China’s rise to become the second largest economy in the world has inevitably seen it invest projects at home and abroad that have the potential to challenge other states. One recent such development is the country’s beefing up of its communications satellites capabilities.

As part of this development, China has turned to countries across the globe, including in Europe, as potential partners. Belarus, for example, will be the first European country to sign a contract with the China Great Wall Industry Corporation this year.

But despite its keenness to expand its market share, China is choosing its partners carefully. Although China Great Wall is a commercial organization, it would be unthinkable for it to engage in business with private companies overseas not in line with the country’s strategic political and economic goals. And, since China Great Wall is the only country authorized by the government to launch satellites in China and overseas, it’s worth looking at the group’s work to get a clear picture of which countries are co-operating with China – in space and elsewhere.

The United States might not be quite as far ahead of other nations in terms of cyber capabilities as many people think – including potential rivals in the Asia-Pacific, analysts say. It should be a sobering thought for US policymakers at a time when national security analysts around the world have grown increasingly vocal over the proliferation of offensive cyber capabilities by state and non-state actors.

‘There are definitely concerns about cyber warfare proliferation,’ says Kristin Lord, vice president at the Center for a New American Security, who says she believes that Americans need to take the threat seriously. ‘This isn’t like missiles, which require transporting large materials that can be detected. We are talking about knowledge and code.’

China, Iran, North Korea and Russia are all seen as likely possessing offensive cyber capabilities that can inflict serious damage on the United States and its allies. The question is whether they also have the intent to proliferate these capabilities on the black and grey markets.

Rising tensions over competing claims in the South China Sea have raised a new set of foreign policy challenges for the administration of Philippine President Benigno Aquino.

China’s increasingly aggressive posturing, especially among elements of the People’s Liberation Army Navy, has exacerbated the Philippines’ deepening sense of vulnerability. In light of this emerging security dilemma, Manila faces three challenges: (1) balancing bilateral relations with China and the United States without being forced to choose between the two; (2) ensuring that the multilateral track, primarily through the Association for Southeast Asian Nations, functions effectively as a tool for managing, if not resolving, territorial disputes; and (3) crafting a coherent diplomatic strategy while developing a military ‘minimum deterrent.’

Since last year, China’s increasingly tough rhetoric has prompted the Philippines to seemingly hedge its bets by further tilting toward the United States. Given the huge military asymmetry between Manila and Beijing, it’s perhaps no surprise that the Philippines will increasingly seek to leverage its ties with the United States to deter Chinese aggression.

Big US and European software companies are increasingly developing code for mainstream products overseas, especially in Asia-Pacific. But despite the temptation for cost savings, analysts say bulk off-shoring of code development comes with an inherent risk – it’s simply less secure than on-shore code development. As the US government seeks to reduce software development costs amid looming budget reductions, this raises two important questions: 1) Is the off-shoring of code development a growing national security concern for the United States and 2) If so, does it need to impose new regulations and hold software developers liable for the quality of their code, especially for critical infrastructure products?

The world has been caught up in the hype surrounding China’s first aircraft carrier, the ex-Soviet vessel Varyag, which conducted its first sea trials last month. Debates about its role in Chinese grand strategy and its implications for the region’s balance of power have raged ever since.  But the facet of this story that deserves more attention is the story of the Varyag itself: China’s aircraft carrier programme is a microcosm for Sino-US distrust. Specifically, the mystery and speculation that has shrouded the ship for 13 years illustrates the opacity that surrounds Chinese strategic intentions and highlights how large and powerful states, with dynamic and ever-changing domestic and international interests, can change intentions. 

The stripped down Varyag was purchased by the Macau-based Chong Lot Company at the bargain price of $20 million in 1998. Consistent with previous Chinese purchases of aircraft carriers, Chong Lot claimed that the Varyag would be converted into a floating entertainment centre and casino in Macau. That is somewhat odd, as Chong Lot didn’t have an office in Macau, nor did Macau have deep enough waters for an aircraft carrier to anchor. Chong Lot was a subsidiary of a Hong Kong company, Chinluck Holding Ltd., which is speculated to have ties with the People’s Liberation Army. 

Read more...

Cosplay – in which participants dress up as fictional, typically sci-fi or manga characters – is becoming increasingly popular in the United States. It’s a potential source of soft power that Japanese policymakers should be keeping a better eye on.

According to American webcomic Onezumi ‘Oni’ Hartstein, co-founder of the Internet culture convention Intervention, Americans should also adjust their perceptions of what is becoming an increasingly popular hobby here. ‘Costumes aren’t just for Halloween and Cosplay isn’t just a fad with teens,’ she says. ‘Cosplay is on the verge of becoming a major force in American pop culture.’

Henry Lee, Co-Founder of American Cosplay Paradise, agrees. After launching one of the first American Cosplay websites in 2000, Lee has ridden the Cosplay wave to commercial success. He estimates the industry has grown from practically nothing in the early-2000s to being worth about $5 million to $7 million per year, numbers he says are set to keep rising.

Addressing the press at the Air & Space Conference and Technology Exposition I attended last week, US Air Force Lt. Gen. James Kowalski, Commander of the Air Force Global Strike Command, argued that there’s a lot of life left in the country’s fleet of B-52 bombers – the backbone of the United States’ long-range strike force.

Citing the current H-models’ use in providing close air support in Afghanistan and the older G-models’ use in Desert Storm, Kowalski said that he believes the bombers have proven they are capable of prosecuting missions ‘across the spectrum of conflict’ despite the fact that they were produced in the early-1960s.

While the expected in-service life of the air frames extended to approximately 2040, Kowalski acknowledged that components are now aging faster than the platform. Citing the replacement of strategic radar as an example, he conceded that component-based aging is starting to put a ‘big load on maintainers,’ especially with the logistical demands of supporting the bomber presence in Guam.

This month saw two key political and cultural events hosted in New Zealand – the Pacific Islands Forum and the ongoing Rugby World Cup. With this in mind, The Diplomat’s Pentagon correspondent, Eddie Walsh, contacted the Rt Hon Mike Moore, New Zealand’s Ambassador to the United States, for his take on some of the key issues facing the country.

Does New Zealand view the existing Asia-Pacific security architecture – including the Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA), ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting-Plus (ADMM+), and East Asia Summit (EAS) – as sufficient for promoting its security interests, or does a new regional security architecture need to be developed?

Given the diversity of the region, and the points of friction that emerge from time to time, but also the absence of anything that might resemble a ‘Cold War’ stand-off in the Asia-Pacific, what exists by way of multilateral regional forums (ASEAN, ARF, EAS) remains the practicable way to proceed. In the eyes of many experts, New Zealand faces an increasingly uncertain strategic outlook over the next 25 years.

Read more...

The announcement that Vladimir Putin is to run for president in Russia is a reminder that the East Asia region is likely to be in the spotlight for much of next year. With many key states – including de facto Pacific power the United States – holding elections next year, expect much speculation about the implications of possible power transfers.

Things kick off in January with the presidential election in Taiwan, followed by the Russian poll in March, then the US election in November and South Korea’s in December. China, meanwhile, will likely see a shift in power from President Hu Jintao to Xi Jinping during the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CCP), sometime in October. In addition, North Korea has already started its power succession process as it looks ahead to 2012 – the year it’s supposed to officially become a ‘Strong and Prosperous’ nation.

So what’s the significance of this unusual convergence of political activity? And does it pose a threat to regional stability?

Read more...

At this week’s Air & Space Conference and Technology Exposition, United States Air Force (USAF) Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz outlined the three priority programmes for his service amid new austerity efforts in Washington. These include the tanker, F-35 (‘at some appropriate level’) and the new long-range bomber.

Echoing comments made prior to the convention by Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Michael Dunn, Schwartz took the opportunity to lobby hard for the new bomber, probably the most vulnerable of the three programmes with lawmakers: ‘We think it’s vitally important to the country and our ability to execute the National Security Strategy, that there is a successor platform for the current long range strike assets.’

In arguing for the bomber, Schwartz tied its acquisition to larger US military and commercial industrial needs. ‘It’s very interesting that until last year there wasn’t a new development aircraft effort in the United States of America in any company either on the military or the commercial side,’ he said. ‘Everything had been proceeding to production. Now that’s a strategic concern, I think. I don’t doubt that that was one of the considerations that the former Secretary of Defense took into consideration when he was thinking about long-range strike.’

Read more...