Panetta Outlines New Weaponry For Pacific

By JANE PERLEZ
Published: June 1, 2012
Courtesy Of "The New York Times"

SINGAPORE — Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, seeking to persuade a skeptical audience of Asian officials here on Saturday that the United States is committed to enhancing its military presence in the region despite coming budget constraints, unveiled the most detailed inventory to date of planned new weapons for the region.

The Navy, Mr. Panetta said, would reconfigure its forces from a 50-50 split between the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific to 60 percent of the Navy’s assets assigned to the Pacific Ocean.

The renewed emphasis on the Pacific would involve six aircraft carriers, and a majority of the Navy’s cruisers, destroyers, littoral combat ships and submarines. These would be fortified by an increase in the number and size of military exercises in the Pacific, and a greater number of port visits.

Mr. Panetta outlined the inventory in a speech to Asian defense ministers, uniformed officers, analysts and contractors at the annual meeting here of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.

The list did not contain previously undisclosed weapons systems but represented a fuller public description and compilation of what the Obama administration has called the “pivot” toward Asia, a word that some Asian countries have complained is confusing. In deference to the unease, Mr. Panetta referred to a “rebalancing” toward Asia.

“Make no mistake — in a steady, deliberate and sustainable way — the United States military is rebalancing and brings enhanced capabilities to this vital region,” Mr. Panetta said.

The International Institute for Strategic Studies, he said, projected that for the first time this year, total military spending by all countries in Asia would surpass that of all military expenditures in Europe.

Some nations represented at the gathering have expressed skepticism that given the budget demands in Washington, the Obama administration would be able to deliver on its promises.

Others have questioned the wisdom of the stepped-up military emphasis, arguing that it appears intended to force a confrontation with China, a situation feared by many countries in the region, all of which enjoy strong trade ties with China.

As Obama administration officials have said in the past, Mr. Panetta insisted the renewed American interest in the Asia Pacific region was not aimed at China. But few in the audience said they believed that.

“What worries us is having to choose — we don’t want to be put in that position,” said the foreign minister of Indonesia, Marty Natalegawa. “The Pacific is sufficiently accommodating to provide not only for the role of China and the United States but of emerging powers, too.”

Despite Mr. Panetta’s insistence that the planned military increase in the Asia-Pacific region would be protected from the $500 billion cut ordered by President Obama in the Pentagon budget over the next 10 years, some delegates at the conference said the buildup was vulnerable to automatic spending cuts that could come into effect early next year.

In an agreement made between the White House and Congress last year, an additional $600 billion in cuts to the military over the next decade, under a process known as sequestration, will be required if Congress and the White House fail to reach agreement on an alternative measure to cut the budget deficit after the presidential election.

“The administration continues to say it is bolstering the military presence in Asia, but if sequestering takes place you have to believe it will affect budgets and deployments in Asia-Pacific,” said Bonnie Glaser, a delegate and senior fellow of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

Among the specific new weapons Mr. Panetta mentioned were the advanced fifth-generation aircraft known as the Joint Strike Fighter, the enhanced Virginia-class fast-attack submarine that can operate in shallow and deep waters, new electronic warfare and communications capabilities, and improved precision weapons.

Such weapons would give the United States the freedom to maneuver in areas where access was denied, Mr. Panetta said. This was an indirect reference to China’s efforts to develop an “anti-access, area-denial” policy using diesel electric attack submarines and other weapons that curb the United States ability to get close to China’s shores.

The new panoply of weapons specially designed for the distances of the Pacific included an aerial-refueling tanker, a bomber, and advanced maritime patrol and anti-submarine warfare aircraft, Mr. Panetta said.

Mr. Panetta was accompanied by an unusually heavyweight American delegation that included the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey; Adm. Samuel J. Locklear, the commander of the United States Pacific Command; and William J. Burns, deputy secretary of state.

In contrast, China sent a much weaker lineup than last year when the defense minister, Gen. Liang Guanglie, attended. The top Chinese official at the conference on Saturday was Lt. Gen. Ren Haiquan, the vice president of the Academy of Military Science of the People’s Liberation Army.

The reason for the relatively low level of Chinese representation was a subject of wide speculation. Some delegates said they thought the domestic political uncertainties involving the senior Communist Party leadership party leadership kept senior officials at home.

John Chipman, the chief executive of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, told the gathering after Mr. Panetta spoke that the Chinese had informed him last month that domestic priorities had made it difficult for them to send a full delegation.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: June 2, 2012

An earlier version of this misstated the Bonnie Glaser’s title. She is a senior fellow of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, not a vice president. 

Lebanon Shows Shift Of Influence In Mideast

By ANTHONY SHADID
Published: January 18, 2011
Courtesy Of "The New York Times"

BEIRUT, Lebanon — In Lebanon’s worst crisis in years, whose resolution may determine whether Hezbollah controls a government allied with the United States, American diplomacy has become the butt of jokes here. Once a decisive player here, Saudi Arabia has all but given up. In their stead is Turkey, which has sought to mediate a crisis that, given events on Tuesday in Beirut’s streets, threatens to turn violent before it is resolved.

Related

• Times Topic: Lebanon

Related in Opinion

Robert Wright: Sharing the Burden of Peace (January 18, 2011)

The confrontation here is the latest sign of a shifting map of the Middle East, where longtime stalwarts like Saudi Arabia and Egypt have further receded in influence, and emerging powers like Turkey, Iran and even the tiny Persian Gulf state of Qatar have decisively emerged in just a matter of a few years. It is yet another episode in which the United States has watched — seemingly helplessly — as events in places like Tunisia, Lebanon and even Iraq unfold unexpectedly and beyond its ability to control.

The jockeying might be a glimpse of a post-American Middle East, where the United States’ allies and foes, brought together in the interests of stability, plot foreign policies that intersect in initiatives the United States must grudgingly accept.

“There is a sense that the regional players have gone up as the United States has gone down in terms of its presence, its viability, its role,” said a high-ranking Lebanese official allied with the American-backed side in the crisis, which erupted last week.

In a series of stalemates — from the Arab-Israeli conflict to Lebanon — Turkey has proved the most dynamic, projecting an increasingly assertive and independent foreign policy in an Arab world bereft of any country that matches its stature. Its success is a subtle critique of America’s longstanding policy in the Middle East of trying to isolate and ostracize its enemies. From Hezbollah here to the followers of a populist, anti-American cleric in Iraq, Turkey has managed to forge dialogue with America’s enemies and allies alike.

“Turkey has become, I think, until the contrary is proven, an indispensable state in the reorganizing of this region,” said Sarkis Naoum, an analyst and prominent columnist in Beirut.

So far, the interventions of Turkey and others in the Lebanese crisis are mostly symbolic, ventures into a maddeningly complex political landscape that hews to a formula of “no victor, no vanquished.” But in contrast to past crises, when Turkey was virtually irrelevant, the new effort signals the country’s ascent as a regional superpower.

“Our region could not cope with Lebanon entering a new atmosphere of uncertainty,” Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, said Monday before he left for Syria, where he met the leaders of Qatar and Syria. (Over the weekend, he talked with PresidentMahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran.) “We want to discuss what we can do to overcome this crisis and what other countries in the region must do for Lebanon’s stability.”

Lebanon’s renewed crisis, cutting across questions of sectarian tension in the Middle East, conflict with Israel and Hezbollah’s power in the country, pits the movement against its foes in a stalemate over an international tribunal investigating the assassination of Rafik Hariri, a billionaire and a former prime minister, in February 2005.

The tribunal issued indictments on Monday, and, though the charges remained sealed, Hezbollah has acknowledged that members of the Shiite Muslim movement will be named in the investigation, which it has denounced as an American-Israeli tool. For months, it has sought to undermine the tribunal, questioning its witnesses and evidence, and demanding that the government end its cooperation and denounce the charges. The government led by Mr. Hariri’s son, Saad, refused, and in protest, Hezbollah and its allies withdrew from it, forcing its collapse after a 14-month tenure.

Deadlock has ensued. Many believe that a negotiated solution will eventually end it, but the urgency to find a deal may not come before more strife. In what many saw as a signal by Hezbollah on Tuesday, scores of men dressed in black gathered in various neighborhoods in the capital after dawn. Organized and disciplined, they seemed to move toward Beirut’s downtown and airport, but dispersed within an hour.

“What happened today was just a small message,” said Rafic Nasrallah, an analyst and director of the International Center for Media and Research in Beirut. “The other side should read it very carefully. Until now, the opposition is giving a chance to mediation.”

“But,” he asked, “how long should it wait?”

After the summit meeting in Damascus on Monday, the foreign ministers of Qatar and Turkey visited Beirut on Tuesday, seeing all the parties to the conflict. The trip itself seemed to signal a more intense regional effort that has filled a vacuum left by what some officials describe as an incoherent Saudi policy and an unfocused American approach.

“I wouldn’t call it an aggressive role,” Mohammed Chattah, a foreign policy adviser to Mr. Hariri, said of the American effort here. “I wouldn’t even call it a central role, certainly not at this stage. The regional players are much more visible.”

Even for American allies, like Mr. Hariri, the United States has become such a contentious player, loathed so deeply by one side in the crisis, that a more visible role would only harm its friends. In an embarrassing episode, its ambassador was summoned to the Foreign Ministry for interfering in Lebanon’s affairs after a visit to a minor lawmaker. The meeting was soon skewered by television stations across the spectrum.

Saudi Arabia, long the main Arab backer of Mr. Hariri, has receded since it failed to find a compromise with Syria last week.

Turkey’s entry into the fray follows a pattern of initiatives in the region that do not always line up with American wishes. In May 2008, American officials were taken aback at the announcement of indirect talks, mediated by Turkey, between Syria and Israel. That year, Qatar mediated a deal between Lebanon’s factions that left American officials divided. In both cases, its officials were left in the dark, diplomats say, so as not to undermine a deal.

In Lebanon on Tuesday, Turkey found the rarest of circumstances when Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu arrived here: a welcome from both sides.

“They’re well placed more than any other country in the region,” said Mr. Chattah, the foreign policy adviser to Mr. Hariri.

Ali Hamdan, an aide to Nabih Berri, the Parliament speaker and an ally of Hezbollah, called Turkey “helpful.” He added, “Their international relations will help market any deal they can reach.”

Nada Bakri and Hwaida Saad contributed reporting.

A version of this news analysis appeared in print on January 19, 2011, on page A8 of the New York edition.

The Changing Middle East Landscape

Turkey’s switch from Israeli ally to Israeli opponent will have profound consequences for the balance of power in the Middle East

By Patrick Seale
First Published 2010-06-07
Courtesy Of "Middle-East-Online"

Israel’s commando attack on 31 May on the flotilla bound for Gaza has had three immediate consequences: Turkey has become Israel’s bitter adversary; international pressure is mounting on Israel to lift the siege of Gaza; and Western governments are being forced to review their decision to boycott Hamas -- a decision they took under American and Israeli pressure after Hamas’ electoral victory of 2006.

In a clear challenge to Israel -- as well as to Europe and America -- Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan this week described Israel’s attack on the aid flotilla as “state terrorism.” In a striking contrast, he declared that Hamas was not a terrorist organisation but a resistance movement struggling to recover its land. This is not news in the Arab world, but in the West it represents the breaking of a taboo.

Erdogan’s cry has been taken up in Europe. To quote a single example, Dominique de Villepin, a former prime minister of France, wrote in Le Monde on 5 June that the siege of Gaza must be lifted as a first step, and that -- “as everyone knows very well” -- Hamas must be brought into the peace process leading to the creation of a Palestinian state.

Turkey’s switch from Israeli ally to Israeli opponent will have profound consequences for the balance of power in the Middle East. It deals a severe blow to Israel’s military supremacy in the region, which has been the central plank of is security doctrine since the founding of the Jewish State in 1948.

Israel now faces a formidable combination of adversaries, consisting of Turkey and Iran, the two regional heavyweights, as well as Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas. Rarely has Israel’s strategic environment been so unfavourable -- largely as a result of its own aggressive policies.

The regional landscape is changing. Following its overwhelming victory in the 1967 war, Israel enjoyed unchallenged supremacy for the next forty years. This supremacy was seriously threatened only once -- that is to say by the October war of 1973, which was an attempt by Egypt and Syria to reverse the verdict of 1967.

The war started well from the Arabs’ point of view, but its outcome restored Israel’s advantage. In particular, Israel’s peace with Egypt in 1979 removed the most powerful Arab state from the Arab line-up. This allowed Israel to concentrate its forces in the north. The consequence was Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982, which was aimed at bringing that country into Israel’s strategic orbit. Had this aim been realised -- had Israel been able to install a friendly government in Beirut under its protection -- Syria would have been neutralised. Syria and is allies fought back, and the danger was averted.

Over the past three decades, Israel has acted repeatedly to maintain its regional military supremacy. In 2003, it was instrumental in pushing the United States into war against Iraq, a country Israel saw as posing a potential threat to the east. But the destruction of Iraq had the unintended consequence of promoting Iran as a regional power. Since then, Israel has campaigned tirelessly for Iran, in turn, to be brought low. It has pressed for harsh international sanctions against it and has repeatedly threatened to attack its nuclear facilities, if the United States did not do the job itself.

At the same time, Israel has reacted violently to attempts by two non-state actors, Hizbullah and Hamas, to challenge Israel’s supremacy by acquiring a minimal deterrent capability. It tried to destroy Hizbullah by its 2006 assault on Lebanon, and Hamas by its assault on Gaza in 2008-9.

Although, Israel did very considerable damage to both Lebanon and Gaza, one might argue that both Hizbullah and Hamas have emerged stronger from these conflicts.

Turkey has since consolidated its position as a regional power by developing a vast network of relations in the Balkans, the Middle East, the Caucasus and Central Asia. Among Arab states, its relations with Syria have become particularly close. In contrast, Turkey has decided to review all its military and economic agreements with Israel, and to reduce its relations to a minimum, according to its deputy prime minister, Bulent Arinc.

The present situation is fraught with danger but also with hope. An attempt by Israel to restore its battered supremacy by some great military strike cannot be excluded. On the other hand, the world has become increasingly impatient with Israel’s contempt for international law and its readiness to resort to force.

Condemnation of Israel has opened a rare window of opportunity for the Palestinians. Will they have the wisdom to seize it? It is today more vital than ever for the Palestinians to end their internal quarrels and close ranks. Their aim should be to form a government of national unity, and seek recognition of it from the United States and the European Union.

Without Palestinian unity there can be no real progress on the peace front. And without peace, the region will be condemned to more violence.

Patrick Seale is a leading British writer on the Middle East. His latest book is The Struggle for Arab Independence: Riad el-Solh and the Makers of the Modern Middle East (Cambridge University Press).

© 2010 Patrick Seale – distributed by Agence Global