North Korean imbroglio: Who can do what?, my short essay on the subject.....

Here's a short essay on the situation in North Korea and who can do what to calm down the tempers?

While on the surface, both the US (and South Korea and Japan) and China appear to have the goal of seeing a stable Korean Peninsula, there appear to be serious differences about what regional stability means.




North Korea appears to be yet again on a war path with repeated provocations and increasing rhetoric for the past few months. It has also been a year since Kim Jong-un formally took over power. Power transfer to the new young leader has not however eased the policies in Pyongyang. In fact, the military-first politics of North Korea is continuing ever more fervently under Kim Jong-un. The situation may even be more dangerous under Kim Jong-un than the previous leaders because at least previous leaders were slightly more experienced and had a sense of the thresholds that must not be crossed.

This has serious implications for the region. The US, bound by its alliance commitments, has reassured its partners Japan and South Korea that the US will do what was necessary to any attack from North Korea. After his visit to Seoul, the US Secretary of State John Kerry headed to Beijing where he called upon China to step in actively to bring about restraint in Pyongyang’s behavior. Given that Pyongyang is already so isolated internationally and that China continues to be one of the few countries that maintain ties with the regime, Kerry said "China has an enormous capability to make a difference here." Thereafter, while in Tokyo, Kerry even softened up a bit to say, "Our choice is to negotiate, our choice is to move to the table and find a way for the region to have peace," but of course if Pyongyang gives up its nuclear weapons programme.

What are the expectations from the region and beyond on China? Following the meeting with Chinese officials, there was much optimism with headlines like, "Kerry Hails Chinese North Korea Pledge", "China, United States to work together to calm down North Korea" and the like.

Will China rise to the occasion and do something? Would China step in as an active partner in bringing down the tempers in the Korean Peninsula? Are China and other regional powers on the same page as far as regional security is concerned?

Beijing’s continuing aid and trade relations with Pyongyang does offer it a leverage and one that can be used to extract some benefits in the interests of regional stability. However, China’s State Councilor Yang Jiechi’s statement that "We advocate addressing and settling the problem through dialogue and consultation and by peaceful means," and that it is "the common responsibility of all" does not suggest that China is serious on extracting any conciliatory steps out of North Korea.

While on the surface, both the United States (and South Korea and Japan) and China appear to have the goal of seeing a stable Korean Peninsula, there appear to be serious differences about what regional stability means. It appears that Chinese perspective on regional stability is driven by a narrow objective of ensuring no internal crisis in Pyongyang which will drive a large number of refugees into China; and second, that there is no US military presence near its borders. This vision differs sharply with that of the others who perceive a denuclearized North Korea that respects human right for its people as an essential step to regional stability. This time around, at least in its rhetoric, China has made calls for denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, which was not the case earlier.

Does the Chinese rhetoric for a denuclearized Korean Peninsula mean anything if it fails to act on North Korea? What could be the potential rationale for China not to act on Pyongyang? One, it may be a buffer between China and the US and its allies in the neighbourhood. So, it may be in China’s interests to sustain the regime but under limits and one that does not engage in repeated provocations that reinstate the role of external players, particularly that of the US.

On the other hand, it is possible that China may not enjoy the same clout as it did earlier vis a vis the new regime in North Korea. It is a fact that the new leader has not much of a contact with the new leadership in China nor has Kim Jong-un undertaken a visit to Beijing to solidify relations between the new leadership teams in both countries. And if one were to go by a Wikileaks report, it may be true that China is beginning to be frustrated with North Korea including over the increasing belligerent approach and the failing economy of Pyongyang. While there is a grain of truth in these reports, the Chinese response to some of the recent incidents including the Cheonan sinking or the repeated missile tests suggest otherwise.

While China may be increasingly getting frustrated with the North Korean leadership, they remain the sole friend and benefactor, extending the much needed economic, political and moral support to the Kim Jong-un regime. Therefore, China remains the sole country that has some leeway in bringing the North Korean situation under control. The west should not get carried away by the Chinese pledges and open rhetoric and instead get China to act on its words.

It may also be in the interests of China to see that North Korean nuclear programme is rolled back because if Pyongyang were to continue with repeated tests including that of its delivery vehicles, it would only strengthen the regional insecurities prompting Seoul and Tokyo to contemplate all options including potential nuclearisation. While China may see immediate short-term benefits in not acting strongly against the Pyongyang leadership in curbing its nuclear programme, the end result of a nuclear Seoul or Tokyo may be much harder for China to live with. Therefore, taking strong measures and going beyond the rhetoric on North Korea may be in the long-term interests of China as well.

India and ATT: A Contrarian View

Should India be paranoid about the ATT? Could India have voted for a global measure governing transfer of arms? Here's my short essay on the ATT....

India should look at ways to become an active party in arms trade treaty debates if it has to prove its credentials in global governance. While advancing its global governance role, India will have to also ensure that its arms procurement is not adversely affected.



Developing the first ever instrument to regulate the sale of conventional weapons, the UN General Assembly adopted Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) on April 02, 2013. And the treaty will be opened for signature on June 03, 2013.

There have been efforts for some time to bring the global arms trade under some regulatory framework. Negotiations over the ATT in the last several years did not produce any agreement, given the difficulties in producing a consensual decision at the Conference on Disarmament (CD). Despite the lack of agreement, the treaty was put to vote at the UN General Assembly on April 02, 2013. While the treaty found favour among 154 countries, 3 countries (Iran, North Korea and Syria) voted against it at the CD and 23 countries including Russia, China and India abstained. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon hailed the treaty as a major achievement saying, "It is a historic diplomatic achievement - the culmination of long-held dreams and many years of effort. This is a victory for the world's people."

The ATT is a good measure that will bring about the much-needed regulation in the field of arms transfer from one country to another. It brings arms transfers of a variety of weapons under its purview, including battle tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large-calibre artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers. The ATT, however, has come under criticism for being concluded in haste. Any arms control measure should be carried on at a comfortable pace to all that can potentially ensure greater participation, and thereby greater compliance.

India, in its statement, pointed out two major flaws with the ATT: the treaty gives an upper hand to arms exporting countries and ignores the needs of the arms importing states; and two, arms sales to terrorist and insurgent groups do not fall within the purview of the treaty.

The principal fear within India is that the ATT would give external arms manufactures the license to cancel bilateral contracts at will, based on political reasons, which could seriously affect India's military preparedness, especially if it were to happen during crises. What then happens to contractual obligations?

On the other hand, it could be argued that neither of these are very serious concerns. On the terrorist issue, while it is nice to have state control on supply of arms to terrorist groups, it is not particularly practical. No international treaty is likely to stop states like Pakistan from supplying arms to terrorist groups.

On supplier obligations, any country that reneges on an arms supply contract with India would lose access to the Indian arms market, which is a huge and growing market.

Nevertheless, this is a threat. If countries were to decide and cancel the contract, how seriously is India likely to be affected? With India's reliance on foreign suppliers continuing to be at around 70%, several procurements could indeed get affected. However, India could find ways to get around these measures by demanding guarantees in future contracts.

In this regard, India should be more concerned about some of the western suppliers, in particular the US and the UK, because they are also some of the key supporters of the treaty. Of particular concern has been the inclusion of ammunition, parts and components of weapon systems as part of the ATT that could potentially squeeze recipient countries during crises.

But India continues to buy a large chunk of arms and weapon systems from Russia which is not a subscriber to ATT. France is a country that has subscribed to the treaty and is also a major supplier of arms to India. Nevertheless, going by India's past experience, France will find a political solution to deal with such situation.

Therefore, India should carefully choose the countries from whom it is seeking to buy weapons and other advanced systems. It should ensure that it finds partners that are not necessarily subscribers to ATT or those that will find political modus vivendi should a problem arise. India could also seek political guarantees from supplier countries that will ensure steady supply of arms. India can also enter into joint ventures as a way of safeguarding its interests. Under such circumstances, the impact is likely to be minimal.

Lastly, India should look at ways to become an active party in these debates if it has to prove its credentials in global governance. While advancing its global governance role, India will have to also ensure that its arms procurement is not adversely affected.

Story on China's missile defense test in the March issue of Arms Control Today... quotes mua too....

Here's a story on China's missile defense test by Timothy Farnsworth in the March issue of Arms Control Today. quotes mua too....

China successfully launched a land-based missile interceptor Jan. 28, according to Xinhua, the country’s official news agency.

In a statement released after the test, a Chinese Defense Ministry official said it had accomplished “the pre-set goal,” but did not say what the goal was. The test was “defensive in nature and target[ed] no other country,” he said.

It was not clear from the Chinese statement whether the test involved a target for the interceptor to hit. China’s only previous missile interceptor test, on Jan. 11, 2010, did involve a target.



In 2007, China conducted an anti-satellite (ASAT) test, destroying one of its own satellites instead of a test warhead. (See ACT, March 2007.) That test prompted objections from numerous countries, in part because of the debris it created. The two later tests took place at a lower altitude and created no debris.

In a Feb. 12 interview, Li Bin, a senior associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a professor of international relations at Tsinghua University in Beijing, said the latter two tests were focused on developing and understanding missile-intercept technology rather than assessing the performance of a deployable missile defense system.

According to Li, the Chinese versions of the statements released after each of those tests were identical. Li said, however, that the official English translation of the Jan. 28 statement omitted the word “technology” from the phrase “land-based mid-course missile interception technology test,” the term that China used in 2010. He said the use of the word “technology” indicates that China was trying to better understand missile defense capabilities and was not testing in order to deploy a national missile defense system.

Li said Beijing has three options: keeping the technology in reserve, deploying a regional missile defense system around major cities, and deploying a national system. Li said the first two options are more likely because it would be too costly to create a national system that could defend against an adversary that has a large number of intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Experts disagree on whether the main goal of the Chinese program is to develop a national missile defense system or an ASAT system. In a Feb. 20 e-mail to Arms Control Today, David Shlapak, a senior policy analyst at the RAND Corporation, said that there are differences in the development paths for the two systems. The numbers of interceptors and the “engagement dynamics”—the way the interceptors strike the target object—associated with targeting an enemy’s satellites “are much easier to manage than those associated with large-scale missile defense,” he said.

“I don’t think that the testing we’ve seen to date reveals much about China’s intentions. China could be experimenting with technology, seeking to develop a real capability, or sending a message,” he said. “Unless and until we see more activity, it’s going to be hard to make a conclusive determination.”

Previous Tests

In 2007, China destroyed an aging weather satellite with a hit-to-kill interceptor approximately 850 kilometers above the earth. According to NASA’s Orbital Debris Program Office, the tally of space debris created by the test had reached 3,037 pieces as of September 2010, of which 97 percent remained in orbit. Much of the international community, including the United States, condemned the test, which U.S. officials often cite as an example of how space has become more “congested, contested, and competitive.”

According to a January 2010 State Department cable obtained by WikiLeaks, the target of the 2010 test was a CSS-X011 medium-range ballistic missile rather than a satellite and took place at an altitude of 250 kilometers, much lower than the 2007 test. But the two tests used the same interceptor vehicle, the SC-19, the cable said. The cable also said that U.S. missile-warning satellites detected the launch of the interceptor and the target missile, as well as the actual interception.

International Reaction

The United States and other countries have expressed concerns about China’s ASAT and missile defense tests. In a Jan. 29 e-mail to Arms Control Today, a State Department official said, in regard to the 2007 ASAT test, “the United States has consistently urged Beijing through diplomatic, military-to-military, and scientific channels not to conduct further anti-satellite weapons testing in space.”

India, another country that has nuclear weapons and a growing space program, recently increased its own missile defense testing and closely watches China’s ASAT and missile defense tests. (See ACT, January/February 2013.)

According to Rajeswari Pillai Rajagopalan, a senior fellow at the New Delhi-based Observer Research Foundation, the 2007 Chinese ASAT test sparked a debate within and outside India’s government, “forcing a re-evaluation of India’s policy against militarization of space.” In a Feb. 20 e-mail to Arms Control Today, Rajagopalan, a former assistant director of India’s National Security Council Secretariat, said that since the 2007 test, “there has been fresh pressure brought about for an Indian ASAT system” and “a need for India to have demonstrated ASAT capability.” Although the Indian government has not made a total shift in its policy, “[t]he growing Chinese capabilities (be it ASAT or missile defense capabilities) have clearly upped the ante in the region,” Rajagopalan said.

She questioned the effectiveness of the “space security regime” and the ability “of the major global powers to respond [to] and affect” China’s behavior. “India has continued to argue for [a] legally binding mechanism to deal with the myriad challenges [of the] space domain,” Rajagopalan said.

China replaces UK as the fifth largest arms exporter in the world.... my interview on the subject with the Hong Kong-based Phoenix TV....

The most recent SIPRI data showed that China had overtaken US as the fifth largest arms importer in the world. 70 per cent of these exports goes to South Asia and around 55 per cent goes to Pakistan. This does have serious implications for India and the broad southern Asian region.

I discussed some of these issues recently in an interview with the Hong Kong-based Phoenix TV....





Type rest of the post here

Space Security and Sustainability.... UNIDIR Regional Conference in Addis Ababa

I was recently in Addis Ababa for the UNIDIR Regional Conference (Africa) on space security and sustainability. The conference held on March 06-07 brought together all the major African, particularly from a space security point of view. Interesting discussions, particularly the reaction from the region on the EU-proposed International Code of Conduct for outer space activities. This was one of the four regional discussions funded by the EU, in an effort to garner greater support for the code of conduct on outer space activities.

I had made two presentations, addressing the issue of space security regime and the essential elements of a potential code; and a second one on the role of TCBMs in space security.



Type rest of the post here

India's remote sensing programme makes new advances... an article of mine on India's plans to develop a Geo Imaging Satellite....

Here's a short essay of mine on the Indian plans to develop a Geo Imaging satellite called, GISAT. A statement to that effect was made in the Parliament last week....

If India were able to sustain the launches of remote sensing satellites as per the plans, it would significantly beef up its ability to deliver services, products and other inputs in the field of climate, cartography and agriculture.



In a statement in the Parliament last week, the Indian government said that the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) will be developing a Geo Imaging Satellite called GISAT, to be launched sometime in 2016-17. The satellite which is being built at the Space Applications Centre, Ahmedabad, is expected to carry a Geo Imager that will have a constant visual of the same region, and is synchronized to the Earth’s rotation. The Imager with multi-spectral (visible, near infra-red and thermal), and multi-resolution (50m to 1.5 km) imaging instruments, will be one of the best of its kind, able to provide sector-wise pictures every 5 minutes of a particular sector and the entire Indian landmass every 30 minutes at 50m spatial resolution. The satellite, weighing less than 1000 kg will be launched by a Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV). This project is being undertaken at a cost of INR 392 crores (around $ 72 million). According to the ISRO Chairman, Dr. Radhakrishnan, the main purpose of this satellite, which will orbit at a height of 36,000 km, is to "observe earth from geo-stationery orbit, enabling continuous observation of Indian sub-continent, to facilitate quick monitoring of natural hazards and disaster."

India’s previous remote sensing satellites have undertaken similar missions, but they have not been geostationary satellites. Orbiting at much lower altitudes, their survey over a particular area is limited to barely ten minutes and they visit the same area only once every several hours or even days. Hence, GISAT, situated permanently in a geo-stationary orbit, is a qualitatively superior one, ensuring for India near real-time imagery for monitoring and responding to natural calamities and tracking other developments in the neighbourhood.

India has been making progress in this area in the last few years. India’s Israel-built RISAT-2, weighing 300 kg and placed at 550 km, uses an X-band synthetic aperture radar from Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) and was tested in April 2009. The collaboration with Israel came about after Israel’s Tecsar surveillance satellite was launched by ISRO in January 2008. The particular significance of this satellite is its ability to take images under all weather conditions as well as day and night that would enable India to have a constant eye on activities and developments on India’s border areas. While this satellite has huge applications in the area of flood, agriculture, cyclone and disaster management, RISAT-2 is primarily developed for surveillance and defence purposes, including tracking of hostile ships at sea.

In addition, India tested RISAT-1 in April 2012. Though the RISAT-1 programme began earlier, the RISAT-2 was produced and launched first. The RISAT-1 is similar to the RISAT-2 though it appears more for civilian purposes. ISRO had been working on this microwave remote sensing satellite for about 10 years. It uses a C-band Synthetic Aperture Radar. Developed at a cost of Rs. 500 crores, it provides 1-meter resolution surveillance for various civilian purposes including agricultural and weather. Given the large tonnage of the satellite, it was launched using the PSLV-XL rocket, the third time the extra large rocket was used (in October 2008 for India’s Chandrayaan’s mission and in July 2011 for the launch of GSAT-12 satellite).

India has had other similar satellites such as the CARTOSAT series in operation for a while. However, they were able to get only black and white images in visible regions of electromagnetic spectrum. The larger reach of the satellite and the ability to take images under all conditions, day and night and at frequent intervals is a significant advantage.

India’s remote sensing satellites has been at the core of India’s space programme, starting with the launch of IRS-1A in 1988. Thereafter, India has developed a series and currently has 10 operational satellites in orbit including Resourcesat-2, Cartosat-2B, Oceansat-2, Risat-2, Cartosat-2A, IMS-1, Cartosat-2, Cartosat-1, Resourcesat-1.

Megha-Tropiques is an India-French collaboration in order to study the water cycle and energy exchanges in the tropics, essentially to learn about the life cycle of convective systems that influence the tropical weather and climate and their role in associated energy and moisture budget of the atmosphere in tropical regions. Megha-Trpiques is considered exceptional, able to provide scientific data for climate research that could enable better prediction models. This launch is estimated to have four payloads: Microwave Analysis and Detection of Rain and Atmospheric Structures (MADRAS), Sounder for Probing Vertical Profiles of Humidity (SAPHIR), Scanner for Radiation Budget (ScaRaB), Radio Occultation Sensor for Vertical Profiling of Temperature and Humidity (ROSA). India has plans for additional launches in the remote sensing arena, with potential launches including CARTOSAT-3, INSAT-3D.

If India were able to sustain the launches as per these plans, it would significantly beef up its ability to deliver services, products and other inputs in the field of climate, cartography and agriculture. It would have other benefits also, especially in space cooperation because many of these are collaborative efforts. Such abilities could spur greater regional and global cooperation that is beneficial in many ways - strengthen India’s own R&D in this area while making these programmes cost-effective for different players as well as contribute to the long-term sustainability of outer space. Collaboration of this nature will go a long way in building the much-needed trust between space actors that could potentially lead to developing rule-based space governance architecture.

Asteroids, Meteors and Planetary Defence... a short essay on the recent events and how we need to strengthen planetary defence as an important agenda in national space policies, code of conduct....

Here's a short essay on the recent events and how the least probable events could prove most consequential if adequate attention is not paid...

The dramatic events of February 15, both the meteor hit in Chelyabinsk region in Russia and Asteroid 2012 DA 14's close miss, bring home the reality of the threat to human life from asteroids and meteors. Earlier, people had been fairly dismissive of such incidents, taking shelter in the argument of low probability. Even as these may be extremely low probability events, it should be noted that such incidents could have high-consequence. The recent fly-by of asteroid 2012 DA14 (object of this size hit the earth roughly once in a millennia) and the meteor strike over Russia (the second major meteor strike in Siberia in the last 100 years) that injured hundreds of people show that, improbable as they might be, such events do happen.



In fact, it is not that such events have not happened before, just that our space situational awareness has been quite poor that we didn't even know when we had a near miss. The prestigious international astronaut society, the Association of Space Explorers (ASE) has been engaging the United Nations on a possible regime to deal with such threats, and they have stated in their report to the UN that as new telescopes come online, in a little over a decade, we are likely to be tracking as many as 1 million near-Earth asteroids (NEAs), of which 10,000 may have some probability of impacting Earth in the next 100 years, and 50 to 100 will appear threatening enough to require active monitoring and/or deflection.

India is an established space power and one that is interested in shaping emerging regimes such as the International Space Code of Conduct. But there is skepticism as to how serious India is about this issue and how far India will push itself in pursuing this at regional and global forums. Does India, for instance, consider the movement of so-called Near Earth Objects part of its Space Situational Awareness needs?

This is an issue that has been debated and explored by scholars. Peter Garretson, a US Air Force officer and a former visiting fellow at the Delhi-based Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) recently wrote an article and gave an interview where he discussed the threat of asteroids. He suggested that the U.S. and India should consider jointly tackling such problems, just as they are jointly pursuing such ambitious global public good like Space-based Solar Power and Space Debris Mitigation. These are some of "the big ideas" that could take U.S.-India strategic partnership to new levels, and promote first-steps like sharing of Space Situational Awareness data. Of course, these ideas are still to fructify. However, given the multiple challenges, these are issues that India has to pursue with greater enthusiasm. While India may not currently have sufficient technical capabilities, collaborating with like-minded countries is a good way to get over such deficiencies. These ideas, as discussed by several analysts in the US-India context, should be pursued. After the conclusion of the US-India nuclear deal, this relationship is thirsty for such big ideas to push it beyond the rhetoric.

Active participation in Planetary Defense makes strong sense for India as well. India is one of only four great powers (India, US, Russia, China) that are both nuclear-capable and truly space-faring (having independent launch capabilities), the two pre-requisites to being able to deflect large asteroids, according to NASA. India has always seen its space program as serving the common man and the developmental mission of India. Now with the EU-proposed Space Code of Conduct gaining momentum, India is making active efforts to sit at the high table and shape these emerging rules. It is also making efforts to expand cooperation with other major space-faring powers, such as the US. While space exploration for the sake of exploration is exciting, the requirements for a planetary defense system, particularly in the backdrop of the challenges, are significant drivers of high technology cooperation. This should drive both India and the US to develop and share space-situational awareness, and such capabilities are a ticket to the high-table as well. Abilities that lead to protection from asteroid strikes also advance our abilities to use asteroids as resources, as the recent announcements of Deep Space Industries and Planetary Resources Incorporated illustrate. A future International Space Code of Conduct and future space governance regime must include and facilitate capabilities that protect the planet and encourage space resource development.

Whether or not India's larger diplomatic organizations comprehend the importance of such on-going rule making, at least ISRO has not been totally absent. India's first-ever participation was to send an ISRO representative to the 2009 IAA Planetary Defense Conference in Grenada, Spain. Such participation should be continued and accelerated. This year, the Planetary Defense Conference will be on 15-19 April in Flagstaff, Arizona, USA. India should contemplate representation at these forums - with not just ISRO, but the MoD and MEA as well.

Even if small asteroids like 2012 DA14 were to hit a metropolis, it would have produced the equivalent destructive effects of a hydrogen bomb. Prior to the events of February 15, the Indian public and its policy makers likely could just not comprehend such a distant, seemingly un-real threat. Perhaps, after the 2012 DA 14 and the Russian meteor strike episodes, this will not be the case.