Friday News Roundup — October 28, 2022
Washington is relatively quiet now, as most of the focus is on the midterm campaign trail. With early voting already underway in many states, the American people are having their voice heard at the ballot box. We now await their verdict, not only on the hot button issues of the economy and culture war, but also on politics that reached a nadir of negativity, peaks of spending, and tough choices ahead for a very-divided nation.
Stepping away from politics, however, can remind us of the importance of leadership and legacy. Both come to mind in remembering former Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, who passed away this week. The 2016 recipient of the CSPC Eisenhower Award for his leadership of the Department of Defense, Secretary Carter was a force for modernization and reform within the department — removing the restrictions on women’s roles in the military and those prohibiting transgender individuals from serving — while ensuring that the American warfighter had the tools, resources, and support they needed to prevail. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family, friends, and colleagues.
This week Joshua C. Huminski, the director of the Mike Rogers Center for Intelligence & Global Affairs reviewed “Nomad Century” for the Diplomatic Courier. An exploration of the migratory impact of climate change, Gaia Vince suggests that the world needs to prepare for increased flows of people and the resulting political and economic effects of these flows sooner rather than later. An interesting perspective, it falls short on the role of the nation-state and fails to dive deeply into the security challenges resulting from these flows.
For the Hill, Huminski also penned an op-ed on the Administration’s need to better explain America’s interests in Ukraine’s fight with Russia, and to ask critical strategic questions such as how will the war end.
In upcoming events of note, CSPC President & CEO Glenn Nye will participate in a November 16th discussion on the midterm elections hosted by the Japan Society. More detail is available here.
In this week’s roundup, Dan Mahaffee sees 2022 as the start of the new Cold War. Joshua Huminski covers Rishi Sunak’s arrival at 10 Downing Street. Ethan Brown and CSPC Presidential Fellow alumnus Justin Kurth look at Space Force’s role in warfighting. As always we wrap with news you may have missed.
2022 & the New Cold War
Dan Mahaffee
2022 will be history’s marker for when the Sino-American Cold War began in earnest. The Party Congress coronation of Xi Jinping and the Biden administration escalation of technology sanctions mark wholesale shifts in how Beijing’s and Washington’s perceptions of each other — and themselves. Coming after Russia’s expanded invasion of Ukraine, the perceptions of threat and conflict have changed, not only for U.S. and Chinese policymakers, but also leaders in government and business around the world. How we move forward requires a careful balance between embracing our strengths and addressing our weaknesses — while being clear eyed about the scope of the challenges ahead.
What the 20th Party Congress made clear is that, for now, it is Xi’s China. The standing committee of loyalists demonstrates a consolidation of power that has taken place over the past decade — often behind the scenes, other times very publicly — and the removal of the consensus-based system that served as a brake on any one-man rule of China. The very public embarrassment of Hu Jintao demonstrated at a minimum that there would be no other “paramount leader” sharing the stage with Xi, while signaling — alongside the committee appointments — the sunset of Hu’s cadre within the party. More sinisterly, the scene comes out of many a dictator’s playbook: “if I can do this to him, imagine what I can do to you…” Beyond that drama, the reality ahead is that China has a leadership cadre focused on Xi Jinping’s priorities. We see those priorities apparent in Zero-Covid, the Uyghur genocide, the crackdown on Hong Kong, moves to prepare for invasion of Taiwan, and economic debt-trap coercion married with wolf-warrior diplomacy on a global stage.
As we have previously covered, the Biden administration’s shift regarding the technology competition with China also reflects a changing economic and technological relationship. With the United States now openly restricting China’s technological advance, the contours of the competition are clear as ever. Halting China’s access to key technologies does buy some time, and may shut off some avenues of research and development, but we can no longer assume that our technological superiority over the competition — nor expect other countries automatically to follow suit. Still, we must be careful about our own approach, even as we highlight China’s excesses. In many ways the Biden administration has continued a tough approach to China that many policymakers in the Trump administration began to chart. That said, the main critique of Biden by the likely incoming Republican House majority (or House and Senate majorities) is that the administration has been weak on China. Therefore even harsher measures, including outbound investment review, seem likely agenda items for a new Congress. Here, we must avoid the temptation to pursue policies that “out-China, China” or do more harm than good to our own competitiveness.
This economic element is one of the reasons why some reject the label Cold War, or chide those who use it for an over-reliance on historical comparison. Certainly the U.S.-China economic co-dependence is now challenged by the geopolitical tension and pressures in both capitals for decoupling. The Cold War for example, never had this, or really any level, of economic interdependence between the two blocs. Nor did the Soviet Union ever reach anywhere near our economic size. However, those facts should not dissuade us from addressing the gauntlet thrown down by Beijing — rather we must understand that this competition will not only take place with the tools we know of the past Cold War: fleets, forces, spies, diplomats, etc., but also financial markets, supply chains, critical infrastructure, and the other various sinews of economic power. Importantly, we must ensure that resilience is baked in throughout these . Still, as we embark on this competition we have to be aware of the economic disruption that could result, as well as the fact that many countries and businesses will still be reluctant to turn their back on the Chinese marketplace.
Befitting the technological aspect of this competition, this new Cold War will be quite like a competition of operating systems. We need to make sure that our system is running smoothly, serving as the most attractive to those around the world wondering whether the future is one defined by Washington and its allies or Beijing and Moscow. In many ways, to succeed, we’ll have to focus less on a future that we define, and one that we build together with the Global South. This is where an approach that aims to work with allies can bring greater benefits. At the same time, we must also ensure that given the scope of this challenge — especially if the U.S. is more focused on the Indo-Pacific — that Europe can carry its share of the strategic burden. Even if not actively engaged in the Indo-Pacific, Europeans will need to shoulder more of their own security and range of measures needed to deter and compel Moscow.
Finally, if we are to understand the importance of the Cold War historical analogy, it is that the strength to prevail and success will be found at home, not overseas. While Xi Jinping is putting China on a questionable course while Putin flails in Ukraine, we cannot assume continued mistakes by our adversaries. Therefore, leadership matters at home. How can we face the challenge when our political unity evokes memories of 1860 rather than 1950? Not only is leadership important for communicating this challenge to the American people, but also emphasizing what we need to do to confront it. For example, the data on learning loss during pandemic school closures should be a wake up call not only about inquiries and failures education but also the future of our society.
Unfortunately, our political rhetoric about 2022 fails to grasp what will likely be the historical significance of this year. If there is one lesson that we can still use from the history of the Cold War, we can have our political divisions — but we cannot lose sight of our purpose.
Rishi Sunak Becomes the United Kingdom’s Latest Prime Minister
Joshua C. Huminski
This week, Rishi Sunak, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, became the fifth Conservative Party leader and, thus, the prime minister of the United Kingdom in just six years. Whether Sunak will be able to manage a turbulent and divided Conservative Party while addressing the litany of growing political and economic challenges very much remains to be seen. It is, however, clear that Britain can ill-afford any more political turbulence in the near-term.
After Liz Truss’ departure after 44 days in office (failing to outlast the Daily Star’s head of lettuce), Sunak received the backing of over 100 members of parliament (the threshold for candidacy) and saw off potential challenges from former prime minister Boris Johnson, and leader of the House of Commons Penny Mordaunt. Sunak becomes the United Kingdom’s first prime minister of Indian descent and the youngest prime minister in Britain’s modern history. A Brexiteer, Sunak entered parliament in 2015 and rapidly rose to the apex of British politics.
Sunak’s election brings a close to at least this latest phase of political turmoil within the United Kingdom that saw a revolt against Prime Minister Johnson, a tumultuous Tory Party election, Prime Minister Truss enter into 10 Downing Street only to have her leadership derailed by a disastrous mini-budget that sent the country’s economy into freefall (after the passing of Queen Elizabeth II), and which was capped off by her resignation. Even this brief summary fails to capture the incredible scenes of sheer chaos within the Party and Parliament, not the least of which were resignations, firing, pandemonium and physical manhandling during a vote, and political chaos more often seen in Italy than the United Kingdom. Indeed, the Economist referred to the United Kingdom as “Britaly” in a recent leader.
The Tory Party leadership contest saw Sunak run against Truss. For her part, Truss tried to embody the values of the late Margret Thatcher, which saw her across the finish line, but only amongst the Party members — the Conservative Party leadership contest sees only dues paying members casting ballots. Sunak, for his part, was more centrist than Truss, offering up a platform that was far more economically circumspect that Truss’s aggressive supply-side and trickle-down approach to the state’s coffers.
While Sunak’s election may bring about a close to this chapter, it neither means that he has a hold on the Conservative Party itself nor that he fully has a grip on the slate of challenges he inherits. In the case of the former, the Party — once seen as a broad tent of sorts — has descended into bitter and open factionalism with Johnson supporters, Brexiteers, pseudo-nationalists, moderates, blue collar Tories and more (with many identities overlapping) all generating turmoil within the party. It remains to be seen and is indeed doubtful that Sunak has the political heft or clout to wrangle these disparate and wayward MPs into a coherent platform of government.
Indeed, the only thing keeping them together is a very real and very sensible fear of a Labour Party comeback in a general election. Sunak’s downgrading of a cabinet post related to climate change and decision to not attend COP27 is likely an attempt to address skeptics within the party itself as well as focus on his shaky foundation in Downing Street before embarking on overseas activities.
In the case of the latter, the slate of challenges facing Sunak would be daunting even if he was not attempting to asset grip over a contentious and rowdy group of Conservative MPs. From inflation and interest rates, rising energy costs, a slowing economy, housing shortages, innumerable open Brexit-related issues, a stagnating National Health Service, and more, the United Kingdom faces a raft of significant and serious challenges. Sunak will enjoy the benefit of the doubt in the near term, but attention will be closely paid to his first moves and first actions.
The Tories may rally around him if nothing else to downplay the schisms within the party and quiet calls for a general election, which are growing in volume, especially from the Labour Party. If the Tories cannot rally behind Sunak and another leadership contest results, the pressure for an early general election may become unstoppable, despite the technical hurdles to actually holding one before January 2025 (the latest date for the next polls). Sunak will, nonetheless, face parallel pressure to steady the markets, demonstrate progress, and keep the party together. Here his youth and rapid rise may work against him. One imagines that as seasons a politician as Tony Blair or David Cameron would be hard pressed to juggle these competing pressures, and as of yet, it is unclear whether Sunak will be in the vein of a Blair or a Cameron in terms of skill or temperament, or merely another Truss.
A viable argument for Space Forces warfighting role
Ethan Brown & Justin Kurth
This week, the Mitchell Institute released a somewhat controversial, but compelling report on Spacepower Studies, arguing that the Space Force should take up the banner of driving JADC2 efforts for the Defense Department. This is a timely and interesting position, written by Tim Ryan of the Mitchell Institute, Dr. Brad Tousley of Raytheon, and retired Air Force Lt. General David Deptula, Dean of Aerospace studies at the Mitchell Institute.
JADC2, for the roundup faithful, is a well-worn topic of defense vectoring and resourcing that this corner has followed closely since major programmatic progress hit the media proclamation in 2019. In short, Joint All-Domain Command and Control is the network of networks that enable data-sharing across the DoD in war, from the 5th- and 6th-generation fighter jets to the submarine commanders to the soldiers on the front lines to the logisticians enabling each mission. Everyone connected and sharing critical battlefield data, in order to streamline killchain and strategic decision sequences, thus constraining the adversary’s ability to act.
But to date, the services (Air Force, Army, and Navy) Joint C2 efforts have all largely been unilateral endeavors, with program managers promising interoperability, and in many cases, proving so. But the push to centralize development of the JADC2 and All-Domain Operations initiative for the DoD has been hamstrung by a lack of clear, unifying codification and thus…commercial and experimental technology has not been fully harnessed to make this critical capability Death Star ready (that is, fully operational).
The Space Force, whose Organize, Train, and Equip charter mandates that the USSF will “provide space capabilities to the Joint Force…developing Guardians, acquiring military space systems, maturing the military doctrine for space power, and organizing space forces to represent our combatant commands”, owns the domain of network architecture. Thus, the need to include the service in JADC2 development should be evident across all halls. It is within such charter lingo that the Mitchell Report finds its legitimacy for this argument: that space impacts every service, all combatant and geographic commands regardless of uniform color/banner, and thus, the systems upon which those services rely in order to execute command and control reside within the further reaches of U.S. national security interests — precisely the kind of thing Space Force needs as a mission statement.
Efforts to make JADC2 ‘Joint’ have been…a struggle to date, despite leaders from various services touting interoperability during on-ramp exercises. Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall rightly took the initiative in responding to such calls from the highest levels of Pentagon leadership by tabbing a recent Air Force hire — Chief Digital and AI Officer (CDAO) Craig Martell — to execute better integration and centralized oversight of the program writ large as charged by Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks earlier this year. Acquisitions and Information sectors are key in this endeavor, and frankly, the Air Force has owned this integrated C2 endeavor much longer than any other actor in the JADC2 push.
However, it only makes sense that such an equipment and systems-dependent architecture resides in the hands of the force who as of yet does not have a functionally clear warfighting function, and whose purview exists in the bytes, waves, and architecture upon which this future capability depends. As other concept pieces in this column have suggested, the manner in which warfare manifests in future conflicts will not be so straightforward as kinetic weapons and linear fronts. Rather, it will occur on the networks and signal waves between antagonists.
If there is one aspect of the recommendation that needs critique, it is the vagueness associated with terminology such as “consequences, both kinetic and non-kinetic, for attacking U.S. assets in space”. The issue here is that the recommendation stands in stark contrast to the Biden-Harris administration’s ban on ASAT testing. Multiple U.S. allies have adopted similar bans in the time since, recognizing the impact debris has on space operations and planning.
Resumption of these tests by the U.S. would not only produce more debris, it would encourage further testing by other countries. Moreover, as critical as JADC2’s space-based systems will be to enhancing synergistic operations, generating more orbital debris would likely endanger the joint architecture through a chain reaction of exponential destruction, commonly referred to as the Kessler Syndrome.
The risk of mutual orbital destruction increases ever higher as lower-earth orbit becomes more congested. With the U.S. responsible for over half of the world’s 14,000 satellites in orbit, JADC2 space-based systems would be added to the list of critical systems already at risk.
Additionally, and in direct contravention to Article IV of the UN Outer Space Treaty, stationing weapons in orbit is another recommendation that could jeopardize U.S. and allied civil and military space-based resources for the reasons mentioned above. Furthermore, weapons are made to be used before an enemy weapon can be and, as a result, are often targets of enemy weapons. As such, space-based weapons are far more likely to create or become destructive and even potentially deadly debris.
Thus, the imperative is not to create a bog of debris and detritus that impedes successful space domain utilization, but focuses the force on creating integrated and secure use of the higher front in order to retain decision and information advantage.
There are alternatives to interdicting and deterring/defeating malicious (read: Chinese Communist/People’s Liberation Army, Russian, Iranian) actions in space, which demand investment and refinement but are vastly superior alternatives all the same. The exploitation of the signals domain which still possess deterrent potential is one, and a critical one that underpins the JADC2 effort. Further, the legitimacy of space behavior norms led by the example of the United States, is a much more realistic long-term solution.
There is no doubt that the Space Force needs explicit, congressionally achievable strategic vectoring, and must rapidly evolve into a combat-capable service branch to defend and support U.S. and allied partners in the space domain. Seizing the command and control initiative is a terrific recommendation, so long as we do not undermine our broader space efforts in the process.
News You May Have Missed
Reports suggest Japan nearing Deal to buy Tomahawk Missiles
The Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper was the first to report talks between Tokyo and Washington to finalize the purchase of Tomahawk missiles. Given growing tensions with North Korea and missile launches into the Sea of Japan and over Japan, leaders in Tokyo and within the Japanese Self-Defense Force have sought greater deterrent capabilities. Given the potentially offensive nature of these weapons, which would be naval based, there will be some controversy given Japan’s constitutional restrictions — although they are increasingly reinterpreted by Japanese leaders.
Indigenous Asylum Seekers from Russia Traveled to Alaska by Boat
Speaking at the Alaska Federation of Natives Convention on October 22, U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski explained that two asylum seekers had traveled from the Russia Far East to Alaska’s St. Lawrence Island on a 15-foot-skiff to avoid conscription into Russia’s military. Both asylum seekers are Indigenous Siberians who claim that the Russian government has been using ethnic minorities living in rural areas as targets for conscription. The asylum seekers’ exact locations are being protected. They are originally from Provideniya, a coastal community in the Chukotka region, across the Bering Straits from Alaska. The Chukchi and the Inuit make up the major Indigenous groups in Provideniya. Other Indigneous groups reported to be targets for conscription by the Russian government include the Tatars, Buryats, and Tuvans.
Murkowski stressed that security in the Arctic region is important. She stated that “It is clear that Putin is focused on a military conquest at the expense of his own people. He’s got one hand on Ukraine, and he’s got the other on the Arctic. So we have to be eyes-wide-open on the Arctic.”
New French Lithium Mine Could be 2nd Largest in Europe, Helping Drive EV Production
French mining and metals processing company Imery aims to become the top supplier of lithium in Europe as the push for electric vehicle production grows. Imery said surveys at its Beauvoir mine in France will produce lithium for at least 25 years, enabling it to supply around 700,000 electric cars beginning in 2028. The French site could be the second largest lithium mine in Europe after Germany’s Upper Rhine Graben project. The project appears to have the backing of the French government. French Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire said, “This project, which is exemplary in terms of environment and climate, will drastically reduce our need for lithium imports.” Lithium is a necessary component of manufacturing electric vehicles and European miners are eager to launch domestic production of lithium which is currently majority sourced from outside the bloc. Multiple mining companies are initiating projects in Austria, Germany, and the Czech Republic. For EU policymakers, electric cars are a key part of plans to reduce emissions while the bloc is trying to decrease reliance on Asian sourced battery supplies. The EU is seeking to ban the sale of combustion engine vehicles from 2035 and in accordance France is moving to phase out fossil-fuel cars. French President Emmanuel Macron announced a series of measures to support households acquiring electric vehicles and shared that his administration envisions making these electric vehicles “accessible to everyone.”
The views of authors are their own and not that of CSPC.