Royce, Ed Foreign Intrigue Blog

Iron Dome Proves its Mettle

Thu, 29 Nov 2012 05:00:00 GMT

What a difference a few years makes. That’s the speed that some military technology is moving – literally changing the battlefield.

I was in Haifa, Israel in August 2006, when Hezbollah rockets rained down on that cosmopolitan city. Haifa’s port – a major artery in the Israeli economy – sat empty. The streets were a ghost town. Air sirens blared. Rockets slammed into homes.

Since Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, some 8,000 rockets have been launched by the Hamas terror group into southern Israel. Most thought an effective defense against unguided rockets was impossible.

But out of these attacks emerged "Iron Dome." In a few short years, this system went from the drawing board to deployment and battle, proving its mettle – and shielding Israelis in the south from the Hamas rocket threat.

Faced with an incoming rocket attack, radar determines whether it is a threat to the civilian population or will fall harmlessly in the desert. The system fires only at those rockets that are a threat – with an intercept rate approaching 90 percent. It all happens in a matter of seconds.

Southern Israeli cities like Sderot, Ashkelon, and Beersheba are much safer. So effective, instead of running into bomb shelters when the sirens sound, some are running into the streets to film cell phone videos of Iron Dome in action.

Iron Dome has helped save innocent Israelis, gives its leaders breathing room, and prevented more bloodshed. Most believe that if those interceptors didn’t work, the Israeli army would be in Gaza today. Instead, we’ve got a (tenuous) cease-fire. Congress can be proud of its role in backing Iron Dome.

As I noted at this morning’s hearing - here’s to technological innovation – and U.S.-Israeli security cooperation.

Chairman of Foreign Affairs

Wed, 28 Nov 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Over the years, I have written over 350 Foreign Intrigue blog posts. Today there is news close to home. I’m honored to say that my colleagues have selected me as Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee for the next Congress.

I have been a Committee member since I first came to Congress. I took over the Africa Subcommittee and we organized an impressive bipartisan coalition to pass a landmark Africa trade bill. I traveled to many trouble spots on the continent and remain committed to closer ties with Africa. Then I shifted to the Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade Subcommittee, where I have focused on stopping the spread of WMD and encouraging trade. Even helped put international arms dealer Viktor Bout behind bars.

What’s next now that I have been entrusted with Committee gavel? Iran's march toward nuclear weapons is a grave threat that demands constant attention and great pressure on Tehran. Daily crisis come and go – but this menace has been building for years. I have been focused on North Korea's weapons proliferation for a long time, and U.S. international broadcasting efforts --including "Freedom Radios"-- need to get better, fast.

After years of sacrifice, Americans are weary of engagement. But while we can't step away from the many challenges abroad, I'll be working to see that U.S. policy is smart and focused, and that we make the best use of our limited resources. I want to reach out to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It doesn't make a lot of sense to pass legislation in the House with little Senate support.

After several years of blogging, I think my readers understand the issues I feel strongly about and my general foreign policy approach. The Speaker of the House, others in Republican leadership, and many of my other colleagues have given me a great vote of confidence. As chairman, I'll be better positioned to advance the causes many of you care deeply about.

Don’t take the spotlight off of Russia

Wed, 21 Nov 2012 05:00:00 GMT

Major trade and human rights legislation on Russia easily passed the House on Friday. It should go to the President’s desk immediately, without a provision being pressed in the Senate that would weaken the bill.

The House bill accomplishes two priorities. First, by repealing a no-longer relevant Cold War-era law, it ensures that U.S. exporters stay in the game. With Russia joining the WTO in August, Moscow was forced to cut tariffs for every country but the United States. The repeal of the 1974 "Jackson-Vanik" trade restrictions was smart economics.

Second, the bill includes important human rights sanctions --named after slain Moscow whistleblower Sergei Magnitsky-- to focus on the systemic corruption and abuse of power in Russia today. Russian killers and torturers are named and shamed, and denied U.S. visas and U.S. banking access. As one Russian opposition leader said, these human rights provisions are "pro-Russian. It helps defend us from the criminals who kill our citizens, steal our money, and hide it abroad." That's a guy we want to help.

But the Senate bill takes the spotlight off Russia, instead hoping to sanction human rights abusers around the world. Senators are well intentioned in pressing for a global focus. I want to go after the abuser in Zimbabwe or Venezuela too.

But when considering any legislation, we have to figure how a new law will be implemented by the Executive Branch. In this case, my fear is that the "everyone is important" approach pushed by the Senate gives the Obama Administration an "out" – where nothing is important.

The Administration – which has fought hard against the Russian human rights provision, not wanting to offend the Putin government – would surely use its "universal" application to pick the low-hanging (rotten) fruit around the world. My bet is that the Senate provision would produce a stock list of human rights abusers previously subjected to some sort of sanction – a North Korean general, Iranian IRCG member or Sudanese a hooligan. Indeed, a year or so ago when the Obama Administration sanctioned a company for violation of Iranian energy sanctions, it dinged a Belarus company already subject to various other sanctions. Impact nil. After hearing testimony in the House Foreign Affairs Committee that "Obama has been virtually silent on Russia’s deteriorating political situation," this isn’t a case where the diplomats get the benefit of the doubt.

The House bill passed 365-43. The Senate should take up that bill and pass it to the President immediately. It is the best way to liberalize trade while staying true to Russian human rights champions.

Information Battle

Tue, 23 Oct 2012 04:00:00 GMT

Right now, there is a battle taking place in the skies.

Last week, Eutelsat – a French company that is one of Europe’s leading satellite providers - announced that it was terminating its contract with the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) company. It immediately pulled 19 of Iran’s state-owned television and radio channels off the company’s "Hotbird" satellite – affecting viewers in Europe, the Middle East, and even some inside Iran. IRIB broadcasts in Persian, Arabic and English.

The move came a few weeks after Iran had been cited as jamming Eutelsat’s "Hotbird" satellite. You see, the same satellite that Iran uses to spread its propaganda, is also used by the BBC and the Voice of America to beam information into Iran. When the BBC and VOA started reporting on the drop in Iran’s currency and street protests, the Iranian regime worked to block it.

The mullahs are hardly amused with being kicked off the "Hotbird." In a rich bit of irony, they are screaming against "free speech" violations. They have fired back with electronic interference aimed at the satellite, impacting not just the channels beaming information into Iran, but other Eutelsat customers – affecting millions in a swath from Europe to Russia, Central Asia and the Middle East. Broadcasters from France 24, the BBC, Deutsche Welle, and Radio Netherlands, are up in arms. This jamming violates international agreements that Iran is a part of, not that they care. Iran wants Eutelsat to pay a price – monetarily and figuratively – for its actions.

Interestingly, Eutelsat has identified Syria as the source of the jamming. There is obviously enough going on in Damascus these days that this would be an odd priority for the Syrian regime. But it shows you how much of a priority this propaganda is for the Iranians and how closely the two regimes are linked.

For its part, Eutelsat points to EU human rights sanctions as forcing its hand. Ezzatollah Zarghami, the head of IRIB who is directly appointed by Iran’s supreme leader, was put on the EU list apparently for programming that broadcast forced confessions and show trials in August 2009 and December 2011. Human rights watchers cheer the recognition that "IRIB is an integral arm of the Iranian intelligence and security service."

I’m hoping this is just the beginning of a new squeeze on the Iranian regime. Reportedly, Iranian state broadcasters beam their channels to 45 countries using at least eight international satellite companies, some of them Western. Iran hasn’t had reason to jam some of these other satellites as they don’t also broadcasts into Iran. But if IRIB is targeting one satellite, why should they have the right to transmit on any satellite?

The Iran sanctions bill signed into law in August adds those who facilitate satellite interference to a U.S. human rights sanction list. With IRIB’s jamming shots, that should be a long list.

Bravo to the Europeans here. Let’s hope they stay strong.

Azerbaijan, J-Lo and the Axe Murderer

Wed, 17 Oct 2012 04:00:00 GMT

The Washington Post on Monday ran a glowing page-one article on the energy-rich, Caspian Sea nation of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan is "coming to relish its role as the region’s anti-Iran, a secular, Western-leaning country that is working mightily to become everything that Iran is not." Iran is repressive, but Azerbaijan is "tolerant," embracing Western music and entertainers, Post readers were told.

Exhibit-A is a recent Jennifer Lopez concert, flocked to by Azeris. The article's sub-headline pronounces this "embrace of J-Lo symbolizes Muslim-majority nation’s ascent." More, we are told that the pop music is actually part of Baku’s foreign policy, as "every Western diva who arrives to croon and titillate" drives the mullahs in Iran crazy. The embrace of J-Lo, Rihanna and Shakira sure gives the reader a sense that this is a country moving in the right direction.

This all reminds me a bit of when the Economist pointed to an uptick of sushi restaurants as a sign of Syria’s moderation.

A different rock-star reception reveals another Azerbaijan. Last month, a convicted axe murderer who nearly decapitated an Armenian soldier in his sleep was given a hero’s welcome. Thousands of Azeris greeted the ex-soldier at the airport as he returned from Hungary, scene of his ghastly crime. Eight years ago, the Azeri murdered the Armenian while both were in Budapest for a "Partnership for Peace" English language course. The Azerbaijan-Armenia war over the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave killed 30,000 in the late 80s and 90s and the two remain bitter foes. But no one expected this brutality.

Sent home under an Azeri promise that he would serve his life sentence in Azerbaijan, President Ilham Aliyev instead promptly pardoned, promoted and back paid the murderer. Local media was filled with stories of how the President saved their hero. I don’t care how many hits J-Lo cranked out, the outfit she wore, or how irritated the Iranian regime was. When axe murderers are national heroes, something is askew in Baku.

You don't see President Aliyev’s "so I pardoned an axe murderer" tale in this Post article. The lengthy piece gave just three sentences to the country’s ills, calling it "hardly the perfect role model." I’ll say.

The only thing this Post article tells me is that, next to the regime in Iran, anyone looks good.

A-Team’s Terror Drone

Wed, 10 Oct 2012 04:00:00 GMT

Then-Deputy Secretary of State Armitage quipped ten years ago about Hezbollah being the terrorist "A-team." They are living up to the ranking.

Take the incident over Israel last weekend, only a blip in the U.S. press. On Saturday, an unmanned, unarmed surveillance drone entered Israeli airspace from the Mediterranean coast and flew for about 20 minutes before Israeli warplanes blew it out of the sky and released the video. The next day, Israeli fighter jets buzzed pro-Hezbollah villages as a reminder of who owns the sky.

Officially, no one is saying where the drone originated or who produced it. But everyone thinks/knows it's Hezbollah, with a big hand from Tehran. Iran has supplied the "Party of God" with many advanced weapons. Hezbollah sent drones Israel’s way in 2004 (crashed into the Mediterranean) and during the 2006 war (also shot down). I was in Haifa in 2006 and saw the damage Hezbollah did with its rockets. A drone – reportedly packed with explosives and headed for population centers would have taken things to another level.

There are a lot of theories on the drone’s mission. Was it just to prove they could do it, or were there specific surveillance targets in mind? The distance and length of flight suggests that Hezbollah drone capabilities have grown leaps and bounds in recent years. Imagine the psychological impact if Canada wanted to wipe us off the map and was flying drones from Toronto over central New York….after committing a string of terrorist attacks around the world.

Iran has boasted that the incident shows poor Israeli air defense. Israel says it waited and watched the drone before taking it out over a barren area to avoid casualties. This gave them a chance to observe its capabilities and perhaps retrieve parts from the wreckage. They’ll be trying to figure out the sophistication of the drone. Was it directed by a command center or guided by satellites?

Unlike Mr. T and the boys from the corny '80s TV show, Hezbollah aren’t misfits using their skills for good – and they have state support. Mr. T pitied the fool who didn't take the "A-Team" seriously. Agreed.

Venezuela’s Marathon

Tue, 09 Oct 2012 04:00:00 GMT

Venezuela’s strong-man Hugo Chavez won his fourth election as president over the weekend. It was a closer race than the 54% to 45% vote spread suggests.

Henrique Capriles, a popular governor, gave Chavez his stiffest competition in a dozen plus years. Some even thought he could win. Wishful thinking.

Capriles – a marathon runner known as "the skinny one" – waged an energetic campaign compared to the ailing Chavez (his health condition a state secret). The runner said he would normalize relations with the U.S. and foreign companies that have faced nationalization from Chavez. Capriles said he would end free oil shipments to Cuba, stop buying Russian weapons and reevaluate the country’s relationship with China. A Chavez defeat would have seriously dented the alliance of anti-U.S. leftist leaders down south: Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Argentina. Closer U.S. relations would help with counternarcotics efforts and close the door to the Iranians who have tried to use Venezuela to skirt sanctions.

Alas…

In the end, Chavez’s control of resources, media, and intimidation won the day. There were no international observers, only some domestic groups. This certainly inflated Chavez's total.

Even defeated, the young Capriles may soon get another shot. If Chavez, who has been battling cancer, succumbs, the constitution calls for fresh elections. Watch for the energized opposition to press in state elections scheduled for December.

Venezuela once had a strong democratic tradition and was close to the United States. That goal is still a marathon or two away. When Capriles conceded defeat, he tweeted his followers, "Calm, prudence, patience." Spoken like a true distance runner. The starting gun has sounded.

Sunshine on North Korea Again?

Tue, 02 Oct 2012 04:00:00 GMT

The United States isn’t the only country with a looming presidential contest. South Koreans will go to the polls in December. But no matter who wins, it seems that Seoul's North Korea policy will take an unfortunate U-turn.

A few years back, incumbent President Lee Myung-bak made the South’s aid to the North contingent upon Pyongyang taking steps to end its nuclear program. When that didn’t happen, the South cancelled things like economic aid and tourist activities, effectively ending a $1 billion annual subsidy. Some called it "hard-line." I called it common sense. It was also refreshing to see South Korea begin speaking out against North Korea’s atrocious human rights abuses.

But this has fallen out of vogue it seems. All three of South Korea’s presidential contenders have said they would reverse course, including the conservative. One candidate "seeks a return to the few-questions-asked economic assistance of liberal presidents of the past," reports the Journal. History says it'll be "no questions asked."

This will mark a return to South Korea’s failed "Sunshine Policy" that started in the late 1990s. Sunshine placed engagement with North Korea above all else. North Korea wasn’t pressed to end its nuclear program and Seoul ignored its gulag imprisonment of over 200,000. This didn’t bring any sunlight to North Korea, but it did deliver billions to the dangerous and brutal regime over the decade. The South wanted to keep talking, while the North was glad to pocket the cash and build bombs.

As readers know, the only thing that has gotten us closer to peace and stability in Northeast Asia is when North Korea has been pressured, with us using financial tools to defend against its proliferation of nuclear technology and ballistic missiles, and its other illegal activity.

But I guess the tendency to push threats to the side and not deal with unpleasant realities has won out, at least for now Democratic South Korea will make its choice. That is clear. Less clear is what it will mean for spotlighting human rights atrocities and changing North Korean behavior. Nothing good if we stare at the sun.

A World Without Elephants?

Thu, 20 Sep 2012 04:00:00 GMT

"Do you want your children to grow up in a world without elephants?" asks an ecologist in an impressive piece of reporting in the New York Times the other week. Unfortunately, looking at trend lines, the question must be asked. After seeing this article, I got together to swap ideas with a senior State Department official who is trying to tackle this difficult problem.

Elephant poaching is back with a vengeance. The worst slaughter in three decades, these intelligent and majestic animals are disappearing in the tens of thousands every year, killed for their ivory tusks.

Poachers are now armed to the teeth – AKs, RPGs and other high-powered weapons. Africa’s Garamba National Park is a war zone, with park rangers outmanned and outgunned. Groups like Joseph Kony’s LRA are getting into the ivory trade to fund weapons buys. Al-Qaeda linked al-Shabaab, based out of Somalia, has begun to train its fighters to infiltrate neighboring Kenya and kill elephants to fund its terrorism. African militaries have even been implicated.

What’s behind this? A sign of status, Asian demand has driven the price of ivory through the roof. A pound of ivory can get you $1,000 in a back alley in Beijing.

"China is the epicenter of demand. Without the demand from China, this would all but dry up," State Department’s Robert Hormats told the Times. There are worthwhile efforts to stigmatize the use of ivory, especially among younger Chinese. But that’s a long term project.

We should be targeting the networks that are part of this illegal trade. With these prices, global crime syndicates have come in to move the ivory out of Africa. The U.S. has a lot of experience and some successes denting drug cartels, international arms traffickers, and terrorist networks – knowledge and lessons that could be brought to bear against these networks.

This requires a hand from the intelligence community. With the ivory trade funding terrorists and the LRA, why not put some enterprising analysts on the case.

It’s not natural for conservationists to look to a DEA agent or terrorist tracker. But it’s time for that. Unless this crisis is met, we may only be able to show our children pictures of elephants.

Haqqani Network: What does it take to call terrorists terrorists?

Fri, 07 Sep 2012 04:00:00 GMT

An act of Congress, apparently.

The Haqqani network is an Afghan and Pakistani insurgent group, based on the Pakistan side of the border in North Waziristan. Some call the Haqqanis "the Sopranos" of the Afghanistan war, a ruthless crime family that built an empire out of kidnapping, extortion and smuggling. Their financial network stretches into the Middle East beyond.

But they are much more than a criminal syndicate. Its base of operations has become arguably the most important Islamist militant haven in the region. Al-Qaeda and other terrorists take shelter, train and plan attacks under their protection. A report published by West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center describes the Haqqani network as interdependent with al-Qaeda, an enabler for other terrorist groups, and "the fountainhead of local, regional, and global militancy."

From their base across the border, the Haqqani network has been behind some of the most deadly attacks in Afghanistan - the Indian Embassy, prominent hotels and last September, a 19-hour attack on NATO headquarters and the American Embassy. They have killed many Americans. But yet, the Haqqani network managed to stay off the State Department’s "Foreign Terrorist Organization" blacklist – despite calls from U.S. commanders in the field to do so.

How did these guys escape the blacklist, which would have implications for its widespread financial holdings? The State Department didn’t want to ruffle Pakistani feathers and was worried it would harm talks with the Taliban. My goodness. As the Washington Post editorial page pointed out this week, those concerns are "surreal" when the Obama Administration is targeting the Haqqanis with drone strikes and asking the Pakistani military to invade their safe haven.

More than frustrated, Congress passed a law that gave the Secretary of State one month to decide whether the Haqqanis belonged on the list. This reportedly led to deep debates within the Obama White House. My subcommittee called a hearing for next week to ask the State Department to explain their position.

This morning news comes that the State Department will place the group on the terrorism list. It only took years to figure out the obvious…