Category Archives: United States

The U.S Lifts the Embargo on Weapons Sales to Vietnam

Lift of the embargo and the impact on Vietnam’s weaponry

After decades of ban, the U.S President Obama lifted the embargo on sales of weapons during his visit to Vietnam in May 2016. The decade-long embargo was on sales of weapons to Vietnam and was already partially lifted in 2014. Today, the U.S decided to fully lift this embargo.

The lift of the embargo is unlikely to affect immediately the acquirement of weapons by Vietnam, mostly because the government would not rush to acquire only American weapons but might use the lift as way to diversify its sources. Indeed, even though the embargo is lifted, the Vietnam might not be ready yet to use weapons as sophisticated and expensive as the American’s ones. In the past decade, the Vietnam defence’s spending has doubled but it is not proven that Vietnam will rush into the American technology. The greatest potential for US sales probably lies in areas like military surveillance systems and coastal defence. Vietnam would welcome technology that helps it track Chinese naval forces. The partial lifting of the embargo two years ago was with the specific aim of improving U.S’ sales in this area. Hence, Vietnam, currently relying mostly on Russian’s defence equipment, is likely to diversify its equipment’s sources but without focusing on the U.S.

The context of South China Sea’s tensions and the U.S policy towards China’s influence

This decision occurs in a time of tension in the South China Sea where the regional States have disputes of territorial claims over several island of the Sea for economic and politic purposes. China is one of the biggest claimers (80% of the claims) and numerous incidents occured in the past few years, including some between Vietnam and the Chinese Republic. For example in 2014, a dispute over a oil rig near the Paracel islands led to clashes between Chinese and Vietnamese vessels along with anti-China riots in Vietnam.

Within these disputes and this tension, the U.S defends the freedom of navigation in this area and has tried to bolster its relations with the other countries involved in the dispute, such as Vietnam or the Philippines. Even though the President Obama affirmed that this decision is not related to the American policy within the region, this lift of the embargo would allow the U.S to strengthen the Vietnamese army, which is currently weaker than China. The Chinese Republic expressed concerns about this lift as the China’s privately-owned portal Sina News said that the lifting of the arms embargo “is a cause for concern” because it may have an impact on territorial disputes in the South China Sea.

Moreover, the lift of the sanction is also a mean for the U.S to bolster and strengthen its relation with Vietnam, both economically and politically. Indeed, Vietnam is also a key partner for the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). The TPP has currently 12 members including Vietnam but excluding China and aims at facilitating global trade, especially for Made-in America exports. This US-led trade deal is seen as a counter to China’s growing influence, a policy where Vietnam plays an important role for the U.S.

The condition for selling: respect of the human rights

During his announcement of the lift, President Obama assured that the arms ban would be lifted only if human rights in Vietnam improved. He was pushed by Activist groups who called for him to require a greater respect of human rights in Vietnam. Indeed, as Human Right Watch describes: “Basic rights, including freedom of speech, opinion, press, association, and religion, are restricted. Rights activists and bloggers face harassment, intimidation, physical assault, and imprisonment.” The juridical system based arrests on the Article 258 (abusing democratic freedoms to infringe upon the interests of the state, the legitimate rights and interests of organizations and/or citizens) of the 1999 Penal Code. Vietnam has about 100 political prisoners and seven activists were sentenced in March for spreading anti-state propaganda. And during May 2016, a BBC reporting team has seen its accreditation revoked and was not allowed to cover Obama’s visit.

This condition of respecting human rights before any selling could make the access to weapons more difficult. Indeed, the U.S President assured that any military contracts would still be subject to provisos on human rights. This condition might be difficult to respect for the Vietnamese government as explained above. Given the Vietnamese government’s poor human rights record, it might hold up possible arms sales in Congress.

Hence, the lift of the embargo on sales of weapons to Vietnam might not bring immediate changes neither for the Vietnamese doctrine warfare nor for its equipment. Russia is likely to remain the first partner of Vietnam on the defence area even though the lift could allow Vietnam to diversify the sources of its weapons. Moreover, this decision of lifting the embargo is to analyse within the regional context of tensions and the U.S policy of countering China’s growing influence.

US Adds Visa Restrictions to Libyan, Somali and Yemeni Travellers

On 18 February, the United States Department of Homeland Security announced that the US has added Libya, Somalia and Yemen as “countries of concern” under its visa waiver programme. The three additional nations join Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Syria as countries that are subject to restrictions for those seeking to travel to the US. The move will effectively make US visa procedures more stringent for those individuals who have visited these countries in the past five years.

The new restrictions were imposed under a law that was passed in the wake of the November 2015 attacks in Paris, France, which were attributed to the so-called Islamic State (IS) group. According to the new regulations, citizens of US allies who previously had been able to travel to the US without first obtaining a visa will now have to apply to US consulates for such visas if they have travelled to those designated countries in the past five years. The Homeland Security Department has disclosed that the new requirements will not automatically affect nationals from visa-waiver countries who also are dual nationals of Libya, Somalia and Yemen. The department did note however that under the new procedures, the Homeland Security secretary can waive the more stringent visa requirements on a case-by-case basis, adding that such waives would primarily be available to journalists or individuals travelling on behalf of international organizations of humanitarian groups.

The latest visa waiver restrictions were imposes as US agencies sharpen their focus on the threat posed by Islamist foreign fighters and seek to make it more difficult for them to take advantage of the US visa waiver programme. Under the current programme, citizens of thirty-eight, mainly European countries, are allowed to travel to the US for up to ninety days without a visa. Prior to travelling to the US, citizens of visa waiver countries must register online using a US government system, known as ESTA. This system effectively gives US agencies the opportunity to check out visa waiver applicants’ backgrounds through intelligence and law enforcement data bases before giving them permission to board US-bound flights.

After the November 2015 Paris terror attacks, the US visa waiver programme came under harsh scrutiny in the US Congress as some of the militants behind the attacks were European nationals, who had become radicalized after visiting Syria and who were theoretically eligible for US visa waives. Homeland Security has disclosed that it will continue to work with the State Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in order to determine whether additional countries should be added to the list.

US and Japan Defense Cooperation

On April 27, the United States and Japan released the new set of guidelines for defence cooperation, a document which substantially alters the security relationship between the two countries and lays out a broad framework for the roles their respective militaries will play in international affairs. Above all else, this new iteration of the US-Japan defence guidelines outlines an alliance structure that, while grounded in bilateralism, is unequivocally and ambitiously global. It reflects 1) a deepening appreciation of the threats which confront Japan and the US both regionally and internationally and 2) an awareness of the anachronisms that pervade the existing guidelines. After all, when they were first written in 1978, bipolarity was the defining characteristic of the international system. But when the Berlin Wall fell and multipolarity replaced bipolarity, the assumptions underpinning them became less and less relevant. New challenges had begun to emerge on the Korean Peninsula and over Taiwan, and it became necessary to substantially revise the US-Japan security paradigm. That was in 1997. In the intervening eighteen years, new security challenges have emerged, forcing Japan and the US to go beyond the narrowly defined terms of their existing security agreement. Now, as Japan becomes increasingly involved in peacekeeping missions abroad and as China’s territorial ambitions threaten the balance of power in the region, a new guideline for defence cooperation has emerged. Described by US Secretary of State John Kerry as an, “historic transition in the defines relationship between our two countries”, this document is sure to polarise opinion both domestically and regionally. To understand why, several important changes from the 1997 agreement must be explained.

Under the 1997 guidelines, a “bilateral coordination mechanism” (BCM) was established to ensure that attacks on Japan or a “situation in areas surrounding Japan” (SIASJ) would be met with a coordinated response from the allies. However, security incidents that did not meet this criteria, like the 2011 earthquake, would not. To address this weakness, the BCM has been replaced with the “Alliance Coordination Mechanism” (ACM), which will enable a whole-of-government approach to developing security situations regardless of their exact nature. In essence, the ACM means that Japan will not have to be attacked before the alliance can be invoked.

A further refinement on the 1997 agreement is Japan’s increasingly unrestricted sphere of operations. No longer bound by geographical restrictions, Japan will now take a more prominent role in addressing regional and global security challenges. Specifically, Japan is now able to respond to attacks against countries other than Japan and defend against emerging threats to its security. These two conditions allow for a broad margin of interpretation and could refer to anything from defending against Chinese territorial expansion to protecting Japanese ships from piracy. The guidelines also stipulate a number of other circumstances in which Japan would be prepared to engage in “ [b]ilateral cooperation to promote regional and global activities…to [create] a more stable international security environment.” First, in security dialogues and defence exchanges, second, in peacekeeping and humanitarian relief operations and third, in emergency relief operations.

It is evident that Japan, under the leadership of Shinzo Abe and his newly reinterpreted constitution, is getting ready to “go global”. Although the new guidelines have not relaxed so far as to include combat or offensive operations, Japan has made it clear that it is prepared to do much more than simply defend its own borders. Clause Five of the Guidelines makes this point clearly: “As situations in areas surrounding Japan have an important influence on Japan’s peace and security, the Self-Defence Forces will conduct such activities as intelligence gathering, surveillance and minesweeping, to protect lives and property and to ensure navigational safety.”

Taken as a whole, the new guidelines have not significantly altered the balance of power in the Asia-Pacific. Japan’s military capabilities will remain more or less unchanged in spite of the latest revisions. What is significant about the agreement – and what has caused so much consternation in Beijing – is Japan’s evident desire to free its self-defence force from the shackles which have bound it for more than half a century. Whether or not a remilitarised, outward looking Japan will act as a deterrent for Chinese expansionism and bring order to a region crippled by instability remains to be seen.

ISIS ‘hours away’ from Capturing Ramadi

15 April– Falih Essawi, the deputy head of Iraq’s Anbar Provincial Council, has stated militants from Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) could be “hours away” from taking the key city of Ramadi. Ramadi, 70 miles west of Baghdad, is the capital of Iraq’s Anbar Province. Essawi said it is unclear how long government troops can hold their front line, adding that security is “collapsing rapidly in the city.”

ISIS was dealt a major blow earlier in April when Iraqi troops recaptured Tikrit. Prime Minister Haidar Al-Abadi said that after the recapture of Tikrit, the next military mission would be to clear ISIS militants from Anbar. Despite this announcement, ISIS fighters have intensified their offensive in Anbar province.

ISIS took control of southern routes into Ramadi in 2014. Over the weekend, the militants captured its northern routes and several districts in the city. An assault that included suicide and car bombs killed 10 Iraqi security forces and wounded the head of the Iraqi military operations in Anbar, General Qassim al-Muhammadi.

Earlier today, ISIS made advances in three eastern areas:  Albu Soda, Albu Ghanem and parts of Soufiya. In Soufiya, the militants bombed a police station and took over a power plant. Heavy fighting near the provincial capital caused residents to flee from three villages after they were captured by ISIS fighters. Departing residents said that in the east, fighting is now two kilometres away from local government buildings.

Essawi has called for reinforcements from the Iraqi government for and the US-led coalition, just a day after Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi met with President Barack Obama in Washington to seek more support for the fight against ISIS. In recent weeks, the US military has carried out multiple airstrikes against ISIS targets in the region.

On Sunday, ISIS targeted the headquarters of an Iraqi Army brigade stationed in the Thar Thar area. The region, northwest of Baghdad, is strategic. ISIS control of Thar Thar allows them a logistical supply line between the Anbar and Salahaddin provinces. The assault marks the second time in as many months that the group has captured Iraqi military headquarters in the region. The attack has been confirmed in the Iraqi media. Reports suggest that the assault began with three suicide bombers attacking the headquarters.

The Anbar Province covers nearly 140,000 square kilometres of land, extending from the Euphrates in the east to borders with Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia in the west, northwest and southwest. The vast, mostly desert region is home to approximately 1.5 million people. The province has major highways which link it through Baghdad, as well as Amman and Damascus. Clearing the area of ISIS fighters will be difficult and costly, but the recapture of the province will cut ISIS supply routes to Mosul, and strain the group’s communication lines with eastern Syria. Iraq is acutely aware of the repercussions of ISIS falling into the hands of Ramadi. It is a strategic imperative.

US closes Embassy in Saudi Arabia amid a week of threats

The United States has closed its embassy in the Saudi Arabian capital of Riyadh and suspended all consular operations and services for two days due to security concerns.

A statement from the embassy said that consular services in Riyadh, Jeddah and Dharan would not be available on Sunday and Monday due to “heightened security concerns.” The embassy told US citizens to “be aware of their surroundings, and take extra precautions when travelling throughout the country.”

The embassy statement coincides with a security message issued on 13 March which warned that “individuals associated with a terrorist organisation could be targeting Western oil workers… for an attack(s) and/or kidnapping(s).” The message did not indicate a specific militant group. The security message called for US citizens to avoid large crowds, identify safe areas before walking in public, carry a phone at all times and to report any concerns to the Embassy. Two days later, the embassy announced that Consular sections’ telephone lines will not be open during the two days. The State Department in Washington said it had no further comment.

Ghanem Nuseibeh, founder of Middle East risk adviser Cornerstone Global Associates in Dubai, states that consular services are closed in response to specific intelligence information, rather than a general increase of risk. It is likely that the US consulate was reacting to a defined and credible threat.

Earlier last week on 9 March, the US embassy in Riyadh announced that they had become aware of a possible plot to attack employees working with oil giant Chevron in Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil supplier. The embassy said they had received information which indicated that, “as of early March, individuals associated with a terrorist organisation are targeting employees of Chevron in Saudi Arabia.” The message was emailed to American citizens over the weekend, and added “There is no further information on the timing, target, location, or method of any planned attacks.”

An email statement from Chevron said they are monitoring the situation, reassuring employees that their security is “paramount.” The oil company did not elaborate on the nature of the threat, stating, “It is not Chevron’s policy to discuss details related to the security of our employees or facilities.”

Saudi Arabia is in the geographic and political centre of international affairs that have that have caused the nation to become acutely vigilant regarding domestic security. In Yemen, the weakness of the government, which has been de-facto overthrown by Shiite Houthi rebels, has caused concerns in the Kingdom that Yemen will now become a proxy war for Iran. Diplomatic concerns have been raised between the US and Saudi Arabia due to talks between the US and Iran over an extension of Iran’s nuclear programme. The kingdom is concerned that the P5+1 nuclear negotiations could lead to greater aggression from Iran. In a meeting earlier in March, Secretary of State John Kerry visited Riyadh to reassure King Salman and foreign minister Saud al-Faisal that a nuclear accord would not cause the US to let down its guard against any Iranian interference in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia has been attempting to build a Sunni bloc to contain Iran and its influence abroad. The alliance has so far been met with a setback from Pakistan. Islamabad has opted, at least for now, to avoid becoming entangled in the sectarian cold war between Riyadh and Tehran.

Foreign nationals in Saudi Arabia have been targeted in a series of attacks since the kingdom joined the anti ISIS coalition last year. The last security incident to take place in Saudi Arabia involving US citizens was last October when a US citizen working for an American defence contractor was killed in Riyadh. A month later, a Danish citizen shot and injured.