Moscow Times
06 June 2011
By Richard Lourie
U.S.-Russian relations took a complex turn in late May.
On May 26, the U.S. State Department issued a statement declaring the Caucasus Emirate, a group led by Doku Umarov, a terrorist organization. “We stand in solidarity with the Russian people,” it said. Not only that, the State Department put its money where its mouth is, offering a reward of up to $5 million for actionable information about Umarov’s whereabouts.
It might seem a bit odd that the United States is offering a reward for the capture of a militant in Russia, but Umarov himself has declared the United States an enemy, along with Russia, Israel and Britain. The State Department statement, which also included a physical description of Umarov and e-mail addresses to contact, was no doubt welcomed by the Kremlin, which is often criticized for its brutality in combating Islamist insurgency in the North Caucasus.
A more important development concerned the conflict over NATO’s plan to place a missile shield over Europe. President Dmitry Medvedev has stressed that Russia could only participate in this venture as an “equal partner.” The United States wants NATO and Russia to establish separate but coordinated systems. That’s not enough for Russia, but as one senior European military official put it, “Realistically, the controls will be held by an American general in a NATO hat somewhere in Europe.”
On May 20, Russia’s top generals made what Time magazine called “a startling admission of weakness.” In their opinion, by 2015 the NATO missile defense system would neutralize both Russia’s ICBMs and its submarine-based ballistic missiles. That could be devastating for Russia because, as defense analyst Ruslan Pukhov points out, for “relatively little expense, Russia’s nuclear forces support the country’s status as a great power, provide a military deterrent to other major powers and enable it to maintain moderately sized conventional forces.”
But Pukhov also demonstrates that the generals are wrong about the 2015 date — or were just making noises as part of the bargaining process. Russia’s nuclear arsenal will not be significantly stymied by the system NATO wants to put in place. But once in place, that system could provide an excellent base for a more elaborate system that could indeed neutralize Russia as a nuclear power. Since Russia has no leverage over the United States and NATO, its only choice would be to upgrade its own heavy, ground-based multistage missiles. In other words, Russia and the United States, without in the least meaning to, may be backing into a new arms race.
And so the leaked nomination in late May of U.S. President Barack Obama’s top Russian adviser, Michael McFaul, to be the next ambassador to Russia was probably more than a matter of good timing. The Russians will be pleased to see the president’s own man in Moscow, a sign of the importance he ascribes to the relationship. McFaul, author of the “reset” policy, will provide the right blend of principles and practicality to keep the new relationship on track.
McFaul’s writings are quite critical of Putin, contending that any stability and economic progress in Russia came despite his authoritarian model. McFaul’s mandate may be to influence the Russian leadership to shift from the Putin model to the one identified with Medvedev. Obama, 49, McFaul, 47, and Medvedev, 45, are of the same generation, whereas Putin, 59, seemed more connected to an older time of suspicion and hostile competition, a time that could all too easily make a comeback. The stakes just got higher.
Richard Lourie is author of “The Autobiography of Joseph Stalin” and “Sakharov: A Biography.”
Showing posts with label Russia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Russia. Show all posts
Monday, June 13, 2011
Monday, June 6, 2011
Ambassador McFaul
Moscow Times
31 May 2011
By Konstantin Sonin
The New York Times reported Sunday that U.S. President Barack Obama would appoint his top adviser on Russia and Eurasia, Michael McFaul, as the new ambassador to Moscow. It is an interesting choice, indeed.
As a former Stanford University political science professor, McFaul would be the first U.S. ambassador to Russia in the past 30 years who was not a career diplomat. What’s more, he has been the most authoritative U.S. commentator on Russian events and trends for the last decade and has spent a great deal of time in Moscow, where he has cultivated a wide circle of acquaintances.
While attending a reception at the U.S. Embassy on the day of the U.S. presidential elections in 2008, half of my acquaintances said they were hoping for an Obama win. The reason was that McFaul, who they said was their close friend and colleague, would likely be retained as Obama’s top adviser to Russia. I only hope that McFaul won’t disappoint his Moscow acquaintances.
In academic circles, McFaul is part of a new wave of Russia specialists who came to prominence following the end of the Cold War. This generation of Russia experts — the most prominent of whom, in addition to McFaul, are Timothy Frye of Columbia University and Daniel Treisman of the University of California at Los Angeles — are different from their predecessors. In the past, such specialists were characterized by their particular bias in relation to their country of expertise. But it is impossible to say whether the members of this new generation are “for” or “against” Russia. It is simpler for Frye and Treisman to be neutral because their work is almost completely academic in nature.
It has been more difficult for McFaul to maintain neutrality because he regularly contributes articles to Foreign Affairs magazine and even his scholarly work is largely geared toward the general public in the United States, where, like in most countries, the leaders and citizens tend to view the world in black and white. But in his articles and books, McFaul has an uncanny ability to dig deeply into “insider” details while simultaneously maintaining the air of a dispassionate observer.
It is logical that McFaul is the architect of the Obama administration’s policy on Russia, which was best articulated two years ago when the U.S. president spoke before the graduating class of Moscow’s New Economic School. No wonder he has been called “no drama Obama.” The call for a reset in U.S.-Russian relations is completely devoid of needless drama or sensationalism. Washington explains its plans objectively and then lets Moscow choose its response from a menu of possible relationships.
If the Kremlin wants close cooperation, it can have it. If it wants another Cold War, it will get that as well. Unaccustomed to taking responsibility for its relations with the United States, Russia’s ruling elite was initially thrown off guard by Obama’s Moscow speech. But the record of the past two years indicates that it has regained its footing.
Relations with the United States have returned to normal, and that might be better than if they were pigeon-holed as simply “good” or “bad.”
31 May 2011
By Konstantin Sonin
The New York Times reported Sunday that U.S. President Barack Obama would appoint his top adviser on Russia and Eurasia, Michael McFaul, as the new ambassador to Moscow. It is an interesting choice, indeed.
As a former Stanford University political science professor, McFaul would be the first U.S. ambassador to Russia in the past 30 years who was not a career diplomat. What’s more, he has been the most authoritative U.S. commentator on Russian events and trends for the last decade and has spent a great deal of time in Moscow, where he has cultivated a wide circle of acquaintances.
While attending a reception at the U.S. Embassy on the day of the U.S. presidential elections in 2008, half of my acquaintances said they were hoping for an Obama win. The reason was that McFaul, who they said was their close friend and colleague, would likely be retained as Obama’s top adviser to Russia. I only hope that McFaul won’t disappoint his Moscow acquaintances.
In academic circles, McFaul is part of a new wave of Russia specialists who came to prominence following the end of the Cold War. This generation of Russia experts — the most prominent of whom, in addition to McFaul, are Timothy Frye of Columbia University and Daniel Treisman of the University of California at Los Angeles — are different from their predecessors. In the past, such specialists were characterized by their particular bias in relation to their country of expertise. But it is impossible to say whether the members of this new generation are “for” or “against” Russia. It is simpler for Frye and Treisman to be neutral because their work is almost completely academic in nature.
It has been more difficult for McFaul to maintain neutrality because he regularly contributes articles to Foreign Affairs magazine and even his scholarly work is largely geared toward the general public in the United States, where, like in most countries, the leaders and citizens tend to view the world in black and white. But in his articles and books, McFaul has an uncanny ability to dig deeply into “insider” details while simultaneously maintaining the air of a dispassionate observer.
It is logical that McFaul is the architect of the Obama administration’s policy on Russia, which was best articulated two years ago when the U.S. president spoke before the graduating class of Moscow’s New Economic School. No wonder he has been called “no drama Obama.” The call for a reset in U.S.-Russian relations is completely devoid of needless drama or sensationalism. Washington explains its plans objectively and then lets Moscow choose its response from a menu of possible relationships.
If the Kremlin wants close cooperation, it can have it. If it wants another Cold War, it will get that as well. Unaccustomed to taking responsibility for its relations with the United States, Russia’s ruling elite was initially thrown off guard by Obama’s Moscow speech. But the record of the past two years indicates that it has regained its footing.
Relations with the United States have returned to normal, and that might be better than if they were pigeon-holed as simply “good” or “bad.”
Policy Adviser Tapped to Become U.S. Ambassador to Russia
May 29, 2011
By PETER BAKER
WASHINGTON — President Obama has decided to send the architect of his so-called Russia reset policy to Moscow as the next United States ambassador there, seeking to further bolster an improved relationship as both countries head into a potentially volatile election season.
Mr. Obama plans to nominate Michael McFaul, his top White House adviser on Russia policy, for the post, according to administration officials who declined to be identified before the formal announcement. Mr. Obama told the Russian president, Dmitri A. Medvedev, of his choice during a meeting in France last week, officials said.
In selecting Mr. McFaul, Mr. Obama is breaking with recent tradition in Moscow, where all but one of eight American ambassadors over the last 30 years have been career diplomats. But in choosing someone from his own inner circle, Mr. Obama underscored his determination to keep Russian-American relations a centerpiece of his foreign policy after his early push to reset the relationship following years of growing tension.
“Mike, as the guy who really helped the president establish the reset, is the perfect person to go to Moscow to make sure there’s no lapse in momentum in the relationship,” one of the administration officials said.
Since Mr. Obama took office, the two countries have signed the New Start arms control treaty, finalized a civilian nuclear cooperation pact, agreed on tougher sanctions against Iran and greatly expanded the American supply route to Afghanistan through former Soviet territory. After meeting with Mr. Obama in France last week, Mr. Medvedev shifted his public stance on the crisis in Libya and agreed that Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi “has lost his legitimacy” and “must leave.”
But the relationship is moving into a new and complex stage, particularly on efforts to forge cooperation on missile defense in Europe and to admit Russia into the World Trade Organization, goals that have eluded the two sides for many years. Moreover, some analysts have questioned whether the enthusiasm for warmer relations has diminished American pressure on the Kremlin over the state of Russian democracy and intimidation of former Soviet states like Georgia.
Mr. McFaul has become known in Washington as a passionate defender of Mr. Obama’s policy, arguing that the United States can speak out on democracy and Georgia while still seeking cooperation with Moscow in other areas.
Although not a diplomat, Mr. McFaul, 47, is widely considered one of the foremost American voices on Russia, with deep contacts in Moscow. He was a Rhodes scholar who first traveled to the Soviet Union in 1983 and lived there at several points over the next decade. A Stanford University professor and Hoover Institution fellow, he is the author or editor of more than 20 books, establishing a reputation as a vocal advocate of Russian democracy and sharp critic of Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin’s crackdown on dissent.
Mr. McFaul’s friendly ties with neoconservatives at times have generated suspicions among his fellow Democrats, but since joining the White House he has also occasionally been at odds with fellow democracy advocates who have been critical of the reset policy.
Should the Senate confirm him to succeed the departing ambassador, John Beyrle, Mr. McFaul’s charge will be to make sure that the thawing relations do not just turn out to be a brief seasonal shift. One test may be the negotiations over the Russian supply route to Afghanistan. When Mr. Obama took office, virtually no American military supplies traveled to Afghanistan through Russia. But an agreement to open Russian airspace has raised that to roughly half, and given the uncertainty of relations between the United States and Pakistan, Washington may come to depend on Russia even more.
Another test will come next year as both Russia and the United States hold presidential elections. Mr. Obama will have to decide next year how much he will criticize what Americans expect to be a tightly controlled Russian election at the risk of souring the relationship he has nurtured. And the approach of the American election could freeze any effort to advance policies that could be seen as beneficial to Russia.
By PETER BAKER
WASHINGTON — President Obama has decided to send the architect of his so-called Russia reset policy to Moscow as the next United States ambassador there, seeking to further bolster an improved relationship as both countries head into a potentially volatile election season.
Mr. Obama plans to nominate Michael McFaul, his top White House adviser on Russia policy, for the post, according to administration officials who declined to be identified before the formal announcement. Mr. Obama told the Russian president, Dmitri A. Medvedev, of his choice during a meeting in France last week, officials said.
In selecting Mr. McFaul, Mr. Obama is breaking with recent tradition in Moscow, where all but one of eight American ambassadors over the last 30 years have been career diplomats. But in choosing someone from his own inner circle, Mr. Obama underscored his determination to keep Russian-American relations a centerpiece of his foreign policy after his early push to reset the relationship following years of growing tension.
“Mike, as the guy who really helped the president establish the reset, is the perfect person to go to Moscow to make sure there’s no lapse in momentum in the relationship,” one of the administration officials said.
Since Mr. Obama took office, the two countries have signed the New Start arms control treaty, finalized a civilian nuclear cooperation pact, agreed on tougher sanctions against Iran and greatly expanded the American supply route to Afghanistan through former Soviet territory. After meeting with Mr. Obama in France last week, Mr. Medvedev shifted his public stance on the crisis in Libya and agreed that Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi “has lost his legitimacy” and “must leave.”
But the relationship is moving into a new and complex stage, particularly on efforts to forge cooperation on missile defense in Europe and to admit Russia into the World Trade Organization, goals that have eluded the two sides for many years. Moreover, some analysts have questioned whether the enthusiasm for warmer relations has diminished American pressure on the Kremlin over the state of Russian democracy and intimidation of former Soviet states like Georgia.
Mr. McFaul has become known in Washington as a passionate defender of Mr. Obama’s policy, arguing that the United States can speak out on democracy and Georgia while still seeking cooperation with Moscow in other areas.
Although not a diplomat, Mr. McFaul, 47, is widely considered one of the foremost American voices on Russia, with deep contacts in Moscow. He was a Rhodes scholar who first traveled to the Soviet Union in 1983 and lived there at several points over the next decade. A Stanford University professor and Hoover Institution fellow, he is the author or editor of more than 20 books, establishing a reputation as a vocal advocate of Russian democracy and sharp critic of Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin’s crackdown on dissent.
Mr. McFaul’s friendly ties with neoconservatives at times have generated suspicions among his fellow Democrats, but since joining the White House he has also occasionally been at odds with fellow democracy advocates who have been critical of the reset policy.
Should the Senate confirm him to succeed the departing ambassador, John Beyrle, Mr. McFaul’s charge will be to make sure that the thawing relations do not just turn out to be a brief seasonal shift. One test may be the negotiations over the Russian supply route to Afghanistan. When Mr. Obama took office, virtually no American military supplies traveled to Afghanistan through Russia. But an agreement to open Russian airspace has raised that to roughly half, and given the uncertainty of relations between the United States and Pakistan, Washington may come to depend on Russia even more.
Another test will come next year as both Russia and the United States hold presidential elections. Mr. Obama will have to decide next year how much he will criticize what Americans expect to be a tightly controlled Russian election at the risk of souring the relationship he has nurtured. And the approach of the American election could freeze any effort to advance policies that could be seen as beneficial to Russia.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Libya, Russia And NATO Disunity
Stratfor
April 15, 2011
The NATO foreign ministers met in Berlin on Thursday to determine the objectives of the alliance’s intervention inLibya. The conclusions were relatively tepid, with the meeting essentially reaffirming that forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi had to stop all attacks against civilians, permit unhindered humanitarian access to the country and withdraw from the cities they had “forcibly entered, occupied or besieged throughout all of Libya.”
The meeting’s show of unity among the 28 member states belied the reality of the last couple of weeks. The military intervention in Libya has not found support in Germany or the alliance’s newer East/Central European members, while in the last few days, France and the United Kingdom have launched criticism against the alliance for not moving aggressively enough on the ground. Furthermore, while the meeting on Thursday said nothing of regime change, French, British and U.S. leaders penned an op-ed to appear in Friday’s press that reaffirms regime change as the goal of the intervention. That is a considerable lack of clarity on whether NATO is unified on that issue or not.
“Libya, however, is not a spark for NATO disunity or a glimmer into future discord. Rather, it is a symptom of a well-progressed disorder that has afflicted the alliance for several years.”
Rogozin suggested two things. First, in the run-up to the meeting, he said that Russiaexpected “real guarantees” that the BMD would never be aimed against Russia. Second, he said Europeans should establish a group of “wise men” to “support official talks, first between the U.S. and Russia, and then between Russia and NATO” regarding the BMD.
The first comment, regarding the guarantees, has to do with Moscow’s suggestion for the European BMD project to be a single system with full-scale interoperability. Most NATO member states are fully committed to the U.S. proposal that the BMD system should have two independent systems that exchange information and that Russia’s system not be integrated into Europe. The most vociferous opponents of the Russian single-system proposal are the post-Soviet sphere Central/East European NATO member states like the Baltic States and Poland. For them, the BMD system is about a tangible alliance with the United States, and not so much about preventing ballistic missiles from Tehran hitting Tallinn or Warsaw. Russia, on the other hand, realizes this and is trying to prevent the system from being the pretext used to bring U.S. boots to its former sphere of influence. It therefore wants a single system that it will be able to mold in developmental stages.
The second comment, about creating a European “wise men” group to referee U.S.-Russia talks on the two versions of the BMD, has to do with the fact that NATO is, at this moment, as disunited as it has ever been. Russia is betting that not all Europeans are as committed to the two-systems version as NATO ambassadors and officials indicate.Russia hopes to sow seeds of discord by getting West European diplomats (certainly, Rogozin did not mean wise men from the Baltics) to see Central/East Europeans’ demands for excluding Russia as unreasonable and excessive.
Russian probing of NATO unity comes at a time when the alliance is showing its discord over Libya. Germany, France and the United Kingdom are also split, with Berlin seeing London and Paris going off on a 19th century-style colonial expedition. Germany has few interests in the Mediterranean and it has been vocal about this in the past. Meanwhile, France is trying to prove that it is a leader in Europe and if it can no longer be the political and economic leader that Germany now has become, it will be a military one. At the same time, Italy is standing on the sidelines, angered that France and the United Kingdom have threatened its national security (because Rome has far more at stake than anyone) by upending a favorable set of arrangements that Rome had with Gadhafi.
Quite possibly, never before has NATO’s soil been as fertile for such seeds of doubt as today. Central/East Europeans are irked about yet another “out of theater” operation in Libya. For them, the theater of NATO’s concern should be Europe, focused on the security threat posed by a resurgent Russia. Seeing NATO’s main security guarantor, Washington, dragged into a third Middle East military operation by France and the United Kingdom is disconcerting.
Libya, however, is not a spark for NATO disunity or a glimmer into future discord. Rather, it is a symptom of a well-progressed disorder that has afflicted the alliance for several years. Bottom line is that the interests of the alliance are no longer compatible. The alliance has not had a common enemy since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. But what is different today, 20 years after the end of the Cold War, is that a powerful Germany is thinking for itself and one of its most cherished new-found signs of independence is a policy towardRussia that is fundamentally incompatible, with security fears of the NATO member states living in the shadow of the Kremlin’s sphere of influence.
The Kremlin senses this disunity and plans to act on it — and it did not need Libya to understand it.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Plain Speaking From Biden in Moscow Speech
NYtimes
By ELLEN BARRY
Published: March 10, 2011
MOSCOW — Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who two years ago introduced the idea of a thaw between the United States and Russia, used a speech at Moscow State University to criticize Russia’s legal and political systems, a move likely to irritate the country’s leaders.Russians, he said, “want to be able to choose their national and local leaders in competitive elections. They want to be able to assemble freely, and they want the media to be independent of the state. And they want to live in a country that fights corruption.
“That’s democracy,” he said. “I urge all you students here: Don’t compromise on the basic elements of democracy. You need not make that Faustian bargain.”
The speech came in the face of criticism that what Mr. Biden dubbed a “reset” in relations between Russia and the United States has muted the United States’ voice on human rights violations. Mr. Biden cataloged a series of high-profile cases that he said made investors wary of Russia, including the prosecution of the oil tycoon Mikhail B. Khodorkovsky and the death in detention of Sergei L. Magnitsky.
“Some may say, ‘How can you say these things out loud, Mr. Vice President, and expect to have a better relationship,’ ” he said, prompting a small burst of applause. “They’re necessary to have a good relationship. We should not have to make choices. We will continue to object when we see that human rights are violated or democracy and the rule of law is undermined.”
After cooperating on American priorities, including some in Iran and Afghanistan, Russian leaders have been eager to shift to economic ties, like ventures with Western technology companies. Mr. Biden discussed two near-term payoffs in his visit: Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organization and the repeal of the Jackson-Vanik amendment, trade restrictions that were imposed on the Soviet Union in 1974.
But neither of those steps is assured. Congressional Republicans may use a vote on Jackson-Vanik to raise questions about rights in Russia. Meanwhile, in order to join the W.T.O., Russia must secure the agreement of Georgia, which as a member, has veto power.
American officials “were very proactive in encouraging” Russia and Georgia to sit down for Swiss-mediated negotiations in Bern, but are playing no role in the talks, according to a senior administration official who spoke on ground rules of anonymity.
On Thursday, a senior Russian official suggested that Russia might lift its 2006 embargo on Georgian wine, but this is unlikely by itself to win Georgia’s vote.
Sergei A. Markov, a deputy with the governing United Russia party, said the assumption in Moscow was that Washington could dictate Georgia’s position.
“Everyone here is convinced that one call from Joe Biden to Mikheil Saakashvili would be enough,” he said. “We consider that Georgia’s position 100 percent depends on the American White House.”
A larger challenge is setting an agenda that will give momentum to the reset, said Sergei A. Karaganov, a dean of the faculty of international relations at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow. President Obama’s strategy has quieted the anti-American voices in Russia’s politics, he said, much as Mikhail Gorbachev stripped anti-Russian hawks of their enemy in the 1980s.
But early projects, like negotiation of the New Start treaty, have been largely symbolic, he said, staying clear of looming issues like energy policy and development of the Arctic. Meanwhile, he said, Russian leaders are wary that Mr. Obama may last only one term, and that there could be a sharp change in policy.
Mr. Biden is viewed warily in Moscow, in part dating from a 2009 interview he gave to The Wall Street Journal, in which he said Russia faced such economic and demographic decline that it was weak in negotiations with the West. Russia’s state-controlled television paid scant attention to his visit.
Journalists in Russia had speculated about whether Mr. Biden would weigh in on the country’s central political drama — whether President Dmitri A. Medvedev will serve for a second term or be replaced by Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin, still widely viewed as the country’s paramount leader.
Mr. Biden took pains to devote equal attention to Mr. Medvedev and Mr. Putin. But in his speech, he mentioned Mr. Medvedev seven times and repeatedly cited his words.
“Mr. Medvedev said last week — and I quote him — ‘Freedom cannot be postponed,’ ” he said. “Joe Biden didn’t say that. The president of Russia said that. And when Deputy Premier and Finance Minister Kudrin said that ‘only fair elections can give the authorities the mandate of trust we need to help economic reforms’ — that’s a Russian leader, not an American leader.”
China deemed biggest threat to U.S. Russia second, DNI chief says
Washington Times
China's nuclear arsenal poses the most serious "mortal threat" to the United States among nation states, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told the Senate on Thursday.
In candid testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Mr. Clapper said he considered China the most significant threat among nation states, with Russia posing the second-greatest threat. He later clarified the comments by saying he did not assess that China or Russia had the intention to launch an attack on the United States.
The testimony contrasts with statements by Obama administration officials who have sought to highlight the dangers of Iran and North Korea while paying less attention to China and Russia.
Mr. Clapper said he does not assess that North Korea and Iran pose greater strategic threats because they lack the forces that Russia and China have that could deliver a nuclear attack on the United States.
North Korea has tested at least twice a multistaged long-range missile capable of hitting the United States. On Tuesday, Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican, told a conference in Washington that analysts estimate that Iran would be able to deliver a payload by missile to the U.S. East Coast by 2015.
Asked by Sen. Joe Manchin III, West Virginia Democrat, what country he viewed as the greatest adversary of the United States, Mr. Clapper said: "Probably China, if the question is pick one nation state."
He added, "We have a treaty, the New START treaty, with the Russians. I guess I would rank them a little lower because we don't have such a treaty with the Chinese."
China, according to successive Pentagon reports to Congress, is building up its strategic nuclear forces and has spurned offers from the administration to begin talks on nuclear arms, missile defenses, space and cyberweapons, as well as an international agreement to limit the production of fissile material.
On Libya, Mr. Clapper said besieged leader Col. Moammar Gadhafi likely will prevail in his regime's battle against rebel forces. He also said the North African state may break into three republics or, in a worst-case scenario, descend into a lawless state like Somalia.
That view appears at odds with the position of the White House. President Obama has said Col. Gadhafi should resign from power. This week, senior U.S. officials also suggested that a U.N. Security Council resolution on Libya would not prohibit the transfer of arms to the rebels.
Mr. Clapper's Libya remarks along with his assessment of the China threat earned him rebukes from some senators. In an interview with Fox News, Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, said Mr. Clapper should step down or be fired for saying in a public forum that Col. Gadhafi would prevail over the rebels.
During the hearing, Sen. Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat and committee chairman, said he was "surprised" by Mr. Clapper's statement on China.
After Mr. Clapper clarified that he was speaking about capabilities and not intentions, Mr. Levin said, "I was just as surprised by that answer as your first answer. You're saying that China now has the intent to be a mortal adversary of the United States?"
Mr. Clapper responded, "Well the question is who, from my vantage, from among the nation states who would pose potentially the greatest [threat] if I had to pick one country, which I am loathe to do because I am more of the mind to consider their capabilities, both Russia and China potentially represent a broad threat to the United States. I don't think either country today has the intent to mortally attack us."
Defense officials have acknowledged that U.S. intelligence agencies have underestimated China's military capabilities. But the intelligence community is beginning to express more concerns about China's military buildup, which has been carried out largely in secret.
Army Lt. Gen. Ronald L. Burgess Jr., the Defense Intelligence Agency director, appeared with Mr. Clapper and agreed that China's power projection is growing.
"While remaining focused on Taiwan as a primary mission, China will, by 2020, lay the foundation for a force able to accomplish broader and regional global objectives," he said.
Gen. Burgess said China's military "continues to face deficiencies in interservice cooperation and actual experience in joint exercises and combat operations."
"China's leaders continue to stress asymmetric strategies to leverage China's advantage while exploiting potential opponents' perceived vulnerabilities," the general said.
One asymmetric strategy China is pursuing is the use of computer-based cyberprobes into U.S. classified computer networks. Mr. Clapper said the cyber-activity is a "formidable concern."
"The Chinese have made a substantial investment in this area, they have a very large organization devoted to it and they're pretty aggressive," Mr. Clapper said. "This is just another way in which they glean information about us and collect on us for technology purposes, so it's a very formidable concern."
In the hearing, Mr. Clapper stressed that Iran's supreme leader had not given the order to produce nuclear weapons in Iran.
The comments on Iran's nuclear program appeared to support a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that said Iran halted work on nuclear weapons in 2003.
Last month, a CIA report to Congress dropped language from two previous reports that said Iran was keeping open its option to build nuclear weapons, as the National Intelligence Council recently notified Congress that it had altered the 2007 estimate. Officials declined to specify what was changed because the revision was classified.
Gen. Burgess said Iran is helping terrorists train and obtain weapons.
"At Iran's behest, Lebanese Hezbollah provides Iraqi insurgents with weapons and training to attack U.S. forces. Iran also provides weapons, explosives and munitions to insurgents in Afghanistan."
China's nuclear arsenal poses the most serious "mortal threat" to the United States among nation states, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told the Senate on Thursday.
In candid testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Mr. Clapper said he considered China the most significant threat among nation states, with Russia posing the second-greatest threat. He later clarified the comments by saying he did not assess that China or Russia had the intention to launch an attack on the United States.
The testimony contrasts with statements by Obama administration officials who have sought to highlight the dangers of Iran and North Korea while paying less attention to China and Russia.
Mr. Clapper said he does not assess that North Korea and Iran pose greater strategic threats because they lack the forces that Russia and China have that could deliver a nuclear attack on the United States.
North Korea has tested at least twice a multistaged long-range missile capable of hitting the United States. On Tuesday, Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican, told a conference in Washington that analysts estimate that Iran would be able to deliver a payload by missile to the U.S. East Coast by 2015.
Asked by Sen. Joe Manchin III, West Virginia Democrat, what country he viewed as the greatest adversary of the United States, Mr. Clapper said: "Probably China, if the question is pick one nation state."
He added, "We have a treaty, the New START treaty, with the Russians. I guess I would rank them a little lower because we don't have such a treaty with the Chinese."
China, according to successive Pentagon reports to Congress, is building up its strategic nuclear forces and has spurned offers from the administration to begin talks on nuclear arms, missile defenses, space and cyberweapons, as well as an international agreement to limit the production of fissile material.
On Libya, Mr. Clapper said besieged leader Col. Moammar Gadhafi likely will prevail in his regime's battle against rebel forces. He also said the North African state may break into three republics or, in a worst-case scenario, descend into a lawless state like Somalia.
That view appears at odds with the position of the White House. President Obama has said Col. Gadhafi should resign from power. This week, senior U.S. officials also suggested that a U.N. Security Council resolution on Libya would not prohibit the transfer of arms to the rebels.
Mr. Clapper's Libya remarks along with his assessment of the China threat earned him rebukes from some senators. In an interview with Fox News, Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, said Mr. Clapper should step down or be fired for saying in a public forum that Col. Gadhafi would prevail over the rebels.
During the hearing, Sen. Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat and committee chairman, said he was "surprised" by Mr. Clapper's statement on China.
After Mr. Clapper clarified that he was speaking about capabilities and not intentions, Mr. Levin said, "I was just as surprised by that answer as your first answer. You're saying that China now has the intent to be a mortal adversary of the United States?"
Mr. Clapper responded, "Well the question is who, from my vantage, from among the nation states who would pose potentially the greatest [threat] if I had to pick one country, which I am loathe to do because I am more of the mind to consider their capabilities, both Russia and China potentially represent a broad threat to the United States. I don't think either country today has the intent to mortally attack us."
Defense officials have acknowledged that U.S. intelligence agencies have underestimated China's military capabilities. But the intelligence community is beginning to express more concerns about China's military buildup, which has been carried out largely in secret.
Army Lt. Gen. Ronald L. Burgess Jr., the Defense Intelligence Agency director, appeared with Mr. Clapper and agreed that China's power projection is growing.
"While remaining focused on Taiwan as a primary mission, China will, by 2020, lay the foundation for a force able to accomplish broader and regional global objectives," he said.
Gen. Burgess said China's military "continues to face deficiencies in interservice cooperation and actual experience in joint exercises and combat operations."
"China's leaders continue to stress asymmetric strategies to leverage China's advantage while exploiting potential opponents' perceived vulnerabilities," the general said.
One asymmetric strategy China is pursuing is the use of computer-based cyberprobes into U.S. classified computer networks. Mr. Clapper said the cyber-activity is a "formidable concern."
"The Chinese have made a substantial investment in this area, they have a very large organization devoted to it and they're pretty aggressive," Mr. Clapper said. "This is just another way in which they glean information about us and collect on us for technology purposes, so it's a very formidable concern."
In the hearing, Mr. Clapper stressed that Iran's supreme leader had not given the order to produce nuclear weapons in Iran.
The comments on Iran's nuclear program appeared to support a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that said Iran halted work on nuclear weapons in 2003.
Last month, a CIA report to Congress dropped language from two previous reports that said Iran was keeping open its option to build nuclear weapons, as the National Intelligence Council recently notified Congress that it had altered the 2007 estimate. Officials declined to specify what was changed because the revision was classified.
Gen. Burgess said Iran is helping terrorists train and obtain weapons.
"At Iran's behest, Lebanese Hezbollah provides Iraqi insurgents with weapons and training to attack U.S. forces. Iran also provides weapons, explosives and munitions to insurgents in Afghanistan."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)