ukraine and Chechnya or the recent outbreak of conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia, the old disputes that were never fully resolved have often broken out into armed conflict since the end of the Soviet Union. While the Soviet regime often created some detente between conflicting regions by applying overwhelming security in those regions, at times silently quashing conflicts behind the Iron Curtain, the modern iteration of those conflicts now are armed with weaponry that was once used by the Soviet Army themselves. These weapons were designed to fight a large scale Cold War with the US and NATO, and while being very advance for the era of the late 1970s into the 1980s, they were not designed to do anything but completely destroy their targets, along with the regions where the conflicts would take place.

Much of the modernisation of 1980s era Soviet weapons came from experiences in the field in Afghanistan along with anti-air systems used in Vietnam against the US Air Force. The defense of the Soviet Union from Germany in the Second World War created a focus on air defence and long range missile defence in order to deter an attack on the Soviet Union from the other end of Europe or the globe. With many of these systems now reaching the farthest parts of the world, a new and expansive military threat looms whenever a conflict erupts between regional rivals. With the old disputes in the region of Nagorno-Karabakh echoing conflict between Turkish backed forces and Russian backed forces during the First World War, the ability for Armenia or Azerbaijan to use a conventional ballistic missile to target the larger powers if they support the opposing side is a very real threat to the region. Soviet designed systems were very good for their day, and still are very effective on older aircraft that make up the bulk of systems in the region. An Iskander missile landing on Azeri troops in Turkey or an anti-aircraft missile shooting down a Russian transport plane is likely to escalate conflict between both powers in the region.

The use of conventional modern weapons in the field also is designed to completely destroy communities caught in the conflict. Later Soviet era equipment was very effective, and the costs to the lives of young solders escalates rapidly when used in urban combat. Experiences in Syria, and previously in the many conflicts in Chechnya showed the toll those ex-Soviet weapons could have, even on the modernised Russian Army. Weapons designed to quash rebellions in Prague and Warsaw, and to roll into the rest of Europe are devastating in regional conflicts. For the most part, both sides in those regions have equivalent systems, and both sides fight until everything is destroyed. With the traditional politics still lingering in the region and the proximity to one of the world’s largest oil reserves, the world community should quell any further conflict immediately, before it becomes worse…and in our generation’s disputes it has always become as bad as it can get.

Kris Osborn

Security,

It would be a great boon, but there may not be enough of the planes to go around.

Should an entire U.S. Navy Carrier Strike Group finds itself in a great power war on the open ocean, it seems possible that surface ships might struggle to defend against attacks from enemy fifth-generation stealth fighters. Unless, that is, large numbers of carrier-launched F-35Cs were operational and able to engage in air-to-air combat against approaching enemy aircraft. 

But how about F-22 stealth fighter jets? During the U.S. Navy’s Valiant Shield exercise in the Pacific in September, the service began to explore the idea of having F-22 Raptors defend surface ships such as destroyers, amphibious assault ships and carriers. 

Perhaps the stealth fighter, believed by many to be the most dominant and advanced air-superiority platform in existence, could defend carriers? Why not? 

Speaking of carriers, Retired Lt. Gen. David Deptula, Dean of the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, makes the point that damage to surface ships such as carriers in open-ocean warfare can bring catastrophic effects. 

“You can’t sink land-bases. They can be rapidly reconstituted. Carriers present a huge footprint that is potentially more vulnerable...but is that the best use of an F-22?” Deptula said. 

Given that the F-22 program was, in the minds of many, prematurely truncated years ago, there may not be sufficient numbers of available F-22s for a mission of this kind. More importantly, would they have the reach and staying power to preserve vulnerable air space above surface ships? It seems availability, and the number of nearby F-35Cs, might also be pertinent factors. 

For the first time, the joint Valiant Shield exercise included an Army unit focused on Multi-Domain Operations and the event tested air-ground-sea networking technologies merging Navy ships, Poseidon spy planes and even mine warfare capable B-52s to conduct integrated operations. 

Broadly speaking, a Navy report referred to the mission scope as “maritime security operations, anti-submarine and air-defense exercises, amphibious operations, and other elements of complex warfighting.” 

Carrier strike groups are of course known for their many defenses such as air-and-missile defense interceptors, long-range guns and close-in-defenses such as Phalanx guns or anti-torpedo technologies. Could ship self-defense systems, which increasingly include weapons such as lasers and electronic warfare systems, be better served by having F-22s operate overhead? 

Such a prospect presents interesting options, should an F-22 be able to reach the right ranges and be sufficient to conduct missions overhead. Refueling an F-22 with the Navy’s emerging MQ-25 Stingray carrier-launched drone refueler, however, might extend dwell time and mission scope in a significant fashion. Existing ship defenses may be well equipped to defend against anti-ship missiles, enemy boats and even ballistic missiles, yet it does seem apparent that they could be vulnerable to fifth-generation enemy aircraft. Clearly these threat circumstances are why the Pentagon developed the F-35, yet they also raise the question as to whether an air-to-air dominant fighter like an F-22 might also be well suited to preserve air security in ocean warfare. 

Certainly the advent of Russian and Chinese fifth-generation stealth aircraft changed the threat equation in a substantial way, regarding the kinds of attacks possibly faced by surface ships. China, for instance, is fast-tracking a carrier-launched variant of its J-31 to rival the F-35B. 

“F-18s are not going to bring much utility in a high-end fight,” Deptula 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. This first appeared earlier and is being reposted due to reader interest.

Image: Reuters

Bill Bradley

Politics, Americas

As we disregarded Russian fears and ignored the chance for a true partnership, Steve worried about the resumption of hostile relations between our two countries and possibly a new Cold War.

I knew Steve Cohen for over fifty years from my time with the New York Knicks (he loved basketball) to the U.S. Senate (he loved politics) to business (it couldn’t hold his attention). He was a public intellectual with core convictions informed by history. His magisterial biography of Nikolai Bukharin established his academic reputation. When I read it in the 1970s, it changed the way I thought about the origins of the Soviet Union. For Steve, ideas lived and language made a difference. He often marshaled his great clarity to challenge the status quo. Whether he was smuggling Solzhenitsyn novels into the Soviet Union in the 1970s, advising CBS News during the Gorbachev years, pleading with everyone to avoid a second Cold War or lecturing to a rapt class, he always expressed what he saw as the truth. Above all, he felt the Russian spirit, the pain of Russian history, and the irrepressible humanity of the Russian people.

As a U.S. senator, I traveled often to Russia during the 1980s when Mikhail Gorbachev was in power. Steve saw Gorbachev as having potentially a seminal role in the history of the world and he made no bones about it. With literally hundreds of Russian friends in the arts, journalism, academia, and government, Steve encouraged me to get to know the Russian people and the Russian land. So for six years between 1985 and 1992, I would travel the country from Moscow/St. Petersburg to Irkutsk with just one staff member and a friend of Steve’s who worked for the U.S. Information Agency and was a Ph.D. in Russian culture and language. We would often have meetings with Soviet officials in their offices and then we would go out and meet people in the streets or subways, at literary societies, and around Russian kitchen tables. On one of these trips, I asked a woman exiting the Tashkent subway what Perestroika and Glasnost meant to her. She paused before replying, “A new life for my children.”

When I came back from those trips, I would have lunch with Secretary of State George Shultz and tell him what I had seen, heard, and felt, which he said was much different from those things that the CIA was telling him. Through many sources, Shultz recognized that Gorbachev was a special leader, convinced Reagan of it and the Cold War ended.

When Boris Yeltsin succeeded Gorbachev and the economy went into a free fall with inflation at 1000 percent and a poverty rate of over 30 percent, Steve would say that Russia needed an FDR and instead got a Milton Friedman, leading to the rise of a kleptocracy.

Any good politician knows that when someone is down you call them up and tell them you’re with them and that you know they’ll get through the difficult times. The United States didn’t do that with Russia. We sent free-market ideologues without any understanding of Russian history and with little appreciation for the emotional trauma and wounded pride that the end of the Soviet Union brought to Russia. When the Russian intelligentsia offered advice on how we could work together in the world we just kept on doing what Russians felt was contrary to their interests—NATO expansion, missile defense, Iraq, Kosovo, and Libya.

As we disregarded Russian fears and ignored the chance for a true partnership, Steve worried about the resumption of hostile relations between our two countries and possibly a new Cold War. He held out hope that America would come to its senses. That view increasingly was not popular among the American foreign policy establishment and the media. In fact, in Steve’s last seven years, the New York Times rejected every op-ed he submitted. Some people even labeled him “Putin’s apologist.” Those comments hurt Steve deeply because he was first and always an American but one who could appreciate the legacy of Russian history and the opportunity that existed when tectonic plates shifted. Above all, he knew that it took courage and real leadership at the highest levels to create something new.

The relation between Steve and Gorbachev extended to their families. Gorbachev once told Steve that Steve’s relationship with his wife Katrina reminded Gorbachev of the one he had had with his wife Raisa, who was his inseparable soul mate until she died in 1999. And when Steve’s number two daughter, Nika, developed a consuming interest in both basketball and Russia, she honored her father’s roots in Kentucky and his contribution to the world.

For those of us who knew and cared for him, we will carry with us the memory of a good man who tried to make a difference on a very large stage and who never let the slings and arrows of criticism slow him from calling it as he saw it.

Bill Bradley is a former member of the New York Knicks, a former U.S. Senator, and a presidential candidate in 2000.

Image: Reuters.

Pandemics are not always transformative events. While some worrying preexisting trends could accelerate, it’s incorrect to assume that the coronavirus will end globalization, kill liberal democracy, or enhance China’s soft power.

The UN World Food Programme (WFP), which provides lifesaving food assistance to millions across the world – often in extremely dangerous and hard-to-access conditions – has been awarded the 2020 Nobel Peace Prize. 

Accéder à l’article d’Arnaud Odier, « Le secteur financier face au choc du COVID-19 » ici.

Retrouvez le sommaire complet du numéro 3/2020 de Politique étrangère ici.

Mali’s transitional President has appointed a new Prime Minister, the UN’s top official in the West African country told the UN Security Council on Thursday, detailing the significant events which has ushered in a new political era, since the 18 August coup d’état.