A Libyan rebel in April 2011 with a complete SA-7 shoulder-fired missile system. Thousands of the antiaircraft missiles, an older Eastern Bloc model, are believed to be missing. Credit Chris Chivers/The New York Times
This week, A Russian Metrojet airliner Airbus A321 crashed after departing from Sharm El Sheikh on route to St. Petersburg. The Egyptian resort is a well-travelled destination in the Sinai Peninsula, but also has had occasional issues with terror attacks. The Sinai has been the source of much conflict between the Egyptian army and various radical groups. Victims of the crash were mostly Russian citizens, with victims also coming from Ukraine as well as Belarus.
The cause of the crash is not yet known, but witnesses claim that the airliner looked to have fire coming from one of the engines and saw the plane break up midair. It is unclear how reliable this information is, but on November 2nd officials made suggestions that it did not occur from technical or pilot error. Claims from some ISIS-affiliated groups that they brought down the airliner were refuted by the Russian and Egyptian governments, and the case has not been resolved with the cause of the accident remaining unknown. It was suggested that the airliner had been struck by an external object, but the information is not yet conclusive on what that object may have been.
Without a technical issue nor pilot error being the cause of the crash, attention has turned toward a possible external object hitting the plane. The object may have fallen off the plane itself or be a possible missile strike on the plane. Sabotage or an internal attack within the fuselage of the A321 may also have been possible, but to date no theory has proven to be conclusive.
If the fire on the engine did occur, it is unlikely that an internal combustion caused a fire outside of the fuselage of the airplane. Sabotage may be a possibility, but with ground crew claiming that the plane was ready to fly with no issues, further investigation would be needed to qualify that type of action. A bird may also have caused some damage, but it is unlikely it would cause an engine fire and the plane to break up, as engines are designed to process birds and other obstructions.
With Russia’s new role in Syria and terror activities taking place in Sinai, theories on how and why an airliner could have been brought down by a possible attack has become the front page story for many media outlets. There are claims by some experts that while anti-aircraft missiles may have played a role in a possible external strike, the type of missiles needed to hit the airliner over 20,000ft were not present in the Sinai or possessed by radical groups in the area. Systems like the Buk or Tor, or even older systems like the Kub were not present in the area nor their large missiles spotted on radar in the area.
Suggestions that the groups in the area may possess the shoulder launched SA-7 series of missiles or a Chinese variant of the missile may validate the claim of an attack, but the upgraded SA-18 MANPAD that are possibly in the area can only reach targets under 17,000ft, and the airliner was at around 26,000ft to 31,000ft at the time of the accident. The aircraft being hit by missiles, shells or bullets at lower altitude after take-off may be possible, but unlikely.
The dissolution of the security structure in Libya and Syria may have lead to many shoulder launched anti-aircraft missiles like the SA-7, SA-14, SA-16, SA-18 and American Stinger coming into the hands of groups that may use such weapons against civilian targets. The effect of an anti-aircraft missile on the Malaysian airliners flight over Ukraine was horrific, but such advanced larger systems and missiles like the Buk-M1 are not easily hidden or transported. Small, portable missiles like the SA-18 are a danger to mostly lower flying aircraft, but could be used to bring down airliners in Egypt and other regions of the world. A concerted effort to collect and control such weapons should become a paramount issue for the international community.
Cette recension d’ouvrages est issue de Politique étrangère (3/2015). Julien Brault propose une analyse de l’ouvrage de Matthieu Auzanneau, Or noir. La grande histoire du pétrole (Paris, La Découverte, 2015, 718 pages).
L’auteur analyse l’histoire du XXe siècle à travers celle du pétrole. Celui-ci est d’abord le produit de sociétés militarisées fondées sur la guerre mécanisée – la guerre de Sécession, la Première Guerre mondiale, le Blitzkrieg vu comme une gestion optimisée de l’énergie, jusqu’à l’usage du napalm au Vietnam. L’industrie pétrolière apparaît ainsi dans cet ouvrage comme un système monopolistique, coercitif et corrompu créé par les Rockfeller. Sauveurs du système financier américain à la fin du XIXe siècle, artisans de la création de la Fed, se présentant comme les grands défenseurs d’un système néolibéral dont ils seraient la banque, ceux-ci auraient orchestré une transformation du capitalisme en corporatisme. S’alliant successivement avec le charbon, le chemin de fer, l’automobile, l’agriculture, l’ingénierie, la banque, le fisc, la science et notamment la science économique, ce cartel international aux multiples ramifications connaîtrait depuis 1989 un renouveau, incarné notamment par JPMorgan et Citigroup. L’auteur souligne, à l’inverse, le rôle des figures qui combatirent Big Oil, de l’essor du Staline de la Bakou pétrolière aux luttes de Kennedy contre les majors.
C’est l’ensemble de l’histoire récente des relations internationales que l’auteur présente comme inféodé à l’or noir, en s’attachant au récit de ses événements marquants : percement du canal de Suez, accords Sykes-Picot, invasion de l’Éthiopie, création des organisations internationales après 1945, renversement de Mossadegh, mort de Mattei ou guerre du Biafra. Au centre du jeu : une alliance américano-saoudienne fondée sur les astuces fiscales des majors, le refus de la démocratie et le réinvestissement des pétrodollars. À ce titre, la crise pétrolière et ses conséquences – chômage, dette et restructurations néolibérales – sont interprétées comme profitant avant tout aux majors américaines. La révolution iranienne et la première guerre d’Afghanistan conduisent d’ailleurs à un renouveau rapide de la puissance américaine au Moyen-Orient, la CIA jouant les uns contre les autres, notamment pendant la guerre Iran-Irak. Le contre-choc pétrolier apparaît quant à lui comme un tribut payé par les Saoud à Washington pour accélérer la chute de l’empire soviétique. Georges W. Bush se garde d’ailleurs bien d’inquiéter les Saoudiens après le 11 Septembre, qui l’en remercieront en favorisant sa réélection. Au regard du chaos irako-syrien actuel, ce renouveau américain au Moyen-Orient apparaît aujourd’hui comme un échec, qui profite paradoxalement aux compagnies chinoises. La dernière facette de la question pétrolière est enfin écologique, et renvoie à un déclin, qui détermine aujourd’hui l’évolution d’une partie du système international.
Le livre pâtit d’un certain nombre de longueurs, de considérations philosophiques approximatives sur la nature du progrès, et d’un défaut d’analyse économique. L’auteur n’hésite ainsi pas à lier étroitement le pétrole à l’essor du fascisme, mais aussi à une libération des potentialités humaines… D’un indéniable talent littéraire, rempli de détails fouillés et de brillants passages, il comble néanmoins utilement un vide dans un champ traditionnellement dominé par l’historiographie anglo-saxonne.
S’abonner à Politique étrangère.
Gearing up for the COP 21 via Flickr (user greensefa)
Former Black Panther, Eldridge Cleaver is reported to have said something along the lines of—if you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem. Well, unbelievable as it may seem, a group of corporations, apparently at President Barack Obama’s behest, have taken upon themselves to be part of the solution to a problem they are widely seen as being very much a part of. By signing on to the American Business Act of Climate pledge, they are agreeing to variety of green measures designed to slow climate change. Just in time for the Conference of Parties (COP21) in Paris next month.
In the U.S., any discussion involving climate change tends to deteriorate into an argument between two factions—those who feel that climate change is a very real threat to the planet, and those who say it is nothing but a scare tactic. History shows that the former are labeled tree huggers and bleeding heart liberals, and the latter tend to be what’s generically called Big Business. However, both sides do agree on one thing—climate change conferences are, more often than not, a colossal waste of time.
With the announcement of the commitment of American business to fight climate change, the COP21 may just prove to be something more than an exercise in futility—if the participants are serious about this undertaking. So far, governments, keen to avoid a repeat of the disastrous Copenhagen conference, have largely toed the line of pledging to decrease CO2 emissions. Even China and Russia pitched in. On the private sector side however, Exxon Mobil and Chevron , two of the most controversial corporations, were conspicuously absent from the list of companies pledging to act. In fact, 63% of all carbon emissions between 1850 and 2010 were produced by just 90 companies involved in fossil fuels and cement—Exxon has single-handedly emitted 3.2% of historical carbon emissions.
Exxon has stated, in effect, that technology alone can handle the problem. A curious statement from a company that historically has denied that there was a problem of any sort, and worked hard to prove it. Evidently Exxon Mobil has known about the dangers of carbon emissions from the product they were producing since 1977, but has done nothing about it—except to deny, and work in conjunction with tobacco industry warriors in an attempt to cast doubt on the issue. Exxon’s reason for not signing the pledge? According to their CEO, they are not going to take the pledge because they don’t want to “fake it”. He may have a point. If this is to be nothing more than image building, why do it? However, as John Kerry pointed out, the onus rests on the oil and gas sector to encourage governments to adopt carbon limits and voluntarily curb emissions. But why would he single out specifically the O&G sector, when agriculture is just as polluting? Simple, because most economic activity depends on the way electricity is produced. It’s pointless to buy a Tesla if the electricity powering it comes from coal burning.
Consider aluminum production. Ubiquitous aluminum—from beverage containers to the vehicles we drive, it is a large part of our everyday life. Regarded as more eco-friendly than steel, the problem arises when we note that production requires substantially more electricity. However, depending on where in the world it is being produced, this can be a non-issue. According to a recent AluWatch study, producing one ton of aluminum emits 16,5 tons of greenhouse gases. However, those numbers are set to drop if the private and public sector join hands to invest in building renewable energy sources. China, the world’s number one producer of aluminum relies almost entirely on coal to fire up its smelters, while Norway, Iceland and Russia use hydroelectricity, a much greener way of generating power.
Energy companies would do well to study the supply chain behind aluminum production, and develop a similar strategy—in concert with government—working to find a means to shift a good portion of production of oil to the much cleaner natural gas or by ‘going green’, meaning investing in solar, wind or biomass. Should Obama’s newfound corporate friends start a trend, legislators and consumers could very well compel other companies to follow suit. Something for COP21 attendees to consider.
Is the pledge the beginning of something of substance? It is far too early to say, but in order to force industry to toe the line it may be necessary to hit them where it hurts – their bottom lines. Carbon taxes and measurable yardsticks with punitive penalties for failure to meet targets should stay on the table. Admittedly, it is difficult to impose anything resembling a punitive financial penalty on a corporation that can easily buy its way out of any problem. Obama’s pledge falls short of this by allowing participants to set their own benchmarks on their own timetable. It is simply a promise to do better in the future. But it is a start.
Or rather, another start – we have witnessed a multitude of efforts in the past – and we would like to think that COP21 will deliver the best possible agreement.
La Revue Politique et parlementaire a publié dans son dernier numéro une recension sur le numéro d’automne de Politique étrangère (3/2015).
« Dans une région secouée par des guerres sans fin, au milieu d’un chaos généralisé, le Maroc et l’Algérie semblent relativement épargnés. Pour combien de temps encore alors que l’environnement international risque de remettre en cause ce calme relatif : chute des prix du pétrole, baisse de la rente entraînant une dislocation du tissu social, mettant à nu le fonctionnement du système : structures politiques opaques, clientélisme corruption, faisant le lit d’une islamisation rampante et un chaos extérieur explosif (Sahel, Tunisie, Lybie). Le dossier de Politique étrangère donne un éclairage percutant de l’ensemble de ces questions. Sont également abordés deux thèmes majeurs de 2015 : le centenaire du génocide arménien, occasion de rapprochement entre Ankara et Erevan gaspillée, mais révélatrice, entre autres, des contradictions turques ; et la mutation des migrations internationales, en particulier celles qui concernent l’Europe et l’espace méditerranéen.
D’autres sujets de réflexion y sont développés : la négociation d’un éventuel TTIP, la vision chinoise des « nouvelles Routes de la soie », l’état de la Somalie, la piraterie dans le golfe de Guinée, les rapports entre les États musulmans et l’islam de France. En rendant compte des débats relevant des
relations internationales et en proposant des analyses approfondies de l’actualité internationale, La revue trimestrielle Politique étrangère constitue un instrument de référence pour les milieux académiques, les décideurs et la société civile. »
The USS Lassen, a guided-missile destroyer. Photograph: John Hageman/U.S. navy via The New York Times
Tuesday’s voyage of the guided-missile naval destroyer USS Lassen through waters claimed by China in the South China Sea had the potential to escalate an already tense situation. Despite being perfectly legal— international maritime law allows “innocent passage” of warships through territorial seas without notification—Beijing responded with the deployment of its own guided-missile destroyer, the Lanzhou, and its naval patrol ship Taizhou to issue warnings and shadow the U.S. destroyer. Fortunately, cool heads prevailed, and the American destroyer sailed without incident within the 12-nautical-mile territorial limit China has declared surrounding one of its artificial islands.
The artificial islands, located in the hotly disputed Spratly island chain, were previously submerged reefs during high tide, and turned into islands after significant dredging efforts by the Chinese. Under the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), signed by China, nations have no claim to 12-nautical mile limits around man-made islands built on previously submerged reefs. The Spratly island territory is disputed among Brunei, China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam—all of which, except Brunei, occupy some of the maritime features.
Tuesday’s mission by the U.S. Navy was ostensibly a routine exercise in freedom of navigation. White House spokesman Josh Earnest referred to “billions of dollars of commerce that float through that region of the world,” adding, “Ensuring that free flow of commerce … is critical to the global economy.”
Yet while the naval maneuver was an exercise in freedom of navigation, it was also understood in many quarters to be a direct challenge to Beijing’s claims of sovereignty, following last month’s declaration by Beijing that it would “never allow any country” to violate its territorial waters and airspace in the Spratlys. The U.S. mission had been expected, following Washington’s discussion of its proposal with other claimants to the waters.
Not only was Tuesday’s mission widely foreshadowed, but it followed similar actions by the U.S. to counter Beijing’s claims to the waters and air of the East and South China Seas. Back in May, a U.S. P8-A Poseidon surveillance aircraft flew near the artificial islands (but outside the 12-mile limit) with a television crew aboard from CNN. And in 2013, two U.S. B-52 bombers flew through an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) over the East China Sea—newly-established by China to cement its claims over territory contested with Japan. The last time the U.S. challenged a 12-mile limit claimed by China was in 2012, also in the Spratlys.
As in the past, the reaction by Beijing to the latest challenge to its claims of sovereignty was swift and pronounced, but largely targeted to a domestic audience. Lu Kang, a spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, said the U.S. destroyer had “illegally entered” the waters near the islands “without receiving permission from the Chinese government.” The state news agency, Xinhua, issued a warning, “Decision-makers in Washington need to be reminded that China has little room for compromise when it comes to matters regarding its sovereignty, and it will take whatever means at whatever cost to safeguard its sovereign interests.” The Chinese Embassy in Washington had earlier warned the United States should “refrain from saying or doing anything provocative and act responsibly in maintaining regional peace and stability,” arguing, “Freedom of navigation and overflight should not be used as excuse to flex muscle and undermine other countries’ sovereignty and security.”
These comments and others, along with the shadowing of the U.S. destroyer, have clearly illuminated Beijing’s stance concerning the artificial islands. Beijing considers these new islands as Chinese territory de facto and will oppose all efforts to challenge that authority. So far that opposition has been one of rhetoric to please the home crowd, and given the inefficiencies of the Chinese navy, should remain so as long as the U.S. maintains its strategic pivot to Asia, where 60% of the U.S. Navy’s assets are expected to be deployed by 2020.
Besides, any military action by China would be premature, given that its own military experts reckon their navy has another 30 years to go before being able to match the efficiency of the U.S. Navy. And although the Pentagon figures China has more than 300 warships, submarines, amphibious ships and patrol boats compared to 200 among Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam, the combined forces of the U.S. and its regional allies could easily neutralize any and all of its military bases in the South China Sea should push come to shove.
This past week’s freedom of navigation exercise went a long way in reassuring Washington’s allies in the region, and did not escalate due to Beijing being fully cognizant of the risks of a military response. The sail-by exercise by the U.S. should be thought of as tantamount to a neighborhood foot patrol by police—not as a SWAT team crackdown like some Chinese netizens would seem to think. Should the exercises continue, as expected in the coming weeks, Washington will again need careful planning and timing, coalition-building and advanced warnings (while maintaining a low-key approach), for its actions not to raise any geopolitical alarms.
Perhaps over time, these freedom of navigation exercises will become as newsworthy as the barely mentioned news of five Chinese naval vessels penetrating the 12-mile limit of the U.S.-owned Aleutian Islands off Alaska last month, during a visit by President Barack Obama.