US-Russia “New Cold War”: The Battle for Pipelines and Natural Gas

By Steve Horn

Global Research,

mintpressnews.com

For both countries, the Snowden affair is just another ho-hum spat in the greater imperial rivalry
Nearly two months ago, former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor-turned-whistleblower Edward Snowden handed smoking-gun documents on the international surveillance apparatus to The Guardian and The Washington Post in what’s become one of the most captivating stories in recent memory.
Snowden now lives in Russia after a Hollywood-like nearly six-week-long stint in a Moscow airport waiting for a country to grant him asylum.

Journalists and pundits have spent countless articles and news segments conveying the intrigue and intensity of the standoff that eventually resulted in Russia granting Snowden one year of asylum. Attention now has shifted to his father, Lon Snowden, and his announced visit of Edward in Russia.
Lost in the excitement of this “White Bronco Moment,” many have missed the elephant in the room: the “Great Game”-style geopolitical standoff between the U.S. and Russia underlying it all, and which may have served as the impetus for Russia to grant Snowden asylum to begin with. What’s at stake? Natural gas.
Russia, of course, has its own surveillance state and has been described by The Guardian’s Luke Harding as a “Mafia State” due to the deep corruption that reportedly thrives under Putin’s watch.
It all comes as the U.S. competes with Russian gas production thanks in part to the controversial drilling process known as hydraulic fracturing — “fracking” – transforming the United States into what President Barack Obama has hailed as the “Saudi Arabia of gas.”
Russia produced 653 billion cubic meters of gas in 2012, while the U.S. produced 651 billion cubic meters, making them the top two producers in the world.

Creating a “gas OPEC”

Illustrating this elephant in the room is the fact that when, on July 1, Russian President Vladimir Putin first addressed whether he would grant Snowden asylum, he did so at the annual meeting of the Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF) in Moscow, which unfolded July 1-2.
“If he wants to stay here, there is one condition: he must stop his work aimed at harming our American partners, as strange as that sounds coming from my lips,” Putin stated at GECF’s annual summit.
Paralleling the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) — The New York Times calls it a “gas OPEC” — GECF is a bloc of countries whose mission is to fend off U.S. and Western power dominance of the global gas trade. The 13 member countries include Russia, Iran, Bolivia, Venezuela, Libya, Algeria and several others.
GECF has held informal meetings since 2001, becoming an official chartered organization in 2008 and dominated in the main by Russia. GECF Secretary General Leonid Bokhanovskiy is also the former VP of Stroytransgaz, a subsidiary of Russian oil and gas giant Gazprom.
Depicting the close proximity between Putin’s regime and GECF’s leadership is the fact that Gennady Timchenko – a member of “Putin’s inner circle,” according to The Bureau of Investigative Journalism – owns an 80-percent stake in Stroytransgaz.
A 21st-century “gas Cold War” has arisen between the U.S. and Russia, with Edward Snowden serving as the illustrative protagonist. President Obama, upset over Russia’s asylum offer to Snowden, recently cancelled a summit with President Putin.
With access to the free flow of oil and gas resources a central tenet of U.S. national security policy under the Carter Doctrine, there’s no guarantee this new Cold War will end well.
Fracked gas exports fend off Russia, but for how long?
Fracking is in the process of transforming the U.S. from a net importer of gas to a net exporter, with three liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals on the Gulf Coast already rubber-stamped for approval by the U.S. Department of Energy.
Industry cheerleaders as well as President Obama and other like-minded politicians say there are “100 years of natural gas” under the United States, a geopolitical game-changer to say the very least.
But independent petroleum geologists and investors alike see it differently, concluding perhaps 15-20 years of gas exist at current diminishing, “exploration treadmill” rates of return.

“More and more wells must be drilled and operated to maintain production as the average productivity per well is declining,” David Hughes, a Fellow at the Post Carbon Institute explains in his report “Drill Baby, Drill.” “Since 1990, the number of operating gas wells in the United States has increased by 90 percent while the average productivity per well has declined by 38 percent.”

 This means there likely won’t be enough gas to fend off GECF and Russian dominance of the global gas market in the long term, particularly because Russia relies on easier-to-obtain conventional gas, as opposed to tough-to-obtain unconventional shale gas.
Despite the reality of the “exploration treadmill,” myriad politicians have backed the notion of the U.S. serving as a global supplier of gas via LNG exports. Congress has already introduced two bills in 2013 – the Expedite our Economy Act of 2013 and the Expedited LNG for American Allies Act of 2013 – calling for expedited approval of the remaining LNG export terminal proposals.

“[T]he timeline for considering these applications may jeopardize our ability to retain a competitive position against other natural gas exporting nations who are also working diligently to export LNG,” a bipartisan cadre of 34 U.S. Senators wrote in a July 9 letter to U.S. Department of Energy head Ernest Moniz urging the DOE for to speedily approve LNG export terminal applications. “There is a global race for market share underway,” the letter continued. “American competitors have been at a disadvantage for the past year and a half because the Department of Energy has delayed action on pending applications.”

Sometimes politicians are vague when it comes to the rationale for expedited LNG exports, using phrases like the ability to maintain a “competitive position” against “other natural gas exporting nations” but not calling out those nations by name.
Others, however, take off the kid gloves and name names. “Our bill will also promote the energy security of key U.S. allies by helping reduce their dependence on oil and gas from countries, such as Russia and Iran,” said Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), co-sponsor of the Expedited LNG for American Allies Act of 2013, of the rational behind the bill’s January 2013 introduction.
Months later, Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) wrote similarly in a June 2013 Houston Chronicle op-ed piece. “Aside from unquestionable economic benefits, there are also geopolitical considerations that make exporting LNG to our friends and allies a no-brainer,” Poe wrote. “The risk of high reliance on Russian gas has been a principal driver of European energy policy in recent decades … From the U.S. perspective, cheap but reliable natural gas would reduce Moscow’s clout while shoring up goodwill amongst our allies.”
Faced with diminishing returns on shale gas basins nationwide, U.S. strategic planners haven’t put all of their eggs in one basket, and have a backup plan in mind to fend off Russia and GECF.
Enter U.S. gas “anchor,” Azerbaijan
The LNG for NATO Act was another key bill introduced in December 2012 by now-retired U.S. Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.). That legislation’s introduction came alongside the release of a key Senate Foreign Relations Committee report titled, “Energy and Security from the Caspian to Europe.”

First discussed at a press event hosted by the influential Atlantic Council – then headed by current Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel – the premise of the report was simple: many NATO member states rely on Russia for gas imports.

 And Russia is the main power player alongside China overseeing the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which effectively operates as NATO’s foil. Thus, the report concludes, NATO must find a way to wean itself off of Russian gas.

 “This strategic U.S. initiative would advance U.S. interests by alleviating Russian gas-fueled pressure against NATO allies, bolstering bilateral relations in the Caspian Sea region, and further isolating Iran,” Lugar wrote in introducing the report.
One of the report’s solutions calls for undermining the DOE’s LNG export approval process for fracked gas exports to NATO allies due to the U.S. having — wait for it — a “100-year supply” of gas.
“As a first step, we should allow exports of U.S. natural gas, now abundant thanks to shale gas, to all our NATO allies,” Lugar wrote in an op-ed summarizing the report’s conclusions. “At current consumption rates, we have an estimated 100-year supply, and prices have fallen so low that new drilling activity is drying up. We easily could export some of this surplus as LNG without causing consumer gas prices to spike here at home.”
Perhaps knowing the “100-year supply” is more fiction than fact, the report does point to something “even more important”: Azerbaijan’s robust supply of conventional gas.
Azerbaijan, ruled by a human-rights-violating authoritarian regime and bordered by the Caspian Sea to the east and Iran to the south, has the 24th highest proven reserves of natural gas in the world and maintains friendly relations with the U.S. and NATO countries.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee report refers to Azerbaijan as an “anchor” gas supplier for NATO countries, a key source of imported gas in particular for European Union countries seeking to fend off reliance on Russian gas.

 Given Azerbaijan’s strategic importance, the report calls for expedited building of the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline, set to pipe Azeri gas from the Shah Deniz gas field in the Caspian to Turkey and eventually into EU member states.
“TAP will transport natural gas from … Shah Deniz … in Azerbaijan, via Greece and Albania, and across the Adriatic Sea to Southern Italy, and further to Western Europe,” the TAP website explains. “TAP offers the shortest and most direct link from the Caspian region to the most attractive European markets.”
The importance of Azerbaijan as an “anchor” and TAP is explained bluntly in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee report and was recently praised in a State Department press release.
“Fully committed to energy trade with the West, Azerbaijan is [a] pivotal supplier,” the report explains. “For the past two decades, Azerbaijan’s leadership has made the strategic calculation to use [TAP] to forge closer ties with the West, a decision that was by no means inevitable given the substantial cost of vast new pipeline infrastructure and geopolitical pressures from neighboring Iran and Russia. However, Azerbaijan’s main alternative to westward trade would be with Russia, which is not an attractive prospect.”
The report closes by recommending the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the European Investment Bank to finance construction of LNG import terminals for NATO countries. It also recommends the creation of a full-time U.S. Envoy for Eurasian Energy Security position.
Contextualizing the recent big Azerbaijan junket
One of the recommendations the Senate Foreign Relations Committee report offers in its report is maintaining closer ties with SOCAR — the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan Republic — “to minimize future miscommunications.”
This lends an explanation as to why many former Obama upper-level staffers, along with Stratfor founder George Friedman, state politicians from across the U.S., Vice President Joe Biden’s wife Jill and former World Bank head and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz all attended a key gathering in Azerbaijan in late May, officially titled, “USA-Azerbaijan: Vision for the Future.”
Ted Poe, who weeks after returning from the event wrote the Houston Chronicle op-ed praising fracked gas exports, was also among the attendees.
SOCAR sponsored the event. So too did BP, KBR, ConocoPhillips, and Chevron, all companies deeply invested in fracking in the U.S.
“No doubt this was among the biggest concentrations of American political star power ever seen in the Caucasus — 317 delegates from 42 states, including 11 sitting members of Congress and 75 state representatives,” a Washington Diplomat reporter who got inside the conference explained of the nature of the event.

Russia excluded from State Dept. fracking “missionary force”

In August 2010, President Obama’s first-term State Department established the Global Shale Gas Initiative (GSGI), now referred to as the Unconventional Gas Technical Engagement Program.

Its purpose: creating a so-called “missionary force,” showing other countries fracking’s “best practices” based on the U.S. experience.
“The GSGI uses government-to-government policy engagement to bring federal and state governments’ technical expertise, regulatory experience in ensuring the safety of water supplies and air quality, and diplomatic capabilities to bear in helping selected countries understand their shale gas potential and the responsibilities of governments,” the State Department explains on its website.
State Department officials have spent time instructing Ukraine, Poland, China and India how to do fracking “safely and economically.” This tutelage agenda is yet another way to wean NATO countries off of Russian gas in an attempt to further isolate it economically.
Noteworthy is the fact that though Russia possesses a shale gas prize of its own — the massive western Siberian Bazhenov Shale field — the State Department has not included the country under its Global Shale Gas Initiative/Unconventional Gas Technical Engagement Program umbrella.
Snowden standoff part of gas “race for what’s left”
The lion’s share of media coverage surrounding Edward Snowden has focused on both the intrigue of his asylum standoff and the pervasiveness of the global surveillance apparatus alone.
Missed in the discussion is what Hampshire College professor Michael Klare refers to as “Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet” in his book titled precisely that, on full display in the Snowden asylum standoff milieu.
That is, a relentless battle royale ensuing between the global powers for the world’s quickly diminishing, increasingly difficult-to-obtain and ecologically hazardous forms of “extreme energy,” like shale gas fracking.
“Make no mistake: Rising powers/shrinking planet is a dangerous formula. Addressing the interlocking challenges of resource competition, energy shortages, and climate change will be among the most difficult problems facing the human community,” he writes in the book’s conclusion.

“If we continue to extract and consume the planet’s vital resources in the same [...] fashion as in the past, we will, sooner rather than later, transform the earth into a barely habitable scene of desolation.”

New RFK Documents Are Window Into Early Cold War

 

By JAY LINDSAY Associated Press

Newly released papers from Robert F. Kennedy's tenure as U.S. attorney general offer a window into the Cold War's early years, when Kennedy and his brother's administration were consumed with countering the Communist threat worldwide.
In one note, a general frets to Kennedy over putting "the right spirit into bureaucrats" to get them to support part of a broad operation to destabilize Fidel Castro's Cuba.
Another memo outlines the case for a congressional resolution to repel communism in Southeast Asia, after U.S. reconnaissance planes were shot down over Laos in 1964.
Even Kennedy's gift of a "striking pair" of gold cufflinks to CIA Director John McCone in 1964 served the cause of defeating communism.
"You mentioned them as a reminder of mutual interest in counterinsurgency," McCone wrote in his thank you note. "However they ... will also serve as a reminder of our enduring friendship."
The documents were among 7,500 pages released Wednesday from Kennedy's tenure as attorney general from 1961 to 1964 under both his brother, President John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson.
They range from innocuous letters from ordinary citizens to top-secret CIA reports. A "verbatim translations of a Soviet TOP SECRET training manual" from 1961 is included. Its origins are identified only as "reliable Source (B)."
Some papers allude to documents so sensitive, only the record that they were burned remains.
National Archives officials say the release is part of the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy's administration. It's also part of the terms of a 1973 agreement with Robert Kennedy's wife, Ethel.
In October, the archives and records administration released about 2,700 pages of documents Robert Kennedy collected.
The president's brother's influence extended far past the duties of his office, said national archivist David Ferriero.
"As President Kennedy's attorney general, closest adviser and confidant, Robert F. Kennedy played a vital role in the Kennedy administration's policy decisions," he said.
Some papers discuss harrowing conditions in Cuba, including after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961.
"Americans are being hunted, imprisoned, held incommunicado and treated in a manner of the medieval ages in Cuba today," reads one Department of Justice report from that year.
A letter from President Kennedy, written in the days of the invasion, stresses the need for different approaches. It reads, "It is apparent that we need to take a close look at all our practices and programs in the areas of paramilitary, guerrilla, and anti-guerrilla activity which fall short of outright war."
The president authorizes a plan called Operation Mongoose to destabilize Cuba from within, such as by blowing up power stations and planting U.S. Intelligence infiltrators, and he taps his brother to oversee it. In a note to Robert Kennedy, included in his Mongoose files, Gen. Ed Lansdale worries about selling aspects of the plan.
"I decided to lay it on the line on what it will take to win against the Communist team," Lansdale says in the December 1961 note. "I'm not sanguine that even a heavy whip will put the right spirit into bureaucrats, but doggone it we have to work with what we have."
Even lighthearted notes from Kennedy are avenues to talk about repelling communism. In 1963, Kennedy sent a brief congratulations to Secretary of Agriculture Orville Freeman, joking that he's sending his best wishes despite the fact that the budget for Freeman's department was increased.
"You spend more on hogs than we do on lawyers," Kennedy writes.
In his response, Freeman writes that the success of American agriculture in the country's best weapon against communism.
"It is the strongest deterrent to the spread of communism because of the contrast between American agriculture and that of the communists is apparent to the whole world," he wrote.

Northern exposure: Ice melt inspires race for Arctic riches

rt news

Get short URL

The Russian polar explorers, who traveled to the Arctic to set up a new drifting station SP-40 (RIA Novosti / Anna Yudin)

Share on Tumblr

Tags
Ecology, Global warming, Meeting, Arctic, Russia, Politics, Lavrov, Global economy, Vessels

Six countries have broken the ice and won Arctic Council observer status at the latest conference. Melting Arctic ice is exciting countries remote from the region, seeking access to promising hydrocarbon deposits and new logistics routes.
Below the ice and cold waters of the Arctic Ocean are hidden vast natural reserves: approximately 20 per cent of oil reserves worldwide, about 30 per cent of the planet’s natural gas, there are also believe to be deposits of platinum, gold and tin – just for starters.
Arctic climate change is progressing twice as fast as in the rest of the world. As the Arctic ice cap decreases year by year, the vast Arctic natural resources and sea routes are becoming more accessible.
This biennial Arctic Council ministerial session has been hosted in Sweden’s northernmost town of Kiruna. The session has been attended by top diplomats and officials. Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and the US Secretary of State John Kerry were both present.

Arctic Council members:

Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland,
Norway, Russia, Sweden, the US

Arctic Council observers (including the new ones):

Britain, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan,
the Netherlands, Poland, Singapore, South Korea, Spain.

The main intrigue of this year’s session has been the 14 bidding countries, foremost China, which have been trying to acquire an observer state status in the council to keep a finger on the decision-making pulse of the organization, attend the AC meetings and propose new projects.
The session agreed to grant permanent Arctic Council observer status to only six states out of 14 bidders: China, India, Italy, Japan, Singapore and South Korea.
AC observer status can only be granted if all permanent members of the council agree to it. That did not happen this time to the EU, for example, the bid of which has been postponed.
Also at the session, Canada took over the chairmanship from Sweden, which presided in the AC for the last two years.

The icebreaker, on which the Russian polar explorers traveled to the Arctic to set up a new drifting station SP-40 (RIA Novosti / Anna Yudin)

Tropical icemen: Asian economies ram Arctic access

The biggest Asian economies - Japan, China and India - have all expressed readiness to join the Arctic race and were introduced to stage one of the Arctic Council.
But among them there is a country that invested heavily to give legs to its bid - China.
“Joining the council is more a political statement from countries like China,” Malte Humpert, an executive director at the Washington-based nonpartisan think tank Arctic Institute, told The Wall Street Journal. “The idea of having a seat at the table in a region that is likely to become another realm of geopolitics.”
Beijing has been heavily investing into the northern states in recent years, particularly Iceland, which this April signed a free-trade deal with Beijing – the first in Europe - and Denmark, visited by now former Chinese President Hu Jintao in June 2012. Chinese businessmen are particularly interested in investing in Denmark’s self-governing Greenland.
Chinese Arctic activities seem to bear fruit as the Nordic countries finally supported China’s membership of the AC.

The Chinese research vessel and ice-breaker Xuelong which will depart for the Arctic, arrives in Xiamen, south China's Fujian province on June 27, 2010 (AFP Photo / China Out)

"Our opinion is that the countries which have a legitimate interest in discussing Arctic issues must be accepted as observers in the Arctic Council," Danish Foreign Minister Villy Sovndal said recently in an interview.
China’s main economic rival in Asia, India, also has got on the Arctic train and is actively attaining commitment of the AC member states, first and foremost Russia’s – having been Moscow’s most devoted arms buyer for years now.
It must be mentioned that so far Canada, which will preside in the council till 2015, has been rather cautious about granting AC observer status to newcomer nations. Ottawa anticipates that further expansion of the observer nations might shift the agenda of the body away from the needs of Arctic indigenous peoples or even replace the AC gatherings to other places from the actual Arctic region.
Leona Aglukkaq, the minister of Canada’s Northern Economic Development Agency, said that admission of new observers is a "serious issue."
Aglukkaq, raised in the Arctic himself, shared concern that the voices of the indigenous participants "are not diminished."
The Russian Foreign Ministry has specified its stance, pointing out that a new observer must “respect the Arctic countries' sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction in the Arctic.”

Russian polar explorers work to set up a new drifting station SP-40 in the Arctic (RIA Novosti / Anna Yudin)

When the Arctic Council was formed in 1996, it was for years regarded as a coordination body for environmental issues and scientific research.
But the more the Arctic ice melts, the more persistent prominent financial capitals are to become regional players in the extreme north. They realize that the Arctic region’s emergence as a new geopolitical center is on the horizon.
As of now the Arctic is dominated by the eight member countries of the Arctic Council, which have de jure divided the region into zones of national interest and are eager to keep the status quo.

Is Cyber War the New Cold War?

Accidental wars’ feared as Asia engages in new arms race

rt news

Get short URL

Chinese Paramilitary soldiers train outside their barracks in Beijing.(AFP Photo / Mark Ralston)

Share on Tumblr

Tags
Arms, Asia, Austerity, Budget, China, Conflict, Military, NATO, Security, USA

Asian nations are racing to bolster their militaries amid rising regional tensions. While their defense budgets are still nowhere near that of the US, a lack of conflict-prevention mechanisms could cause unintended conflicts, a think tank has said.
East Asian militaries do not appear to be affected by the global economic slowdown, which goes against the worldwide trend of cuts to defense spending. In 2012, Asia overtook European members of NATO in terms of nominal military spending for the first time, according to a report by the UK-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS).
However, this is more a result of European austerity than Asia spending more. Last year, European members of the US-led NATO military alliance allocated around 11 percent less money on defense than they did in 2006, the think tank said in its annual overview of the global military. Similar cuts have been conducted across the Atlantic, though even with its slimmer budget, the US Military still spends more than the 14 next nations combined, or more than 45 percent of global total.
Asian countries spent almost 5 percent more on defense in 2013 than they did the previous year. Spearheading this buildup is China, which announced a 10.7 percent hike in official military spending last week. Beijing spends more on its military than South Korea, Tokyo and Taiwan combined. If additional elements – widely believed to be omitted from official statistics – are accounted for, China could rival the US in base defense spending within the next decade, the IISS forecasted.

AFP Photo / Liu Jin

Over the last year, Beijing demonstrated several military achievements, including the commissioning of its first aircraft carrier and the first at-sea landing of its J-15 aircraft. The People’s Liberation Army is apparently focusing on boosting its naval capabilities: China will soon complete a new destroyer capable of operate across oceans, new modular corvettes and a new maritime patrol aircraft.
Other nations in the region have followed suit, acquiring arms they previously had not deployed, including anti-ship missiles, new submarines, advanced combat aircraft and cruise missiles.
“A number of countries have embarked on acquisition programs that will in time provide them with genuinely new capacities previously the preserve of Western powers and Russia. The nature and quality of submarine proliferation in Asia is a case in point,” the IISS said.
The think tank warned that Asia has a number of unresolved conflicts brewing, from territorial claims in the East China Sea to tensions between India and Pakistan to the unending standoff between North and South Korea.

Chinese soldiers in trucks drive on the streets of Urumqi in China's far west Xinjiang province (AFP Photo / Peter Parks)

In a region “lacking security mechanisms that could defuse crises” and “often only embryonic” bilateral military-to-military ties, this buildup carries “a tangible risk of accidental conflict and escalation, particularly in the absence of a strong tradition of military confidence-building measures,” the organization said.
Meanwhile the US ‘pivot’ to Asia, which might stimulate regional players to boost military spending, is so far more of a matter of declarations than of military redeployments, the IISS said. It is also unclear whether Washington’s NATO partners in Europe will be able credibly to go along with the plan.
The alliance is struggling to structurally transform into a smaller, but more capable military force, with various members specializing in different fields. But this ‘smart defense’ initiative has had limited progress, with individual nations concerned about the loss of sovereignty and jobs from the reform.
At the same time, there were clear shortcomings in Europe’s military capability, as demonstrated by the bombing campaign in Libya in 2011, and more recently in the Mali intervention, in which the US played a limited role. European members of NATO are underperforming in such areas as airborne refueling, airlifts and reconnaissance, and are forced to rely on US operational support.

America’s New Cold War against Russia and China

By Global Research News

China.org.cn

by Zhao Jinglun
If NATO further expands to Georgia and Ukraine, crossing the Kremlin’ s “Red Line,” hostility would be further heightened. The missile-defense installations are supposedly aimed at Iran, but do pose a direct threat to Russia in the event of a nuclear first strike.
Former president Bill Clinton started his illegal air war over Kosovo ostensibly to save Kosovo Albanians from being massacred by the Serbs. The real purpose, however, has been rumored to be Moscow’s deprivation of its last European ally, Serbia.
Moscow has steadfastly opposed Western efforts to block Iran’s nuclear program as those efforts could be designed to support a regime change that would pave the way for Western penetration into Central Asia.
Russia has just published its new foreign policy concept in which President Vladimir Putin indicates that the most important aspect of Moscow’s foreign strategy is to strengthen its ties with China. The two countries hold the same principle on core issues in international politics and that can constitute a basic element in maintaining regional and global stability. Russia will engage in full spectrum foreign policy cooperation with China when dealing with new challenges or menaces, as well as in solving regional and global problems.
This may not exactly be what the Obama administration wants to hear. It has succeeded in stirring up conflict between China and Japan; but has been unable to sow any dissension between China and Russia. Its efforts to “reset” the relations with the Kremlin ended in slight disappointment.
Indeed, U.S.-Russia relations are now seemingly at their nadir. The publication of Moscow’s new foreign policy concept was delayed as Putin wanted to emphasize the principle of non-intervention in Russia’s internal affairs. He especially resents the humiliating Magnitsky Act, which was overwhelmingly passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by President Barack Obama. Moscow retaliated by banning the American adoption of Russian orphans.
Stephen F. Cohen, Russian expert and professor emeritus at NYU and Princeton, is even talking about a potential new Cold War. As one Chinese saying goes, “It takes more than one cold day for the river to freeze three-feet-deep. ” Cohen points to four components of U.S. policy resented by Moscow:
* NATO expansion to Russia’s borders which now includes European missile-defense installations. This poses the most serious threat to Russian security. If NATO further expands to Georgia and Ukraine, crossing the Kremlin’ s “Red Line,” hostility would be further heightened. The missile-defense installations are supposedly aimed at Iran, but do pose a direct threat to Russia in the event of a nuclear first strike. Moscow has demanded participation in the European system, failing that, a written guarantee that it will never be directed against Russia. It was rebuffed on both counts.
* “Selective cooperation, ” or the obtaining of concessions from the Kremlin without any meaningful White House reciprocity. Putin has never forgotten his vital role in the 2001 U.S. war in Afghanistan and was later rewarded by George W. Bush’s further NATO expansion and tearing up of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
* “Democracy promotion” in Russia’s domestic politics, viewed by Russian leaders as an intolerable interference with their internal affairs. The National Endowment for Democracy openly funded Russian NGOs.
* Last but not least, high-level Moscow circles have repeatedly complained that “the Americans do not care about our national security.”
It is unlikely that Washington will make any meaningful concessions on these four issues. So the chill in relations will probably continue.
In fact, the clash of strategic interests has a long history. Former president Bill Clinton started his illegal air war over Kosovo ostensibly to save Kosovo Albanians from being massacred by the Serbs. The real purpose, however, has been rumored to be Moscow’s deprivation of its last European ally, Serbia.
Moscow has steadfastly opposed Western efforts to block Iran’s nuclear program as those efforts could be designed to support a regime change that would pave the way for Western penetration into Central Asia.
Russia has also blocked Western efforts to intervene in Syria, its ally in the Middle East, where it has a naval base at Tartus.
The Kremlin also pursues a hard line refusing to return the Northern Territories (four islands), which Moscow calls the Southern Kurils, to Japan. It is not just a conflict with Japan. It is also a response to the United States’ pivot towards Asia and the (Asia) Pacific region – Russia also considers itself a Pacific power. The latest incident occurred on February 12, the day President Obama delivered his State of the Union Address.
The U.S. military reported that two Russian “Bear” (TU-95) strategic bombers, capable of carrying nuclear cruise missiles, visited the U.S. strategic island Guam (Moscow denied this). U.S. Air Force F-15 jets were scrambled from Andersen Air Force Base to intercept the intruders. Nevertheless, both sides “stayed professional. ”
U.S. military officials hold that ever since Putin reclaimed the Russian presidency, the number of such flights in the vicinity of the Aleutian Islands and Alaska has increased, but encounters with U.S. aircrafts have generally remained “very professional. ”
Neither side is looking for a fight; but they’re not on the best of terms either.
The author is a columnist with China.org.cn.

South China Sea: Revival Of The Cold War And Balance Of Power? – Analysis

Written by IPCS

By Anu Krishnan
Japan’s newly elected Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has digressed from his hardliner approach by extending the olive branch to China over the South China Sea (SCS) dispute. China, however, has chosen to maintain its vigorous stance over the disputed islands. Japan is essentially backed by the US, whose key concern in the Asia-Pacific today is to neutralise the Chinese threat rationale. Does this imply a possible Cold War with tensions building up, and both sides not desiring an escalation of the conflict?

The SCS has been in turmoil for long, with forces of nationalism threatening regional security. China’s overlapping claims with Japan, Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia, Korea and Vietnam make it increasingly evident that small nations can trouble big powers in bigger ways than expected. All these nations have overlying claims over the Spratly, Paracel, Dokdo and Diaoyu Islands in the SCS with China. China has remained active – militarily and politically – with its growing power and ambitions inevitably translating into military power. Its aggressive stance on territorial issues, supplemented by its defence modernisation, is a matter of paramount concern for the regional powers. Japan’s softened approach of seeking negotiations by sending a message of goodwill to Beijing was prompted by the US. However, it does not suggest a withdrawal of Japan’s claims on the disputed Senkaku Islands.

The Role of the US

China’s dynamic stance has prompted the other regional powers to seek counterbalancing strategies. Enhancing their maritime security ties is one way to achieve stability; the other is to link themselves to the other big power in the background, the US. This essentially provides ground for Obama’s ‘Pivot to Asia’ strategy. It is a response to China’s growing force, a strategy to secure allies in the region to engage with, both economically and politically. The US position is thus consolidated in the region. In former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s words, “This (pivot) has been about creative diplomacy.”
Three of the nations engaged in territorial disputes with China are strategic partners of the US. The US-Japan partnership has been revitalised; the US keenly looks upon Vietnam as an important strategic partner and the US-Philippines’ relations have been steadfastly improving in the last few years. Mutual Defence Treaties signed separately with Japan and Philippines hold the US duty-bound to intervene in case of an offence. Manila has already conveyed that it expects Washington to come to its aid, if the conflict were to escalate.
Obligations in this regard, and its own interests in the region, have drawn the US into playing a pivotal role in the region. It is in the country’s interest to not let the conflict escalate. Peace and growth in East Asia are the essentials of the pivot. While on one hand the priority is to counter an assertive China, the US does not want to risk losing entry into an integrated trading economy that China would facilitate. There is an uneven balance of security and economy.
The US, however, will not detract its attention on the Asia-Pacific. Too much is at stake, economically and on the security front. An absence of US presence and support would prevent the threatened nations from making decisions free of coercion, which would subsequently result in increased Chinese aggression and assertion in the region. As long as this policy stays, the US will be looked upon for security and protection by the states threatened by China’s power and might. These circumstances lead one to suspect the revival of a Cold War-like scenario.

Semblance of the Cold War

The patrolling, flexing of military muscle and water shows being demonstrated in the SCS will probably continue for a long time. The deliberate attempts at avoiding armed conflict and simultaneously being assertive invokes strong tensions between China and other contending nations. A parallel can be drawn to the arms race of the Cold War. Both the blocs then, were aware of the catastrophic results of a nuclear war and hence, restricted themselves to building their arms stockpile. The purpose remained the same – to exhibit their might.
Balance of power was an integral part of the Cold War. The NATO and Warsaw Pact were created in attempts to maintain a bipolar balance of power. Similarly, alliances across continents are being sought as a means to balance power against China. The US-Japan alliance is being invigorated; it has been recognised by Shinzo Abe’s government as the key aspect to maintaining stability in East Asia. Defence cooperation between the two countries is under review for improvisation. Abe is also dedicated to strengthening Japan’s military, with renewed attention to Japan’s military budget. Its strong assertion for its right to collective self-defence has made Chinese officials apprehensive.
The meeting of the heads of State of the US and Japan in Washington a few weeks ago sent across a strong message to China. Regional alliances are also strengthening themselves in an attempt to balance China. Japan and the Philippines have vouched to enhance their maritime security and presence in the SCS. These events seem to suggest the possibility of increased tensions, culminating in a new Cold War, with features consistent with the present security environment.