Archive

UK


Analysis: The specialist role Britain could play in a new Korean War

screen shot 2016-02-23 at 10.03.38 am

The Telegraph, 11 October, 2017 (with James Rogers)

The news that British war planners are working possible scenarios for British involvement in a North Korean contingency is both disturbing and an indication of how serious the Ministry of Defence is taking this iteration of the North Korean crisis.

It also comes as Whitehall’s civil servants consider new defence cuts for the re-appraisal of the 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR).

The ghost of Iraq 2003 continues to stalk Whitehall

We say “this iteration” of the North Korean crisis because this crisis did not just begin, but really has been percolating since May 1992. That year, a team of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors led by Hans Blix found inconsistencies in North Korea’s initial declaration and their findings.

The past 25 years have been about the United States, South Korea, Japan and other regional states attempting to reassure, cajole, bully, and buy North Korea into giving up its nuclear ambitions.

Fast-forward to 2017, and not only does Pyongyang have nuclear weapons, it is perfecting the means for long-range delivery. Because of its bellicose attitude toward the South – a democratic country it still claims to own – there is a very real possibility that British forces and personnel might be drawn into a second conflict on the Korean Peninsula.

As the UK thinks of what Global Britain means in strategic terms, what would or should Britain do if such a conflict were to occur?

Of course, all of this depends on how the conflict began.

If a conflict occurred because US Forces took unilateral action in what is being termed a “preventative” war, the chances of UK forces taking part alongside them are nil. The ghost of Iraq 2003 continues to stalk Whitehall and British leaders were reminded of this when Parliament – sensing the mood of the country – refused to authorise an intervention in Syria in 2013.

However, if North Korea were to instigate a conflict, there might be a moral and strategic compulsion for Britain to take action. After all, it is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, a close treaty ally of the United States, and has growing economic and security relationships with South Korea.

South Korea has recently built four Tide class replenishment vessels for the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, the Royal Navy’s logistics arm. London also has an annual security and foreign policy dialogue with Seoul, and last year sent a small contingent of British troops to take part in US-South Korean annual exercises Ulchi Freedom Guardian.

Despite the very slim possibility of a long conflict with North Korea – security experts often stress that such an event would be swift and brutal – it does present military thinkers with questions over what the UK could do in such a conflict, particularly in light of the sheer magnitude of forces arrayed on both sides.

Despite some pointing to the possibility that the HMS Queen Elizabeth might be rushed out to the region with a handful of British F-35s (which may or may not yet be fully operational), this seems unlikely. After all, the US has two carriers within the Pacific already with a total of 90 F/A-18E/F Super Hornet strike fighters.

Peter Roberts, Director of Military Sciences at Rusi, states that if the US were to push for British involvement, it would likely ask Britain for some of its most-prized capabilities. These include space-based communications capabilities, hydrography and mapping capabilities, mine-sweeping, and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) platforms, specifically, the UK JSTARS platforms.

Britain’s specialist capabilities

According to Bruce Klingner, a North Korea weapons expert at Heritage Foundation, North Korea still fields an impressive arsenal of anti-ship cruise missiles, including a modern version of the Russian Kh-35, which has a range of 70 nautical miles and houses 320-pounds of high explosives.

The Type-45 Destroyer is equipped to deal with exactly this kind of surface-skimming airborne missile threat using its PAAMS air defence capability, and could provide cover for US, South Korean, and other allied naval forces as they concentrate on air operations to take out North Korean missile ballistic missile targets.

While North Korea’s submarines are often derided as antiquated and poorly serviced, the fact is that one sunk one of South Korea’s corvettes, the ROKS Cheonan, with a CHT-02D torpedo from about 3 kilometres away. Therefore they should not be taken lightly by any allied fleet operating in waters near North Korea.

The Royal Navy might deploy Type 23 frigates which were built particularly with anti-submarine warfare (ASW) in mind. With thirteen in operation, the UK could conceivably deploy a small number to fence the perimeter of any allied fleet.

Filling the gaps left elsewhere

Another role that the Royal Navy could play is that of backfilling. If US forces were to rush to the Pacific in order to bolster operations there, they would leave a vacuum in the security of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf. The UK could fill such a vacuum until such time as US forces could return to their regional bases.

While there is a chance that a “preventative war” that aimed to bring down Pyongyang might bring in Chinese involvement, it is not clear that Beijing would takes sides if North Korea initiated hostilities.

Earlier this year, a Chinese professor, Jia Qingguo, wrote openly about China holding talks on contingency planning with Washington and Seoul in East Asia Forum, a regional blog. It is not clear whether his article was authorised or merely personal.

Let there be no question: a war with North Korea would be brutal and involve many tens of thousands of dead and should not be initiated on a whim. However, if North Korea were to strike first and the international community were compelled to respond, the UK should be able to help with the response.

While Korea and Japan would be under more pressure to help, the UK must consider its own role as a global power, both in terms of protecting its own interests and supporting its allies. As we approach the re-appraisal of some parts of the 2015 SDSR, it is hoped that Whitehall is broadly aware of these issues.

Advertisements

If Britain Is to Leave the EU, London Must Double-Down on NATO

british_marines

The National Interest, 5 October, 2017,

In his first interview since being elected chairman of the NATO military committee, the UK’s Air Chief Marshal Sir Stuart Peach attempted to promotethe centrality of the military alliance to European defense, stating the European powers should not attempt to duplicate NATO efforts. His comments come at a time of deep geopolitical uncertainty, with threats from within and threats from without rocking the once-solid Western alliance. Domestically, they also come as the UK MOD attempts a review of the 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review. Inside the Western alliance, a number of rifts have opened up between those states moved by 2016 populism (i.e., post-referendum London and post-Trump Washington), and those continentalists who wish to double-down on the European Union project (i.e., French president Emmanuel Macron and German chancellor Angela Merkel). Inevitably, this raises a number of critical questions about Britain’s role as a military power, the future of its influence inside NATO, and the overall effect its leadership will have for the Western alliance.

The Western alliance has long been cushioned from external threats by its strong economic leadership, its liberal-democratic philosophical foundations, and its formidable military technological advantages. One by one, these three pillars of Western strength have been weakened or seriously undermined. In the first instance, the Financial Crisis of 2007–08 came about because of poor regulations, hubris and large amounts of Chinese liquidity in the international markets. In the second instance, the very success of globalization—the internationalization of capital and labor—came with a hidden barb. In the wake of two decades of the offshoring of manufacturing and the import of cheap labor, Western working classes have run to elect populist leaders and far-left parties in order to punish the “Davos set.” The final pillar of military technological advantages has fallen prey to complacency and the inability of political leadership—notably in the European part of the West—to argue for a defense spending proportional to the declining security environment.

This declining threat environment is no longer a matter of debate as it was a decade ago. No longer concerned with “failed states,” the West has other, more pressing concerns on its western and southern borders, including Russian revanchism, refugee flows and ISIS-organized attacks within the West. The recent decision by Sweden to conduct joint military exercises with American and French armed forces earlier this month—in the wake of a large Russian exercise—signals the return to a Russia seemingly hungry for prestige and for a sphere of influence. Given its willingness to attack Western democracies at the ballot box, it has become clear that Russia poses a unique and singular threat to Europe. Despite these very real threats, the West continues to suffer from a lack of internal cohesion. Expressing a sense of European disenchantment with both the United States and the United Kingdom, Chancellor Merkel recently proclaimed, “The times in which we [Europeans] can fully count on others are somewhat over, as I have experienced in the past few days.” While Germany’s frustrations are somewhat unfair—given its shoddy record on the 2 percent rule—it does mark a dangerous trend toward fragmentation in one of the world’s most long-lasting and successful alliances.

Assuming that British policymakers understand the worth of our influence inside NATO, it is therefore incumbent that future governments stop the cutting of the armed forces. Media reports indicate that the Royal Marines face the prospect of a one thousand service-personnel reduction in order to save £3 billion per year over the following ten years; the decision is due to be made by the 2015 Strategic Defence and Security Review in late November this year. According to a series of publications commissioned by the Ministry of Defence, the total strength of the British forces service personnel has decreased by 0.4 percent; full-time trained strength and trade trained strength [Royal Navy/Marines, the Royal Air Force, and the Army, respectively] have experienced a fall of 1.4 percent since August 1, 2016. Although the total number of trained and untrained strength of the Tri-Service Future Reserves 2020 rose by 3.6 percent to 36,580 personnel, total intake (in sum) has collapsed: Whilst outflow from the regulars has fallen by 6.2 percent, subscription intake for the Future Reserves 2020 dropped by an astonishing 16.6 percent, whereas outflow increased to 4.4 percent. Equipment and formations also experienced steady quantitative decreases: totalling 4,098 key land platforms—consisting of 1,763 armoured personnel carriers, 1,907 protected mobility vehicles, and 428 armoured fighting vehicles—thirty-one reductions of platforms took place over the last twelve-month period, due to a deterioration in the number of Mastiff protected mobility vehicles (from 421 to 396); most saliently, there occurred a drastic 37 percent reduction following the withdrawal of the Black Hornet spy plane from service, with a reported 281 unmanned aircraft systems.

It should be noted that decline is not preordained; it’s a political choice, and one that we don’t have to make. Yes, it is true that United States—and Western power—is declining, but this is for the moment relative, not absolute. Given its strong assets, its unique geographical advantages, a network of far-flung bases, and a strong defense industrial base, British power remains formidable. In a recent report conducted by the Henry Jackson Society, James Rogers created a power index, using seven key indices, including: economic clout, diplomatic leverage and military strength. His findings show that Western powers “still stand tall in the world, and the US still towers over everyone, goes against the grain of both popular perception and media narratives. Therefore, talk [of the eclipse of the West] is still premature from the perspective of geopolitical capability.” As Professor Yukon Huang notes in his recent book on China, Americans and Europeans are most likely to believe that China has surpassed the United States as the world’s greatest economic power. Asians—and the Chinese themselves—recognize that China has some way to go before it approaches U.S. levels of total power.

If Britain is to succeed in the post-Brexit world, it will have to do so with a strong sense of its position in the global community. Its national power also stems from three pillars, which girded the West: a strong economy, a belief in liberal democratic values, and a strong military-technological base. With its permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, its strategic submarine force, a robust diplomat service, and an influential role inside NATO, London can continue to play a major leadership role inside the West. However, it must develop strategies that strengthen these pillars and not rest on its laurels. If defense spending continues to drop, how long can the UK lead? If its artificial intelligence and telecommunications firms continue to be bought by China, then how will the MOD craft its future war-fighting plans? The UK has stepped back from the European project, but it should be noted that the project has always been just one aspect of a Western alliance that has maintained peace and security for its members—and a large part of the global community—for nearly seventy years.

 


The Interpreter, 26 July, 2017

The recent exposure of Chinese influence-peddling inside the Australian political system is just one example of China’s growing influence and willingness to act in Western states. In these days of austerity for many Western nations, money speaks loudly and in recent years Chinese investment into Western liberal democracies has surged.

Chinese foreign direct investment is shifting from commodities in the developing world to high-tech acquisitions, equity stakes and mergers in advanced economies. In Europe alone, Chinese investment increased 44% between 2014 and 2015, when it reached €20 billion. For the most part, these funds have been welcomed by cash-strapped Western states seeking to reinvigorate their economies. However, there are also risks associated with Chinese investment in telecommunications and other mainstays of modern commerce.

Research carried out by the Henry Jackson Society suggests that Chinese investment in national infrastructure is taking on critical proportions, and Western states – particularly the five countries involved in the Five Eyes intelligence alliance – are responding in piecemeal fashion with each screening investments in different ways. A number of incidents in recent years have underlined the need for better co-ordination between nations, particularly those that share intelligence, and improved understanding of China’s investment strategy into the West.

In 2016, for example, a Chinese consortium that included a subsidiary of the Chinese defence industrial giant AVIC, bought a large stake in the UK’s largest data centre operator, Global Switch. Whitehall approved the deal, only to see the Australian Department of Defence pull out of future business with Global Switch, citing the AVIC buy-in. Then came the Canadian government’s approval of a Chinese takeover of the Canadian satellite communications company, Norsat.  After the Trudeau administration confirmed that change in ownership, the Pentagon announced it would have to re-examine its contracts with the Vancouver firm.

MERICS research suggests China’s state owned enterprises (SOEs) accounted for more than 60% of China FDI in Europe in 2015. While this is not as high as it has been, the trend is upward which adds to the argument that much of the investment surge is strategic in nature. Beijing has also recently announced its intention to become the global leader in artificial intelligence (AI), a cutting-edge technology upon which the defence of the West will depend. One can see China’s intentions in its Made in China: 2025 strategy that was announced in 2014. The strategy involves subsidising Chinese firms targeting acquisitions and mergers of Western AI, IT, and telecoms firms and using non-tariff barriers to provide a sanctuary for Chinese firms inside China so they can advance safely away from the harsh glare of competition. The goal is to give China strategic dominance in the technologies of future warfare.

Such goals are alarming, and it’s not just policy analysts who think so.The Trump administration, for example, demanded an investigation in Chinese investment into Silicon Valley start-ups and the resulting report indicates that many of the Chinese firms operating in this field have state support and direction.

The recent decision by Berlin to restrict Chinese investment into parts of its digital economy and infrastructure is another indicator of how critical this issue has become. As one of the West’s most open economies, this action demonstrates Berlin is taking the situation very seriously indeed. While London mulls over a body similar to the Committee for Foreign Investment in the United States or Australia’s Foreign Investment Review Board to supplement its current ad hoc system, it is imperative that the Five Eyes alliance members systemically overhaul the range of sectors open to Chinese investment. Some practices that could assist include:

  • Instituting a regular Five Eyes meeting between the heads of their investment review boards.
  • Use this process to build a ‘common operating picture’ of Chinese investment practices and targets.
  • Sharing more information on what Chinese firms are doing in each of the Five Eyes economies, their ownership structures, and any past instances of serving Chinese national security objectives.
  • Considering an overhaul of the Five Eyes working groups in telecoms and AI, giving them greater prominence than they now have, and creating stronger links between private sector actors and security agencies.
  • Developing better monitoring by Ministries of Economy; presently, governments capture statistics without giving much background. They can and should provide more information to regulatory bodies.

The surge of Chinese SOE-led interest into Western infrastructure and high-tech can help bridge the gap between supply and demand for investment dollars. However, we need to be realistic about Beijing’s own industrial goals and objectives and the nature of its investment strategy. A common assessment system for the Five Eyes allies would assist in safeguarding our interlinked telecommunications and high-tech sectors.


Pushback: Why the Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance Should Keep Chinese Investors at Bay

rsz_2017-07-05t065330z_402369696_rc154be65000_rtrmadp_3_china-robotics

The National Interest, 25 July, 2017

There has been a dramatic shift of investment into the West, which may have a deep impact on U.S. security and the country’s future way of life. According to a report recently published by the Henry Jackson Society, China is making massive investments into Western digital and critical national infrastructure, and Western states are not reacting in a coordinated or rational way. This article argues that those states can and should coordinate a collective reaction through the Five Eyes intelligence alliance. The Five Eyes—arguably one of the strongest and long-lasting intelligence coalitions in history—consists of five of the most robust liberal democracies in the West: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United States.

Bound by strong cultural links, these five states have seen off authoritarian communist dictatorships and global conspiracy theories from a range of directions. Following the collapse of the Soviet Empire and its satellites, the men and women who worked in the shadows to keep us safe during that time turned their attention toward failed and failing states. They also began defending us from corporate espionage and, now, the rise of domestic-based Islamist terrorism. While the members of this shadow group still work on those issues, a new one has presented itself, and from an unusual and unlikely direction—Chinese malicious investment.

To finish this article, click here.


HJS Report: Safeguarding our System: Chinese Investment into the UK’s Digital and Critical National Infrastructure

DFAThdgXUAE1DH0

Henry Jackson Society, 18 July, 2017

China’s investment into Western advanced economies – including that of the UK
– is increasing and changing in scope surging from EUR 14 billion in 2015 to EUR
20 billion in 2016, a 44% jump since 2014. More than 60% of the value of deals has been by state-owned enterprises, indicating this push is led by state strategy than commercial
interests.
• In 2016, China invested $11.15 billion into the UK. More than double the amount in
2015 and the most in any one year going back to 2005.
• China’s economic strategy, Made in China: 2025, might threaten the long-term
survival of UK businesses unless some sort of government protection is afforded to
them or unless China affords British businesses more access to China’s home market.
• Because of cyber vulnerabilities, critical national infrastructure will be at the forefront
of any future war.
• The current review system could be improved and rationalised:
– It has allowed access to the UK’s digital and critical infrastructure with elements
of China’s defence industrial concerns
– It has allowed deals that have affected the UK’s closest military allies
– It allows for domestic and foreign pressure on the government of the day
• A formal investment screening regime is both necessary and desirable to protect the
UK’s economic interests and its national security.
• A new regime should be built, which is adequately resourced to carry out the difficult
task of tracking foreign direct investment (FDI) into the sensitive parts of the UK’s
economy.
• The new regime should begin to coordinate more closely with the UK’s closet military
and intelligence-sharing allies, including the Five Eyes partners and NATO member
states.
• Any new regime should carry out its review process in a judicious but swift manner so
that foreign investment in the UK is not hampered or harmed. This report suggests
that the regime should be sufficiently able to pass its decisions within 30 days of
receiving an inquiry.
• Ideally, any regime should be overseen by a special committee in Parliament to ensure
that it is sufficiently funded and resourced to carry out its activities, and that it is
carrying them out in a legal, expedient and sufficient manner

To read the full report, please click here.


Written Evidence for Foreign Relations Select Committee Inquiry on UK-China Relations

Evidence, UK Parliament, 28 April, 2017

1.                   The UK’s China policy under the former government was based on a number of erroneous assumptions that predicate that (i) Chinese economic growth is certain and sustainable, (ii) that Chinese investment into the UK was an unalloyed good; and that (iii) there are few political risks to engagement to China; and (iv) that China is a status-quo power which desires only modest changes to the current global order.

2.                   Western debates about rising power China have long been divided between those who emphasize engagement and the transformative side of trade and those who emphasize China’s autocratic government, human rights record, and assertive foreign policy (particularly over its near maritime space). Over the past ten years, there has been a gradual shift as China watchers have begun to adopt a more critical view of China’s foreign policy behaviour, which has been particularly strong among foreign policy elites in the United States, Japan, and other regional (Asian-Pacific) powers. Despite this shift, most diplomacy seeks to hedge against the risks inherent in China’s rise, carrying out both engagement and balancing behaviours. While many in the mainstream insist that this is the best means of maintaining peaceful and stable relations with China, this ambiguity may be ultimately ineffective, and even counter-productive to both UK national interest and to defending a rules-based international order.

3.                   By this reading, the current spate of tensions between Washington and Beijing are down to the unpredictability of the new Trump administration, and the UK should not or cannot afford to become involved. While these three assumptions still define bilateral ties, they are becoming less and less valid and should be reviewed in the light of changes inside China and in China’s foreign policy behaviour. This submission examines the bilateral under the following propositions:

•         The UK cannot afford let trade define the relationship with Beijing, despite the pressures of Brexit, instilling instead a policy of “cautious engagement”

•         The UK should not develop too strong a dependency on Chinese trade, given the structural weaknesses of its economy, such as slowing growth, uncertain financial reporting methods, the property bubble, the continued dominance of state owned enterprises (SOE), and the large national debt to GDP ratio. There is a potential for sudden shocks.

•         The UK must also consider the costs and risks of Chinese investment inside the UK.

•         The UK must reconsider the proposition that economic interdependency is making China into a “responsible stakeholder”. In key ways, it has not.

•         The UK must realize that Chinese actions in the South China Sea (and Asia Pacific more widely) are bound to effect the UK. The idea that the UK can stand aside as a major power attempts to control a major Europe-Asia trade route is misguided and counter-productive to UK national interests.

To finish reading, please click here.

 

 



America, Japan and the UK: A New Three-Way Alliance?

hemmings[1]

With Chris Bew, Researcher, Henry Jackson Society

The National Interest, 4 April, 2017

In January 2016, standing on the flight deck of the USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier based in Japan, the UK defence secretary, Michael Fallon, spoke of Washington’s commitment to a “three-way alliance” between the United Kingdom, Japan and the United States. He stated that the three countries would develop their commitment to interoperability by working closely together in the future. This is significant because it comes at a time when there are serious questions about stability in the region, and when the East and South China Seas may become crucial issues in relations between Beijing, Washington and Tokyo.

Putting this rhetoric into practice, on October 20, 2016, the chief of the Japanese Maritime Force and the chiefs of the British and U.S. navies sat across the table from each other at the Pentagon to sign a trilateral cooperation agreement. This agreement commits all three navies to closer cooperation, with increased exercises and joint patrols in the future. Signed at the service-level, this agreement sets forth a roadmap for what it calls “mutually desired strategic effects.”

<!–

–>Why Team Up?
In the context of an increasingly uncertain world, we are seeing more and more states aligning with each other in non-traditional security relationships at the global level. These alignments are non-traditional in the sense that they are not formal alliances, but rather informal and ever-expanding arrangements. Covering a host of different areas, they are in many ways a reaction to the complex level of threats facing liberal democracies these days. Considering Britain’s imminent departure from the European Union, forming alliances with other powerful nations around the world is fundamental. With the United Kingdom, United States and Japan each being liberal democracies and having vested interests in the maintenance of the international rules-based system, they make natural bedfellows.

 

UK-Japan Relations
Focusing closer on the relationship between the UK and Japan, the current bastion of UK-Japan security cooperation is the 2+2 meetings. These have been held annually since 2015. At these meetings, the foreign and defence secretaries from both sides come together, usually for two days of meetings, to discuss a range of common areas of interest. The 2+2 arrangement allows both states to talk about areas of common concern, which allows them to signal both each other, and third-party states about their intentions and interests.

During the January 2016 2+2, both countries affirmed their support for the rule of law in the East and South China Seas. They also expressed a full commitment to Ukrainian sovereignty, adding their concern over North Korea’s missile and nuclear program. To those listening, the 2+2 is perhaps a hint of the security preferences of both the UK and Japan. Other purposes of the 2+2 meetings include helping to socialise each other towards common security interests and enabling both countries to create a framework for bilateral security cooperation.

In the last January 2017 2+2, both countries signed the Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement (ACSA) to facilitate closer bilateral defence logistics. This agreement will enable the two militaries to cooperate abroad on combined exercises and peacekeeping operations, alongside humanitarian assistance and disaster relief missions. Ultimately, this will increase the efficiency of both country’s forces. So, for instance, British tankers will be able to refuel Japanese aircraft, or Japanese ships might be able to refuel British vessels, and so on. An ACSA is really the first step in the holy grail of interoperability for conventional militaries. This agreement improves future cooperative expediency because it removes the need for further individual case-by-case agreements.

UK-Japan Future Cooperation
The tightening of UK-Japan relations comes at a time when rising powers in Asia-Pacific are causing critical uncertainty in the region and beyond. This has led to policymakers strengthening alliances around the world. The United Kingdom and Japan are a strong example of such an alliance that has been redoubled in recent years.

Another significant area of future cooperation between London and Tokyo includes a joint research project on Chemical and Biological Protection suits and other weapons systems. In an age of shrinking defence budgets and rising threats, it makes sense to partner with other liberal democracies, sharing useful technology and pooling precious research and development funding. This follows the success of the first round of talks of a new Joint New Air-to-Air Missile. This sharing of technology is significant because it builds a framework for ever-closer collaboration between both countries for the foreseeable future in a world where nations are choosing their alliances extremely carefully. In a time of growing insecurity, such partnerships are to be welcomed.

The Syrian Intifada

a-shab yurid iskat an-nizam

Jeremy S. Maxie

Energy & Political Risk Consultant

In Pace

Peace in Korea and beyond

southseaconversations 讨论南海

China comments on the South (China) Sea disputes

Christopher Phillips

Academic, Writer, Commentator

tokyocooney

(does america)

Philosophical Politics

political philosophy of current events

Minh Thi's blog

pieces of me

North Korea Leadership Watch

Research and Analysis on the DPRK Leadership

National Post

Canadian News, World News and Breaking Headlines

Quartz

Quartz is a digitally native news outlet for the new global economy.

TIME

Current & Breaking News | National & World Updates

Moscow-on-Thames

Sam Greene - London & Moscow

kirstyevidence

Musings on research, international development and other stuff

The Rights Angle

Francesca Pizzutelli's blog on human rights and human beings

Bayard & Holmes

If you're in a fair fight, you're using poor tactics

Grand Blog Tarkin

A roundtable of strategists from across all space and time.

Sky Dancing

a place to discuss real issues

Oscar Relentos

Welcome to my catharsis

mkseparatistreport

A Blog Focused on Bringing Policy and Chinese language Translations Relating to Separatists and Terrorism

playwithlifeorg

4 out of 5 dentists recommend this WordPress.com site

HarsH ReaLiTy

A Good Blog is Hard to Find

Variety as Life Spice

“Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask and he will tell you the truth.” - Oscar Wilde

KURT★BRINDLEY

writing ★ producing ★ editing

Foreign Policy

the Global Magazine of News and Ideas

Top 10 of Anything and Everything!!!

Animals, Gift Ideas, Travel, Books, Recycling Ideas and Many, Many More

Eleanor Yamaguchi

Specialist in Japanese History and Culture

ABDALLAH ATTALLAH

Futurist | Disruptor | Coach | Reformer

Anglo-Japan Alliance

A new type of alliance

Small House Bliss

Small house designs with big impact

Europe Asia Security Forum

European perspectives on Asian security, and vice-versa

Shashank Joshi

Royal United Services Institute | Harvard University

secretaryclinton.wordpress.com/

A PRIVATE BLOG DEVOTED TO FOREIGN POLICY & THE SECRETARY OF STATE

Adventures in (Post) Gradland

Thoughts on life after the PhD

springdaycomedy

Just another WordPress.com site

James Strong

Junior academic working on British foreign policy

Justice in Conflict

On the challenges of pursuing justice

Politics: Middle East

an analysis of the contemporary middle east

Sino-NK

Sino-NK is a research website for Sinologists and Koreanists.