Strategic Trust-Building

EWI Participates in a Newly Established Media Forum in Bratislava

On December 3-5, Vladimir Ivanov, Director of the EastWest Institute’s (EWI) Moscow Office, participated in the First Annual International Forum: “Freedom of Journalism in the Context of Human Rights, New Technologies and International Information Security.” Also branded as the Free Media Forum, the event took place in Bratislava, Slovakia, and was co-sponsored by International Affairs, a leading Russian diplomatic journal, the Moscow State University (MSU), including the MSU-affiliated Institute for Information Security Issues, the Union of Journalists of Russia, and Comenius Analytica, a Bratislava-based expert center. 

Featuring an opening address by Alexey Fedotov, Russian Ambassador to the Slovak Republic, and bringing together a diverse mix of media professionals, academics and public opinion makers, the forum highlighted Russia’s ambition to contribute to the international debate on the impact of modern media and information technologies. 
 
Speaking in Bratislava at the session on “Safety of Use and Resilience of Global Information Infrastructure” Ivanov focused on the difficulties of the current global diplomatic process, particularly at the 73rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly, to come to terms on the rules of responsible state behavior in cyberspace. 

“Simultaneous approval by the UN First Committee of two competing draft resolutions on this matter, one led by the Russian Federation, and another by the United States, show that the international community is highly conscious of the urgent need for action to counter threats stemming from modern information and communication technologies,” Ivanov commented. “Unfortunately, actionable agreement in this area is hampered by the lingering antagonism between Russia and the United States.”

At the same time, according to Ivanov, any political uncertainty about cyber-related diplomatic initiatives should not discourage multiple constructive efforts on the part of experts and the global business community to explore viable approaches to developing and implementing norms of responsible conduct in cyberspace. In this context, EWI supports several leading multilateral and multi-stakeholder initiatives as well as the bi-lateral dialogues between the U.S. and Russia, and between the U.S. and China.
 
The forum in Bratislava has the potential to grow into a promising new platform to address aspects of international cyber cooperation, and its role in today’s reflecting an evolving landscape of media standards, including the safety of journalists in military conflicts, relationship between media and governments, as well as challenges to political pluralism and cultural diversity.

Click here for more information about the forum.

Saalman Explains Commercial and Technological Competition between the United States and China

On December 11, Dr. Lora Saalman, vice president of EWI’s Asia-Pacific program, gave an address on “China-U.S. Trade and Tensions” at the Kiwanis Club of Atlanta.

Her remarks focused on the challenge posed to American industry from China’s push to increase its global competitiveness. She pointed out that the United States faces future competition from China across a range of sectors, including aerospace equipment, satellite technology and agricultural machinery, presenting a test to both established and emerging companies in the United States.

Dr. Saalman’s coverage of a breadth of China’s economic initiatives, such as the Digital Silk Road, Made in China 2025, China Standards 2035 and New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan, provides a realistic assessment of the challenge posed to U.S. firms. She argues that China’s ambitions are most evident in the area of technology, including the areas of artificial intelligence, telecommunications, quantum computing and smart cities. Through this inward- and outward-facing technological build-up, China is poised to set the standards and the norms throughout the region in terms of everything from energy supply to cyberspace. By examining China’s long-term strategic goals, Dr. Saalman revealed how U.S. tariffs are perceived by some in China as a barrier and to others as a boon. While trade tensions will have a disparate impact on the tech sector, Dr. Saalman stated that, “I have come across a small but seemingly growing group of young professionals in China who argue that while painful in the short-term, U.S. tariffs and sanctions are likely to be healthy for the Chinese economy in the longer term,” adding, “They are compelling faster movement on domestic innovation and the Made in China 2025 strategy,” while dislodging “vested interests and oligarchical tendencies of the upper echelon in China.”

Dr. Saalman’s remarks on a range of issues pertaining to China’s rise are crucial for anyone interested in attaining a deeper understanding of the future of U.S.-China strategic and technical relations.

For more on Dr. Saalman’s Kiwanis address, visit the article from Global Atlanta.

Photo: Global Atlanta

Kartarpur Corridor: An Opening for Dialogue between India and Pakistan?

As India and Pakistan agreed to open an important cross-border connection between Sikh religous sights, EWI's Asia-Pacific fellow Rizwana Abbasi warns that "meaningful and constructive dialogue for resolution of contentious issues between India and Pakistan remains a distant dream."

Click here to read the full article on South Asian Voices.

 

Developments in U.S. Missile Defense Policy and Their Regional Impact

On July 17, 2018, Dr. Lora Saalman joined Dr. Zhao Tong, Dr. Li Bin, Dr. Wu Riqiang and Dr. Liu Chong for a Chinese-language discussion on new developments in U.S. missile defense policy and how they are shaping the Asia-Pacific security landscape.

U.S. missile policies and defense capabilities have long influenced East and Northeast Asia’s security outlook. While the U.S. argues that its deployment of the THAAD missile defense system in South Korea is necessary to counter the nuclear threat from North Korea, Chinese experts worry that U.S. missile defense assets in the region could undermine China’s strategic nuclear deterrent capability. The dispute over the THAAD deployment is just one recent example of how divergent perceptions of missile defense systems can damage regional bilateral and multilateral relations. In anticipation of the release of the Trump administration’s Missile Defense Review, this roundtable discussion examined recent changes in U.S. missile defense policy and their potential impact on major power security relationships in the region.

Click here to learn more.

Photo: "FTO-02_E2A_HALO-I_eMRBM_Intercepted_by_T" (CC BY 2.0) by U.S. Missile Defense Agency

Germany Discusses Security and Defense Policy—Silly Season or Real Change?

A spectre is haunting Germany: the spectre of defense policy. Normally, Germany is the country whose public—and even substantial parts of the political establishment—reject anything remotely military-looking. Germany spends only 1.2 percent of its GDP on defense, far below the recommended two percent NATO goal. Many of its universities adhere to the “civil clause” a pledge which forbids military-relevant research at universities and bars members of the German military to even enter universities (such as in the context of information events or panel debates). It is a country in which only eight years ago a President had to resign over comments that the Bundeswehr might need to be deployed to defend Germany’s interest, including economic ones.

And yet, this summer, not one but two defence-relevant topics are front and center: the debate on whether conscription should be reintroduced, and the question of whether Germany needs a nuclear bomb. Is this the silly season or is something more fundamental happening?

Revival of the German military service?

Until 2011, Germany had a national military service of six-to-nine months length, which could either be done in the military or replaced by civilian service. Criticized as unnecessary, too expensive or unfair, the service was put in abeyance in July 2011. However, a recent poll suggests that a majority of Germans support the idea of some kind of national service (though there is no majority for reintroducing the old "Wehrdienst"). In Germany, this debate is in its early stages. But elsewhere in Europe, such as in Sweden and France, conscription has already been reintroduced in different forms.

A German bomb?

The debate on a German nuclear bomb was started by a front-page article in the Welt on July 29, written by German political science professor Christian Hacke. He argued that, as the U.S. under Donald Trump is becoming an increasingly unreliable partner, Germany needs to consider guaranteeing its own nuclear deterrence. He is not the first to argue this point; when Trump was elected in 2016, the editor of the biggest conservative newspaper in Germany had made a similar argument, and a Member of Parliament asked the parliamentary research service to look into options for Germany to share France’s or the United Kingdom’s nuclear weapons.

Silly season or wind of change?

Whether the debate about reintroducing conscription will survive the summer remains to be seen, but both this and the debate about the German bomb need to be taken seriously.

To be clear, Germany will not get a nuclear weapon. It would mean leaving the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (which would place it alongside North Korea, the only country to have done so), it could even lead to a renegotiation of the 2+4 treaty that allowed for German reunification. Acquiring a nuclear weapon would also require a substantial financial investment, which the German public would not be willing to make. In fact, Germany is closing down all its nuclear power plants as Germans reject the technology, so it is inconceivable that Germany could acquire nuclear weapons.

In part, the two debates may have been fuelled by a way-too-hot German summer. But this goes beyond silly season. Germany finds itself in the worst security dilemma since it “rejoined” the west in the 1950s by becoming a member of NATO and the European Union (EU). Germany’s defence capabilities are insufficient, lapidated by decades of underinvestment and public disinterest. Today, owing to the Trump Administration’s policies, the British exit from the EU, a resurgent Russia, and the generally deteriorating global security situation, the German public are now quickly awakening to new realities that may require difficult decisions that will shape Germany’s security future. Unfortunately, the German public and political realm is out of practice when it comes to defense and security debates. They tend to adopt too emotive a response (as was the case with regard to the German drone debate) and are too often ill-informed.

Germany should use the summer break to refamiliarize itself with questions of security and defense policy. Not in order to design German strategies, but because Germany is needed in Europe in this context. The 2016 EU Global Strategy outlines a vision for a European Strategic Autonomy which would mean an EU able to act independently from the U.S. in at least some contexts. It is time for Germany to be part of this debate.

Ulrike Franke is a Policy Fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), and part of ECFR’s New European Security Initiative. She works on German and European security and defense, the future of warfare, and the impact of new technologies, such as drones and artificial intelligence. She tweets @RikeFranke.

The views expressed in this publication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the EastWest Institute

Photo: "Flugshow der Bundeswehr" (CC BY-SA 2.0) by Lutz Blohm

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Strategic Trust-Building