Peter L. Berger's Blog, page 190

Those Who Can’t, Regulate

Citing concerns over hate speech and fake news, Germany is moving directly to regulate internet platforms who fail to control their users speech—a move that will just happen to impose significant costs on U.S. tech giants with no major German competitors. Heidi Tworek writes at Foreign Affairs:

In April 2017, the German cabinet passed new legislation on hate speech that the German Bundestag is scheduled to adopt in the summer. The law enables Germany to fine social media companies up to 50 million euros ($55 million) for not reacting swiftly enough to reports of illegal content or hate speech.

The law has an aptly German name Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz, or Network Enforcement Law. But its main target is U.S. tech giants, which provide the main social media networks in Germany. […] U.S. companies dominate Internet usage in Germany. With the exception of Xing (the German equivalent of LinkedIn), all major social media channels used by Germans are American. Twenty-eight million Germans have a Facebook account, and Google has nearly a 95 percent market share in search in Germany (compared to a 89 percent market share worldwide).

[…] The new law applies to social media platforms with over two million users and imposes large fines if they do not delete posts contravening hate speech law within 24 hours of receiving a complaint.

In addition to the direct cost of the fines—which, depending on how the law is structured, could add up quickly to sums even Facebook would have to notice—the new law will carry significant compliance costs. These will come on top of already-existing “voluntary” EU compliance measures.

And, surprise-surprise, the German direct-regulation approach may spread to Brussels:

[German Justice Minister Heiko] Maas aims to expand Germany’s approach to all of Europe, probably by introducing similar legislation in Brussels. With Emmanuel Macron as France’s newly elected president, Maas might succeed. Macron said during his campaign that he wanted to stop fake news and “regulate the Internet because today certain players are activists and have a very important role in the campaign.” The new German law is about more than fighting fake news. It is about finding the boundaries of free speech that best protect democracy. These are big questions, and the answers are not as clear as some might like.

Even in the U.S., increases in internet-based extremism and live-streamed violent crime have led to some voluntary censorship on the part of internet giants. But because, as Tworek notes, Europe in general and Germany in particular has a different idea of how much ‘free’ speech is permissible, this sort of thing takes on whole different dimensions on the Continent, catching much of what we would consider potentially-off-color but perfectly legal political speech.

This poses big ideological questions, which Andrew Stuttaford highlights at NRO. Tworek for her part sees it more neutrally as a question of balancing two different visions for society. That’s an interesting debate, but it really only scratches the surface of what really going on here.

As we’ve pointed out before, the European tech sector is lagging badly behind the U.S.: to take one example, as of 2015 only 8% of the world’s “unicorns” (startups worth over $1B) were based in Europe, as opposed to 67% in the U.S. While Germany is generally regarded as more economically adept than its European competitors, its manufacturing sector has had trouble adapting to the internet of things; clearly, from Tworek’s report, its social media companies, such as they are, are also generally losing the fight to American competitors.

Unfortunately, the European impulse has often been not to ask “where are our Googles?” but “how can we kneecap America’s?” Thus Brussels has promulgated a raft of regulations and launched wide-ranging investigations that seem—and at times overtly have been acknowledged—to be undertaken with protectionist motivations. The best-case read on such moves is that they represent an attempt to foster Europe’s domestic tech industry while preserving differing cultural norms. The worst-case is that Europe’s well-connected conglomerates, often the successful products of the last industrial revolution, are pressuring the state to hold off the next one. This has become enough of a pattern to ask, is Germany’s new internet regulation a sign of ideological difference or protectionism?

Well, what’s German for porque no los dos?

Erdogan Returns to AKP Leadership

Turkey’s President Erdogan on Sunday was voted in as head of the AK party in one of the more consequential moves made possible by the presidential powers referendum last month. As Reuters reports:

President Tayyip Erdogan pledged to fight Turkey’s enemies at home and abroad on Sunday as he was elected leader of the ruling AK Party, a move enabling him to reassert his grip on the party and its legislative work.

Erdogan, who founded the Islamist-rooted AKP in 2001 and led it to victory in a general election a year later, had to give up its leadership nearly three years ago when he was elected president, a position traditionally above party politics.

That changed with April’s referendum in which Turks narrowly backed constitutional changes creating an executive presidency with sweeping new powers. Allowing the head of state to be a party member or leader was among the reforms.

The move, though widely expected, is an important step towards the consolidation of Erdogan’s personal control of the state. Turkey’s parliament is elected by proportional representation in a party-list system, and the party leader sets the list. With his renewed leadership of the AKP, Erdogan will be able to reward cronies and eliminate independent-minded MPs, creating a rubber-stamp parliament that he can craft in his own image. No civilian politician in Turkey has wielded such unitary and unchecked power since Ataturk. Erdogan has promised that his post-referendum rule will bring a “new era” in Turkish politics. In the midst of mass purges, crackdowns on dissent, breaks with the West, and suppression of free expression and other rights, the era might be new, but it won’t be pretty.

North Korea to South: There’s More Where That Came From

North Korea is giving no respite to South Korea’s new pro-engagement President. A week after firing off an intermediate range ballistic missile, Pyongyang did so again—and declared that it is ready to mass produce many more in the future. : 

The North fired the missile into waters off its east coast on Sunday, its second missile test in a week, which South Korea said dashed the hopes of the South’s new liberal government under President Moon Jae-in for peace between the neighbors.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un supervised the test of the Pukguksong-2, which confirmed reliable late-stage guidance of the warhead and the functioning of a solid-fuel engine, the KCNA state news agency said.

It quoted Kim as saying the Pukguksong-2 met all the required technical specifications so should now be mass-produced and deployed to the Korean People’s Army strategic battle unit.

Pyongyang’s hyperbolic claims should always be taken with a grain of salt, but the test does point to some troubling gains. North Korea’s missiles may not be able to reach Hawaii and Alaska, as it claims, but its acquisition of solid-fuel engines will allow it to deploy its mid-range missiles more quickly, making the detection of such launches much more difficult. As for Moon Jae-in, it sure looks like he will have no honeymoon period where Pyongyang eases up on its tests in exchange for dialogue—and that could mean his hopes for a new Sunshine Policy are already dead on arrival.

Russia House (of Cards)

Hardly a week has passed since November’s election without some new media revelation about ties between Team Trump and Russia. Trump himself engaged at various times in business dealings with shady Russians. Carter Page traveled to Russia and gave a speech. Michael Flynn spoke to Russian Ambassador Kislyak and even discussed policy matters with him prior to Trump’s inauguration. Paul Manafort was up to his eyeballs in Ukrainians (OK, technically they’re not Russians, but who can tell the difference anyway?). This past week brought a bumper crop of scandalous news, with Trump firing FBI Director Comey, presumably to fend off the hounds of justice nipping at the President’s heels, and then sharing information derived from a highly sensitive intelligence source with his Russian puppet-masters.

With charges and countercharges flying fast and furious, it is easy to forget—indeed, many people apparently have forgotten—what the various investigations are intended to accomplish. They are supposed to establish two things: 1) whether the Russian government surreptitiously interfered in the U.S. presidential elections to undermine American democracy generally, and the Clinton campaign specifically; and 2) whether the Trump campaign criminally abetted Russian mischief making.

It did not take long for an affirmative consensus to emerge on the first point. Some contrarians maintain that the same intelligence agencies that got it wrong on Iraqi WMD have no doubt gotten it wrong on Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee. I don’t find it a very compelling refutation. The Russian special services are past masters at the arts of kompromat and dezinformatsiya, and Kremlin opponents both domestic and foreign have experienced their prowess, often to devastating effect. I can’t imagine why the United States should have escaped their depredations, particularly since Putin neither feared nor respected Washington. It is noteworthy that Trump himself, who long belittled the notion of Russian meddling, was eventually briefed on the classified evidence and accepted it, however grudgingly, as persuasive.

The second agenda item, however, has proven much more problematic. Alas, it’s not enough to demonstrate that Team Trump was guilty of wishful thinking about Putin and Russia (it was, and perhaps still is), or that some of Trump’s associates have longstanding contacts with Russians (or with other Eastern Slavs whom the press could pass off to the ill-informed as virtual Russians). It’s not enough to show that Carter Page was a naïf, or that Michael Flynn was headstrong and careless. It’s not enough for Trump to dare the Russians to release Hillary Clinton’s e-mails, presumably hacked from her infamously unprotected server. It’s not enough for Team Trump to have been chummy with Russians or to have denigrated Clinton over shots of vodka. No, it will require concrete, stand-up-in-court proof of intentional acts of collusion between Team Trump and the Russian government, directed against Clinton and occurring during the presidential campaign.

And here, I’m afraid, the sheer implausibility of it all quickly becomes overwhelming.

The most improbable aspect of the collusion hypothesis, the point that begs all credulity, is the idea that the Russians would take Trump’s people—or any Americans, for that matter—into their confidence in such a delicate undertaking as the undermining of U.S. democracy. Having decided to embark on a campaign of “active measures” against the United States, the absolute last thing the Russian special services would do would be to tip their hand to any citizen of the target country—even someone in their thrall or on their payroll. It would only take one American with pangs of conscience to blow the whole operation. Trump’s detractors apparently assume that he and his lieutenants are so utterly depraved that they would cold-bloodedly betray their country to foreign interests in their lust for power. Russians would hardly make such an assumption.

And who, exactly, would have been the Svengali in the Trump camp—the criminal mastermind of the whole plot, or else the trusted go-between who enjoys the unquestioned confidence of both the Russians and The Donald? Carter Page, who had lived in Russia for several years and traveled there occasionally, including during the presidential campaign, has been a favorite suspect. However, his involvement with the Trump campaign was quite peripheral, and he apparently wasn’t even personally acquainted with Trump, let alone a member of his inner circle. Moreover, there was a recent press report that the Russian special services assessed Page several years ago for recruitment as an agent, but concluded that he was of no utility. The story rings true. It is difficult to see him as the nexus of international intrigue, or to imagine the Russians trusting such a person with such a sensitive mission. You might as well accuse Carter Page of burning down the Reichstag.

Furthermore, what specifically did the Russian special services even need from Team Trump in order to carry out their nefarious activities? Did the Trump camp steal the password to the DNC computer system and hand it to the Russians? Quite unnecessary. Did Trump’s people sit down with the Russians to brainstorm some good anti-Clinton fake news stories? The world champions of dezinformatsiya would hardly require any help from rank amateurs. Come to think of it, I have yet to hear any hypothesis, credible or otherwise, regarding the precise form that Team Trump’s collusion with the Russians might have taken. What, then, are the investigators even looking for? Presumably they’ll know it when they see it.

Incidentally, skeptics about a Russian hand in hacking the DNC cite the expertise of the Russian special services, arguing that the latter would never have been so careless as to leave some of the clues of Russian culpability that forensic analysis has uncovered. However, these skeptics assume that the Russians would have had their top experts working on the DNC job. But how likely was that? I expect the Russians have their best people working on the hardest targets, such as the White House, DoD, and State Department computers. Accessing the DNC’s computers, by all accounts, could have been a homework assignment for the Hacking 101 class at the FSB Academy. Yes, if you’re going to steal the crown jewels you need to employ your top criminal minds. The DNC hack was more like shoplifting at K-Mart. Accordingly, a certain degree of sloppiness in the execution should not rule out Russian culpability.

There appears to be a fundamental confusion in many minds between leads on the one hand, and evidence on the other. Decades of contacts and ties between Team Trump and Russia are leads worth investigating for clues of a possible crime; none of them constitute any actual evidence of wrongdoing. It is imperative that law-enforcement agencies run down every possible lead. However, it is completely unprofessional for law-enforcement and intelligence officers to maintain a steady stream of leaks about their investigation to the press, and this lack of professionalism, to my mind, suggests a lack of substance to the charges. If Team Trump did, in fact, connive with the Russian special services to sway the November elections, the charges would be of a most serious nature—treason, espionage; conspiracy at the very least. When law-enforcement agencies probe such grave crimes, they typically take great care to conceal the investigation lest they alert the culprit, giving him an opportunity to cover his tracks or to flee. They swoop down on the unsuspecting criminal only once they have quietly and scrupulously gathered all the incriminating evidence. However, in the case of Russiagate, each new lead has been—pardon the expression—trumpeted in the press, giving the suspects ample time to destroy evidence, fabricate alibis, or shop for real estate in the same suburban Moscow subdivision where Edward Snowden resides.

Perhaps even now our intelligence and law-enforcement agencies are pursuing a lead that will hit pay dirt. Maybe the hoopla over Michael Flynn, Carter Page and Paul Manafort is a clever diversion while the FBI inexorably closes in on the real culprit. I will certainly sit up and take notice if one of the aforementioned gentlemen should announce his plea for political asylum in the arrival lounge of Sheremetyevo Airport. However, those who hope Russiagate will lead to the President’s impeachment should prepare themselves for disappointment. If the months and years roll by with no evidence of collusion, then—to coin a phrase—“I hope you can let this one go.”

A postscript is in order regarding the latest Trump outrage to hit the headlines: the sharing of information derived from an extremely sensitive intelligence source during a White House meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and Ambassador Kislyak. While we can only speculate about the precise details of the conversation (and some of those details might be quite important), there are, broadly speaking, two accounts of the meeting. On the one hand, an anonymous leaker (most likely in the CIA), with access to the raw intelligence piece but no first-hand knowledge of the conversation, has suggested that Trump blurted out highly sensitive information, jeopardizing the source of the intelligence as well as our whole intelligence-sharing relationship with a friendly service. On the other hand, National Security Advisor McMaster, who was present at the meeting, has averred that Trump’s actions were wholly appropriate and did not reveal any sensitive information about sources and methods—in fact, that Trump had not even been briefed on the source.

It is McMaster’s account that rings true. To the best of my knowledge, U.S. presidents rarely if ever see raw intelligence reports containing the sources-and-methods details, which are often the most sensitive aspect of a report.

In addition, the information Trump shared was reportedly about an ISIS plot to smuggle bombs onto commercial aircraft hidden in laptop computers. If so, then Trump’s action was not only appropriate, but praiseworthy. Recall that ISIS bombed a Russian commercial airliner over the Sinai in 2015, killing hundreds of Russian tourists. If the information Trump provided Lavrov might help prevent another such incident, it would be monstrous to criticize him for it.

Moreover, even if Trump did reveal any data that could help identify the source, it is curious to allege that Trump put the source in danger from Russia. After all, ISIS is Russia’s sworn enemy, has conducted multiple terrorist operations against Russia, and gives every indication of contemplating others. Therefore, what possible motivation could Moscow have for eliminating an intelligence source working to undermine ISIS? It is hard to know which implication is more outrageous—that the Russians are such cold-blooded assassins that they would take out any intelligence asset they don’t control, or that they are too stupid to grasp their own manifest interest in this source’s continued collection against ISIS.

The press has speculated that Israel was the source of the intelligence report in question, and that Trump’s loose lips have jeopardized our whole intelligence-sharing relationship and therefore put American lives at risk. However, as previously noted, it is highly unlikely that Trump knew the source of his information. Moreover, the U.S.-Israeli security partnership has experienced many ups and downs over the years; reports of its death last week at the hands of Trump are greatly exaggerated.

The villain in this drama is not a foolhardy Donald Trump recklessly divulging top-secret information in order to impress his Russian guests. If ISIS now knows that someone is tipping off the infidels about impending terrorist operations, it’s not because Trump confided in Lavrov. Say what you like about the Russians, they know how to keep a secret. Rather, it’s the irresponsible behavior of the leaker that has put this information in the headlines and probably blown the source’s cover.

Nice work!

OPEC’s Coffers Are Drying Up

OPEC’s members brought in less cash from selling oil in 2016 than in any of the past dozen years. That grim reality comes to us courtesy of the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA):

Members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) earned about $433 billion in net oil export revenues in 2016, the lowest since 2004. In real dollar terms, the 2016 revenue represents a 15% decline from the $509 billion earned in 2015, mainly because of the fall in average annual crude oil prices and, to a lesser extent, because of decreases in OPEC net oil exports.

That 15 percent year-on-year decline is a dramatic example of the fiscal pain these petrostate regimes are enduring as a result of the collapse in crude prices. Those low prices come to us courtesy of American shale producers, whose output contributed to a global glut that brought prices from their $100+ per barrel levels down to the $50 range they occupy today.

Those lost export revenues are why OPEC, along with a group of 11 other petrostate producers (including Russia), have agreed at last to reduce their collective output in an attempt to rebalance the market. But a look at the latest data shows that that rebalancing is going to take a lot more time than was initially envisioned, and Riyadh and Moscow both think they’ll be constraining production through March of next year.

In the meantime, U.S. producers are seeing their own output rise and the numbers in their balance books turn black once again. Suppliers all around the world are adjusting to $50 crude, which is why oil guru Daniel Yergin believes the days of $100 oil are behind us—barring a major supply disruption. If that’s the case, then OPEC’s member states are going to have to get used to their recently tightened belts, because they won’t have the opportunity to loosen them anytime soon.

The Case for FONOPs in the South China Sea

Over at Foreign Affairs, Mira Rapp-Hooper and Charles Edel explore a question we have been asking ourselves lately: why has the Trump administration not conducted any freedom-of-navigation operations (FONOPs) in the South China Sea? For a president who once railed against China’s “military fortress” in the sea, the administration’s repeated rejection of naval operations to challenge China’s claims has been a puzzle. According to Rapp-Hooper and Edel, it could suggest a dangerous linkage in Trump’s policy thinking:

Exactly why the South China Sea has fallen off the administration’s agenda is not clear. But it is possible that U.S. officials have decided to lift the pressure on China’s maritime outposts because they believe that doing so could help secure Beijing’s help in managing North Korea. […]

If this is the administration’s logic, it is deeply flawed. China is indeed capable of pressuring North Korea, since Beijing supports much of that country’s economy. But China has long prioritized the stability of the Korean Peninsula over its denuclearization, and those preferences will not change. […] China will not ignore its interests in the Korean Peninsula simply because Washington gives up its own interests in the South China Sea.

Even if the decision to pause FONOPs is not about North Korea, the authors go on to argue, it is nonetheless a misguided move that would benefit Beijing at America’s expense. At stake is not just a vague commitment to international law, but perceptions of U.S. credibility among China’s neighbors:

If the Trump administration does not seek to rally Southeast Asian countries to support the waterway’s openness, those countries will have little reason to stand up to China on their own. States in the region, including U.S. partners, will quickly presume that Washington is pulling back from Asia and will increasingly view China as the region’s most dependable power, despite its misbehavior at sea. The result would be a tilt in Asia’s balance of power toward Beijing.

Indeed, the last point here is something that we have already seen happening: with Washington missing in action on the South China Sea, China’s rival claimants have begun to conclude that the U.S. can no longer be relied upon, and are instead moving to cut bilateral deals with Beijing. Restarting FONOPs would not solve that problem overnight, but it would certainly be a good start—and the Foreign Affairs essay offers a persuasive explanation as to why.

Do read the whole thing.

Rouhani Wins Re-election in Iran

Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani has won his re-election bid against a hard-line challenger. As Reuters reports:

President Hassan Rouhani pledged on Saturday to open Iran to the world and deliver freedoms its people have yearned for, throwing down a defiant challenge to his hardline opponents after securing a decisive re-election for a second term.

Rouhani, long known as a cautious and mild-mannered establishment insider, reinvented himself as a bold champion of reform during the election campaign, which culminated on Friday in victory with more than 57 percent of the vote. His main challenger, hardline judge Ebrahim Raisi, received 38 percent.

In his first televised speech after the result, Rouhani appeared to openly defy conservative judges by praising the spiritual leader of the reform camp, former President Mohammad Khatami. A court has banned quoting or naming Khatami on air.

“Our nation’s message in the election was clear: Iran’s nation chose the path of interaction with the world, away from violence and extremism,” Rouhani said.

Iran will be more open to the world—economically. Though it has been slow from an Iranian perspective, the end of nuclear sanctions has dramatically increased Iran’s international trade, particularly with Europe. Combined with President Trump’s decision on Wednesday to waive sanctions, Rouhani’s re-election will be another sign of continuity for cautious foreign investors.  Expect another wave of trade deals to follow.

But there is no indication that Rouhani will be a “moderate” or a “reformer” on any other issues. On the contrary, during Rouhani’s tenure Iran has redoubled its efforts at regional hegemony through its support of the Assad regime and proxy groups like Hezbollah. Its human rights record remains as appalling as ever. It continues ballistic missile testing, which warranted another round of sanctions from the Trump administration imposed at the same time as the nuclear waiver last week.

The implicit hope of the Obama administration in signing the nuclear deal was that by the time the 15-year restrictions were lifted reformers would prevail and Iran would be a more normal international actor. The fear of the deal’s opponents is that the Ayatollahs and the Revolutionary Guard are perfectly capable of waiting out the clock. Rouhani’s voters might well be the kind of pro-reform, more America-friendly majority that Obama had in mind, but Rouhani himself is a perfect cover for the hardliners to maintain power.

Macron’s Nuclear Mistake

The newly elected French president Emmanuel Macron is busy assembling his cabinet these days, but it looks like he made a misstep in his choice for the country’s new energy minister. Macron tapped the nature documentary filmmaker and prominent green Nicolas Hulot for the position, and overnight shares in the French nuclear company EDF fell by 7 percent. That’s because Hulot, despite his avowed respect for the environment, is a staunch opponent of nuclear power, the zero-emissions energy source on which France relies for roughly three-quarters of its power. The FT reports:

In an interview with Liberation newspaper last month, Mr Hulot said EDF needed to move away from nuclear and towards renewable energy: “While elsewhere the energy transition accelerates, EDF gets closer to Areva, overinvests in costly nuclear projects like Hinkley Point [in the UK], and does not invest enough in renewables,” he said. In another interview he said France should have a “medium-term target” of ending the use of nuclear power.

Hulot’s opposition to nuclear comes out of an emerging trend of thinking in France—and in Europe more generally—that holds that nuclear power ought to be phased out as soon as possible and replaced by renewables. Germany, motivated by an irrational fear of the energy source following the 2011 Fukushima disaster, is leading this charge to its own detriment. Berlin hasn’t been able to replace its shuttered nuclear plants with wind and solar, but has instead been forced to increase its reliance on lignite coal, one of the dirtiest fossil fuels around. As a result, the country’s emissions have risen, an entirely predictable consequence of snubbing the only source (other than hydropower) of zero-emissions baseload power.

Germany’s experience hasn’t been enough to phase France’s greens, though, and Hulot’s new position of leadership suggests that Paris is preparing to follow in Berlin’s footsteps. That would be a grave error, though, especially during a time in which Europe is placing such a heavy emphasis on emissions reductions. EDF itself has pointed out that environmentalist plans to replace France’s nuclear fleet with 100 percent renewables by 2050 are “not based on technological realities.”

Hulot’s predecessor, Segolene Royal, understood the need to modernize France’s nuclear fleet and to invest in the next generation of reactors that would need to replace the country’s aging plants. Hulot seems likely to move in a different direction, but we’ve already seen where that path leads. It’s hard to fathom at this point why environmentalists are still so blind to the eco-benefits of nuclear energy.

Why Hasn’t Trump Condemned Erdogan’s Provocation?

It turns out that Turkish President Recep Erdogan was actually looking on as his goons assaulted American protesters in Washington D.C. earlier this week. As we wrote Wednesday, this had already happened once before, more than a year ago. That it happened a second time means this was a deliberate provocation.

And yet our tweet-happy president has not said a word. The NYT:

The White House has been silent on the episode, which took place after a warm reception for Mr. Erdogan at the Executive Mansion on Tuesday. And after issuing a short public statement on Wednesday, the State Department has mostly been working behind the scenes.

Donald Trump has made some people uncomfortable by proclaiming his admiration for Andrew Jackson and putting a bust of Old Hickory in the Oval Office. But the core of the Jacksonian tradition is a sense of honor—a refusal to take national humiliations lying down. And yet here America is being brazenly poked in the eye by a sneering foreign autocrat, and the extent of Washington’s public response has been… an angry letter. It wasn’t that long ago that candidate Trump was talking about politicians who are “all talk, no action.”

Maybe there are good reasons why the the President is keeping quiet on this—reasons having to do with plans for Syria and ISIS. Still, taking a slap in the face with cold detachment—especially if the excuse is that we somehow “need” the Turks’ help—is something we might have expected from President Obama. Tough guys like Putin and Erdogan only respect you if you push back. Of all people, Donald Trump should feel this in his bones.

China Pokes and Prods In East China Sea

China delivered a one-two punch in the East China Sea this week, leading two provocative maneuvers that have triggered protests from Washington and Tokyo.

First, on Wednesday, two Chinese fighters led a dangerous intercept of a U.S. surveillance aircraft tasked with “sniffing” for evidence of a North Korean nuclear test. The Washington Post has the details:

Two Chinese SU-30 fighters flew up close to an American WC-135 on Wednesday, the U.S. Air Force said in a statement, saying the American aircrew had described the intercept as “unprofessional,” based on the Chinese pilot’s maneuvers and the speeds and proximity involved.

“The issue is being addressed with China through appropriate diplomatic and military channels,” said Air Force spokeswoman Lt. Col. Lori Hodge, adding a U.S. military investigation into the intercept was underway. […]

The U.S. official told CNN the Chinese jets came within 150 feet of the U.S. plane, with one of the SU-30s flying inverted, or upside down, directly above the American plane.

China is downplaying the incident’s significance, but this doesn’t look like an isolated case of an overzealous pilot flying too close to comfort. The very next day, the Chinese got up to more tricks in the East China Sea, spooking Japan by sending vessels and a drone near the disputed Senkaku Islands. Reuters:

Japan scrambled fighter jets on Thursday after four Chinese coastguard vessels entered what Japan considers its territorial waters near disputed East China Sea islets and a drone-like object flew near one ship, Japan said. […]

“This is escalating the situation and absolutely unacceptable,” Defense Minister Tomomi Inada told a news conference on Friday, referring to the incursion and drone flight.

“We regard this as a serious infringement of Japan’s sovereignty.”

Taken together, the interactions certainly look like a challenge—and they closely parallel a similar pair of incidents last June. Then as now, China intercepted a U.S. aircraft over the East China Sea the day before sending a frigate near the Senkaku Islands. And this is, of course, part of a wider pattern of Beijing poking and prodding its rivals, gradually intensifying its maneuvers to test the limits of what it can get away with.

Under Obama, the Chinese calculated that it could get away with such provocations at minimal cost. Will they come to the same conclusion about Trump?