Peter L. Berger's Blog, page 594

Japan and Vietnam Building a Strategic Partnership

During his historic visit to Tokyo, Vietnamese Communist Party chief Nguyen Phu Trong joined Japanese premier Shinzo Abe to announce sizable Japanese investments in Vietnam’s military and civilian infrastructures. The Diplomat has the story:

Following a meeting with Nguyen Phu Trong, the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, Japanese premier Shinzo Abe pledged that his country would provide new vessels and loans to Vietnam in a boost to economic and security ties.

Vietnam and Japan already have a robust relationship, with the two countries upgrading their relationship from a strategic partnership in 2009 to an extensive strategic partnership in 2014. But the visit, Nguyen said in an interview with Japanese media outlets before his four-day trip to Japan, was aimed at “bringing Vietnam-Japan relations to a higher level.”

In addition to naval vessels and equipment, Abe promised a loan of 100 billion yen ($835 million) for infrastructure development. Vietnam is expected to use the money to expand its port and highway systems.

Just this past weekend, India’s air force chief visited Vietnam, although the specifics of his agenda were unclear. The Japanese premier, meanwhile, was upfront about what is bringing Tokyo and Hanoi together: “It is very significant that we shared grave concerns over continuous unilateral actions to change the status quo and increase tensions in the South China Sea, which includes large-scale land reclamation and building of outposts.”

Chances of Brexit Rise as Migrant Crisis Roils EU

The migrant crisis increasingly looks like it could break the EU, with euroskepticism on the rise as the crisis continues. The biggest news: The chances of a Brexit are up, with a poll by ICM putting support for leaving the EU at 40 percent, with 43 percent in favor of staying and 17 percent undecided. The poll gives the pro-union camp an edge—unlike the Survation poll earlier this month that found a majority of respondents favored leaving—but that lead has narrowed from 11 percent to just 3 percent. The uptick in support for a Brexit comes after a change in the way the poll question was worded, but the reason for the change appears to be the migrant crisis.

And the UK isn’t the only country seeing knock-on effects from the crisis. Euroskeptics are also picking up steam in Germany. We noted in yesterday’s newsletter that support for Germany’s far-right AfD party rose to 5.5 percent in a recent poll, even as Angela Merkel’s coalition was down to 40 percent approval, a loss of 1.5 percent. But today another poll shows that AfD is tied in Saxony with the SPD, a party that belongs to Merkel’s coalition. Both are polling at 13 percent in that region.

If you haven’t read it yet,  Alina Polyakova’s latest feature for us is an excellent account of how far-right parties have benefited from the EU’s ineptitude: 

And the migrant crisis convulsing Europe these days is only likely to strengthen the allure of the far-right’s pitch, even as Europe’s elites continue to remain obstinately deaf and blind to its appeal. “Our answer [to the migrant crisis] must be in line with our history and our values, in line with what Europe is about,” Europe’s Economic Commissioner Pierre Moscovici said as hundreds of thousands of refugees poured into Euope. “To be European means to care about humanity and to care about human rights. […] When the world and Europe face such a drama, the answer should never be nationalistic. Never to close borders, never to renounce our values. Never.” Alas, fervently wishing for something does not make it so. Just yesterday, Germany “temporarily” exited the Schengen zone and started requiring passport checks on its border with Austria.

The far-right is licking its chops as the EU struggles to come up with a coherent response to the refugee crisis.

Indeed.

Germany Unprepared for Costs of Cutting Nuclear

As it turns out, closing an entire energy industry is neither a cheap nor an easy undertaking. German energy companies are still working on closing nuclear power plants as the country moves away from the energy source, but according to a recent report, they are some $34 billion short of the funds necessary to construct a safe disposal site for their residual nuclear waste. Those same companies have already put aside $44 billion to dismantle the physical plants, but that still leaves the waste problem. Reuters explains:

Spiegel Online reported that the provisional findings of an auditing company appointed by the Economy Ministry were that the energy companies were as much as 30 billion euros adrift of the money they need to set aside. […]

The auditors have been subjecting the balance sheets of Germany’s four nuclear power plant operators to a stress test to ensure their provisions are adequate.Responding to the Spiegel report, an RWE spokesman said: “It is our understanding that there is not a final report from the expert survey. We expect that our provisions are right and appropriate. We also expect that the stress test will confirm this.”

It’s worth remembering that Germany’s nuclear exit was by choice, a knee-jerk decision made in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima disaster. Merkel had set a target for a full abandonment of the sector by 2022, despite the fact that Germany shares few, if any, of the threats of natural disaster that affect Japan’s nuclear industry.

But Germany has charged ahead with its nuclear phase-out, even having the gall to include it under the banner of its much-touted “green” energiewende, though we fail to see how cutting out one of the few sources of zero-carbon baseload power can be interpreted as eco-friendly. Not only has that decision forced Germany to burn record amounts of coal to replace closed nuclear plants, it’s also leaving behind a monstrous bill. German consumers already pay among the highest electricity prices in Europe.Merkel’s government envisions itself as a global green paragon, and imagines its energiewende as a shining example for the rest of the world. To that end, it has accomplished at least one of its goals: the rest of the world’s policymakers can look to Germany as a cautionary tale of what happens when green idealism clouds rational decision-making.

Anti-Americanism Returns to UK Mainstream

Hard-left radical Jeremy Corbyn’s victory in the Labour Party leadership elections has British centrist and center-left observers—who failed to foresee his victory until the 11th hour—in a tizzy. As Richard Aldous noted here in August, “Corbyn was supposed to be a joke candidate–the proto-Marxist sacrificial victim put up by the hard left at every Labour leadership election… Those parliamentary “morons” failed to understand that the Labour Party in the country has shifted dramatically to the left.” It had indeed: Corbyn won in a landslide. And now his views on everything from renationalizing major industries to apparently refusing to sing the national anthem will be up for five years of scrutiny before the next elections.

But to American observers, perhaps nothing is more concerning than Corbyn’s foreign policy. Writing in Commentary , Jonathan Tobin notes some of his past positions:

He has stated that he considers the United States to be the moral equivalent of ISIS. He is a fervent opponent of Israel and openly sympathetic to Hamas and Hezbollah. He has supported those who promote 9/11 truther myths and praised vicious anti-Semites. He called Osama bin Laden’s death “a tragedy” and campaigned for the release of terrorists convicted of attacking Jewish targets. And he has praised Russian and Iranian propaganda channels and even hosted a show on Iran’s Press TV.

Tobin points out that given his views, Corbyn’s victory mainstreams a fringe-but-fashionable left-wing anti-Semitism that Europe has been seeing more and more of recently.

Corbyn also brings anti-Americanism back to the British center in ways that it hasn’t been in 30 years—or perhaps since the Second World War. His general verbal sympathy for America’s enemies is one thing (haven’t we heard the same from European leaders lefties from Vietnam through Iraq?). But Corbyn—who divorced his second wife over a disagreement on how to educate their son—appears to mean it. He would, he has declared in the past, like to leave NATO and to scrap Britain’s nuclear deterrent.The last time the head of a major British party held positions like these, Michael Foot, who embraced unilateral nuclear disarmament, led the Labour Party to disaster against Margaret Thatcher in the 1983 elections. But Foot, a man of great personal honor who had opposed Hitler well before the British mainstream in the 1930s and stood against Soviet aggression in Hungary, had come to support NATO as early as the 1950s. Not since before World War II has a Labour—or Conservative—leader questioned the basic Atlanticist compact.While it’s overwhelmingly likely Corbyn will prove as unelectable as Foot, nothing is certain. As Corbyn’s nomination itself shows, one of the most important maxims of politics is Lord Melbourne’s complaint that, “What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.”It’s not just foreign observers but prominent Labour MPs who find his foreign policy beyond the pale. Sky News has run a fascinating, darkly humorous account of Corbyn’s attempt to fill the Shadow Defense Secretary post. Usually this is not exactly a hard ask. But under the circumstances, one prominent candidate refused after insisting on “a 30-minute conversation about what would happen if we had to invade Russia” (presumably in response to aggression in the Baltics or elsewhere). Eventually Corbyn’s representative was reduced to pleading to another MP, “Now, this might be a bit of an outside idea, how do you feel about being shadow defence secretary?”Corbyn and his allies have spent the past few weeks rowing back some of his more radical positions, including on NATO. But on others, such as Trident, he seems to be digging in his heels, and some matters—such as his euroskepticism—seem to presage epic battles within his own party. Corbyn has never run any part of the government, having been until yesterday a career backbencher and, basically, a crank. So it’s worth wondering how, or whether, he’ll keep his party together as he faces several “built-in” foreign policy crises, prominent among them next year’s EU referendum, before the 2020 elections. One thing seems sure: this weekend’s vote was just the beginning, not the end, of his party’s troubles.

Beijing Building Another Airstrip in the South China Sea

China is building a third runway on the disputed Spratly archipelago in the South China Sea, according to satellite photographs taken earlier this month. Reuters has more:

Photographs taken for Washington’s Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) think tank on Sept. 8 show construction on Mischief Reef, one of seven artificial islands China has created in the Spratly archipelago.

The images show a retaining wall around an area 3,000 meters (3,280 yards) long, matching similar work by China on two other reefs in the Spratlys, Subi and Fiery Cross, said Greg Poling, director of CSIS’s Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative (AMTI).Poling said the work “more likely than not indicates preparations for a runway” on the reef.

The Spratly islands lie off the coasts of Malaysia, Vietnam, and the Philippines. China constructed its first runway in the Spratlys back in April on a separate man-made reef called Fiery Cross and is building yet another on Subi. Beijing has insisted that these efforts are intended for both civilian and military use and will be open to international search-and-rescue efforts, but most regional analysts, and the U.S. government, agree that this is an attempt by China at power projection into a key maritime shipping lane.

The White House is gearing up to host Chinese President Xi Jinping in his first official state visit to the U.S. next week. Some had speculated that Beijing’s announcement this summer that it was “finished” with its land reclamation efforts in the South China Sea was intended, among other things, to reduce tensions with the U.S. prior to the visit. Clearly, however, Beijing isn’t backing down. Key stories to watch in the weeks and months to come include not just Washington’s response, but the mood in Tokyo and Manila as well.

New Turkmenistan Pipeline to Shake Up Asian Market

Turkmenistan has floated the notion of constructing a pipeline through Afghanistan to Pakistan and India (hence the TAPI acronym) for decades, but now it says it’s prepared to break ground on the project before year’s end. Reuters has the story:

The TAPI project, supported by the United States and the Asian Development Bank, has been touted by Turkmenistan since the 1990s. But starting work on the pipeline has been delayed because of the problem of crossing Afghanistan.

The pipeline will allow Turkmenistan to find new consumers in Asia and cut its dependence China, which buys 30 billion cubic metres (bcm) of gas annually.Russia, which imported more than 40 bcm of Turkmen gas in 2008, will buy no more than 4 bcm this year. Moscow says the development of gas fields elsewhere has made purchases of Turkmen gas unprofitable. Neighbouring Iran also buys small volumes of Turkmen gas.

Turkmenistan has the world’s fourth-largest reserves of natural gas and has historically relied heavily on its northern neighbor Russia to buy its wares. But over the past seven years, Russia has cut its imports from Turkmenistan by some 75 percent, pushing the central Asian country to look east to China for a buyer. Turkmengaz now sells 30 billion cubic meters of gas to China annually and hopes to double that in the next five years. Turkmenistan sees the TAPI project as a way to keep from repeating the mistake of relying too heavily on exports to one country.

The TAPI project is yet another reminder of how much the world energy picture has changed in the past few years. The natural gas boom is remaking not just America, but the world.

Will Australia’s New PM Kill the Japan Submarine Deal?

Yesterday, we worried that the surprise replacement of Former Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott with the more restrained Malcolm Turnbull might mean Canberra would be less willing to stand up to Beijing. In line with our assessment, the Financial Times predicts that the leadership change will imperil a large Australian purchase of Japanese-made submarines:

There are a few clear-cut if tangential effects from Australia’s latest coup. Earlier this year, the country opened up to tender a contract worth up to A$50bn for a fleet of submarines. Front runners Japan’s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) and Kawasaki Heavy Industries (KHI) — favoured by former prime minister Tony Abbott — competed with France’s state-owned DCNS and ThyssenKrupp of Germany. Japan’s postwar absence from defence contracting might make it appear an odd choice. The Japanese bid is thought to have US support, however — not least to help make Japan a regional counterweight to China.

Mr Turnbull’s arrival may weaken the Japanese bidders’ chances. MHI and KHI have been reluctant to commit much of the building process to Australian facilities, citing inadequate onshore capabilities and security concerns. A reshuffled cabinet could lean towards bids that provide jobs in Australia and stem offshore leakage of taxpayers’ money.

The proposed U.S.-backed submarine purchase is a big deal: it would significantly enhance Japan’s defense industry and solidify relations between Japan and Australia. Killing it could be read as a signal in Beijing that the new Australian PM wants better relations with China. It might be read that way too in Tokyo and Washington.

Fecklessness 101

Apparently the Obama administration turned down a Russian offer to dump Assad… because the Administration was sure he was going to fall on his own. The Guardian reports:

[Former Finnish president and Nobel peace prize laureate Martti] Ahtisaari held talks with envoys from the five permanent members of the UN security council in February 2012. He said that during those discussions, the Russian ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, laid out a three-point plan, which included a proposal for Assad to cede power at some point after peace talks had started between the regime and the opposition.

But he said that the US, Britain and France were so convinced that the Syrian dictator was about to fall, they ignored the proposal.“It was an opportunity lost in 2012,” Ahtisaari said in an interview.[..]At the time of Ahtisaari’s visit to New York, the death toll from the Syrian conflict was estimated to be about 7,500. The UN believes that toll passed 220,000 at the beginning of this year, and continues to climb. The chaos has led to the rise of Islamic State. Over 11 million Syrians have been forced out of their homes.

If true, this was a staggering missed opportunity. The President’s string of misjudgments on the Middle East—on the peace process, Erdogan, withdrawal from Iraq, Libya, ISIS as the “J.V. team”, and Syria—is one of the most striking examples of serial failure in the annals of American foreign policy.

Generally speaking, what the President seems worst at is estimating the direction in which events are flowing. He thought Erdogan was taking Turkey in one direction; Erdogan was going somewhere else. He thought there was a transition to democracy in Egypt; there never was a prospect of that. He has repeatedly been caught flatfooted by events in Syria. And Putin keeps running rings around him.Understanding the intentions and estimating the capabilities of people who don’t share his worldview are not our President’s strong suits.

Why the EU Is Eying Iranian Gas

Much has been made of the depressive effect on global oil prices of new supplies of Iranian crude unleashed with the lifting of Western sanctions. But oil isn’t the only hydrocarbon Iran is sitting on: companies around the world are looking to nudge their way into the country to rejuvenate its long-dormant gas industry. The EU, for one, hopes to import huge quantities of Iranian gas by the end of the next decade. The WSJ reports:

The European Commission now believes that the bloc could import between 25 billion and 35 billion cubic meters of gas a year from Iran by 2030, according to a European official and a representative of a European energy company. That would put future gas supplies from Iran on a similar level to current imports from North Africa and help reduce the bloc’s dependence on shipments from Russia. Russia currently ships around 130 BCM a year to the EU.

New Iranian gas supplies are seen as one route for Europe to decrease its reliance on Russia, a supplier that is fond of attaching strategic strings to its deals. But getting those goods to market won’t be an easy task, as Moscow’s decision to engage more directly with Ankara will make it difficult to send supplies through Turkey. Tehran would most likely liquify its gas and ship it to Spanish ports, necessitating the construction of new pipeline infrastructure connecting the Iberian peninsula with the rest of the continent. The costs of liquefaction and pipeline investment won’t make Iranian LNG the cheapest option, but it will give European buyers more leverage in their dealings with Gazprom.

Despite the logistical hurdles, Brussels is hopeful it can boost imports of Iranian gas to levels as high as 35 billion cubic meters annually, roughly a quarter of what Europe buys from Russia.

Obama Takes on Political Correctness

Yes, you read the headline right: watch the video here. At a town hall on college affordability, the president answered a question about political bias on college campuses by launching into a long disquisition on the importance of free and wide-ranging debate. And then he got specific:

One thing I do want to point out is it’s not just sometimes folks who are mad that colleges are too liberal that have a problem—sometimes there are folks on college campuses who are liberal, and maybe even agree with me on a bunch of issues who sometimes aren’t listening to the other side, and that’s a problem too. I was just talking to a friend of mine about this. You know, I’ve heard some college campuses where they don’t want to have a guest speaker who is too conservative or they don’t want to read a book if it has language that is offensive to African Americans or somehow sends a demeaning signal towards women, and I gotta tell you, I don’t agree with that either. I don’t agree that you, when you become students at colleges, have to be coddled and protected from different points of view. Anybody who comes to speak to you and you disagree with, you should have an argument with them, but you shouldn’t silence them by saying you can’t come because I’m too sensitive to hear what you have to say. That’s not the way we learn either.

This is a tremendous statement for the President to make. Political leaders can be most influential when they take on the more extreme elements of their own coalition, and no national political figure commands as much respect on the campus left as Barack Obama. While many liberal pundits have joined conservatives in condemning left-wing language policing, few Democratic politicians have spoken out against the perversion of liberalism taking root in the ivory tower. Perhaps the President’s statement will give cover to establishment figures in the party to say what many (hopefully) believe—that “trigger warnings” have no place in a liberal education, that asking where someone is from is not a “microaggression,” that political figures should be allowed to speak on college campuses without being shouted down, even if they are not leftists, that the campus crusaders are out of control.

There is, of course, a deep irony in President Obama’s decision to take a stand against campus P.C. seven years into his term. His administration has played a critical role in fomenting the movement, going all-in for the campus activists at every turn, and even using federal harassment laws to promulgate an unprecedented nationwide speech regulation (which it later walked back). Unlike its predecessor, President Obama’s Office for Civil Rights in Education has not taken any steps to protect what many of us consider to be a very important civil right—freedom of speech—and has actively waged war on its close cousin, due process. It would be nice to see the administration actually do something about this problem rather than just talk about it. (Hint: the University of California system, which is the largest recipient of federal research funding and is run by a former Obama administration official, is currently weighing an unconstitutional rule against expressing “intolerant” opinions on campus. Perhaps someone in the administration could speak up about that).All that said, the President’s public, unambiguous and full-throated condemnation of the new wave of P.C. is quite welcome. Political correctness is more about culture than policy, and President Obama is better situated to affect the political culture in P.C. quarters than any other individual. Hopefully other liberal politicians have the spine to follow his lead—and back up their words with deeds.