Last week I participated in a Department of Defense Bloggers Roundtable on President Obama’s new defense strategy with Captain John Kirby (USN), Deputy Secretary of Defense for Media Operations; and Dr. George Little, Pentagon Press Secretary. In support of the new strategy the Department of Defense published a paper called Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense. The following are the key missions as stated in the paper:

“Counter Terrorism and Irregular Warfare… Achieving our core goal of
disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al-Qa.’ida and preventing Afghanistan from ever being a safe haven again will be central to this effort.”

“Deter and Defeat Aggression…Credible deterrence results from both the
capabilities to deny an aggressor the prospect of achieving his objectives and from the
complementary capability to impose unacceptable costs on the aggressor.”

“Project Power Despite Anti-Access/Area Denial Challenges. In order to credibly deter potential adversaries and to prevent them from achieving their objectives, the United States must maintain its ability to project power in areas in which our access and freedom to operate are challenged…Accordingly, the U.S.
military will invest as required to ensure its ability to operate effectively in anti-access and area denial (A2/AD) environments.”

“Counter Weapons of Mass Destruction. U.S. forces conduct a range of activities aimed
at preventing the proliferation and use of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons…In partnership with other elements of the U.S. Government, DoD will continue to invest in capabilities to detect, protect against, and respond to WMD use, should preventive measures fail.”

“Operate Effectively in Cyberspace and Space. Modern armed forces cannot conduct
high-tempo, effective operations without reliable information and communication
networks and assured access to cyberspace and space…Accordingly, DoD will continue to work with domestic and international allies and partners and invest in advanced capabilities to defend its networks, operational capability, and resiliency in cyberspace and space.”

“Maintain a Safe, Secure, and Effective Nuclear Deterrent. As long as nuclear
weapons remain in existence, the United States will maintain a safe, secure, and effective
arsenal.”

“Defend the Homeland and Provide Support to Civil Authorities”

“Provide a Stabilizing Presence. U.S. forces will conduct a sustainable pace of presence
operations abroad…These activities reinforce deterrence, help to build the capacity and
competence of U.S., allied, and partner forces for internal and external defense,
strengthen alliance cohesion, and increase U.S. influence… However, with reduced resources ,thoughtful choices will need to be made regarding the location and frequency of these operations.”

“Conduct Stability and Counterinsurgency Operations… the United States will emphasize non-military means and military-to-military cooperation to address instability and reduce the demand for significant U.S. force commitments to stability operations. U.S. forces will nevertheless be ready to conduct limited counterinsurgency and other stability operations if required, operating alongside coalition forces wherever possible… However, U.S. forces will no longer be sized to conduct large-scale, prolonged stability operations.”

Conduct Humanitarian, Disaster Relief, and Other Operations.

Captain Kirby and Dr. Little provided some more insight on the new strategy. Dr. Little spoke first stating:

“…the Defense Department over the last year has been in the process of identifying several hundred billion dollars’ worth of reductions in future defense spending. The Budget Control Act that the Congress passed last summer requires that we identify nearly $500 billion in savings over the next 10 years. And Secretary Panetta, along with the civilian and military leaders of the department, decided early on, when the Budget Control Act was passed, that it was important that we identify future savings not through a numbers-driven process but by articulating a strategy that would guide their decisions on the defense budget. And the president was very much a part of this process all along…The strategic guidance that was issued today I think reflects, as the secretary said, a strategic turning point for the United States and the configuration of our defense system around the world.

The strategic guidance recognizes that we, even in the face of fiscal tight-beltening (sic), we have to maintain our commitment to protect the United States and to protect the finest military in the world.

There are some key shifts…, we’re going to be placing increased focus on the Asia-Pacific region. We have an arc of interests and alliances from Japan all the way to India, and that region is very important to us. There are geopolitical shifts there, economic shifts, and we are going to remain a Pacific power, and we’re going to remain committed to our alliances and interests there.

We will of course remain focused on the Middle East, and we’re going to maintain our commitments to Europe and to other regions around the world.”

Captain Kirby stated:

“…there’s just a few elements here in the strategic guidance that I think are worth noting about what this means for the military… We will be leaner, therefore…we will be smaller in terms of — in terms of numbers. But we’re also going to maintain the superiority that we’ve enjoyed in the technological spectrum. We’re going to remain networked. We’re going to remain very focused on cyber…
We are now and will remain a globally postured force. Some of where we will be will change in size and scope, but we’re still going to maintain the security commitments that we’ve made around the world.

…
And then the last thing — and this is a — it’s not a small point — is inherent in this strategic guidance, this strategy moving forward, is what we call reversibility. We want… the organization, the institution itself, to be flexible enough that if we have to reverse any of these decisions, if we have to — we need the ability to surge or regenerate a capability or force structure, we can do that, if we have to.”

There’s really not much change in the missions. What is different is the size of the military and the shifting of the focus to the Asia-Pacific region. During the bloggers roundtable we were told that more specifics on the force structure would be released sometime in February when the defense budget is presented to Congress. I suspect the 80,000 strong military force in the European theater may experience downsizing but I don’t expect to see much change in the size of our Pacific forces. As I’ve mentioned in earlier blogs, even at the height of our involvement in the Persian Gulf the U.S. maintained a significant military force in the Pacific. For instance, in a recent talk before the Center for a New American Security, the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Jonathan Greenert the navy has 100 of its 285 ships currently deployed and half are in the Pacific region.

The other thing that jumped out at me was the concept of “reversibility.” Basically as Captain Kirby stated if conditions change the U.S. will make a “course change” in the strategy. I think this was one of the most significant parts of the strategy. It means if some part or all is not working they will change it. My experience is this is something the military has always done. There is a common military saying that the war plans are out of date the first day of a conflict. The issue is over the last few years with increased media coverage of military operations a course change was sometimes seen as a sign of failure or weakness instead of a process that has to be flexible if you’re going to achieve mission success.

It’s nearly impossible to accurately predict the next major defense problem. There are many areas that a crisis could develop: Iran, North Korea, Cyber, etc. The strategy has to be flexible enough that the military can be reorganized if necessary to meet the new threat. The only problem I see if the military does major downsizing as expected they need to be very careful when it comes to what areas and skills are cut. There are some skill sets that take a while to reconstitute.

My favorite example of this involves the Battleship USS New Jersey. The ship was recommissioned for the last time in 1982. When they did that the Navy realized they had a problem. No one knew how to work the ships 16 inch guns. They called back to active duty a group of men who had served on the ship during World War II. In 1982 I was assigned to Panama as part of the United States Southern Command staff (now homeported in Florida). I was privileged to get a tour of the ship as it transited the Panama Canal. I met the recalled vets and never saw a happier group of guys. Some of their active duty time had run out and they were having such a great time some volunteered to stay longer.

Think I’ll end here but would like to direct you to an excellent blog about 50 Air Force Academy cadets developing a new UAV. Both professional military contractors AND cadets submitted designs, and surprisingly, the cadets’ UAV is the final model being considered. Here’s the link:

http://strikefighterconsultinginc.com/blog/new-technology/cadets-design-air-forces-next-best-uav/

As always my views are my own.

In an era of austerity,US defense is facing cutbacks, or to stick with the administration’s euphemism, the US military will become “leaner”. This much is clear following the release of the latest US defense review, Sustaining US Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense.

Most would agree that defense spending cuts are only natural, considering the winding down of two land wars by a military that outspends the military of the next 10 countries combined. But before we soft power enthusiastic Europeans get too carried away, it is worth taking a look at what these cutbacks will mean for Europe.

Cutbacks necessarily mean prioritization of available means. If there were doubts as to where the US intends to focus its resources, the defense review made it clear; the Asia-Pacific will be given top priority while the Middle East and South Asia also will be area of special focus. Europe‘s days as US priority numero uno are long gone. With cutbacks that fact will now become apparent.

Although the defense review in diplomatic terms calls “most European countries producers of security rather than consumers of it”, and underscores its commitment to NATO and Europe, between the lines the intention is clearly that Europe must take on a larger share of its own security responsibilities. Some US commentators, particular those on the right, are less diplomatic, condemning Europeans for skimping on defense, taking advantage of the US security umbrella, while they instead spend on welfare.

Although I believe a pretty solid argument could be made for a more holistic approach to security than the one mentioned; i.e. that the strength, stability, and security of a country has as much to do with the wealth and wellbeing of a society as whole as its military, it would seem that Europe must now get serious on defense if it intends to exert influence in its own neighborhood.

The EU’s own security strategy, A Secure Europe in a Better World, has building security through the development of democratic government and the rule of law in its own neighborhood as one of its central aims. However, the intentions set forth in A Secure Europe in a Better World have largely proven outside European capabilities. In particular the intention of providing “robust intervention” has proven illusionary.

The NATO led action in Libya, for example, demonstrated the limits of European nations’ logistic capabilities. Ammunition had to be bought from the US, likewise US refueling and intelligence capabilities were relied heavily upon. As for coherence, Europe’s most powerful nation, Germany, chose to sit Libya out, making a mockery of a common EU defense policy.

In a time when the only effective security institution at Europe’s disposal, NATO, is being downsized, and no sign of the EU becoming better at pooling its military assets, it would seem that Europe will find it even harder to make its preferences felt in the future. Even with this being the case, the time is not ripe for raising defense budgets. Regardless that less security is being provided by the US, European constituents would not appreciate cuts in education, hospitals, and pensions while defense appropriations go up. Furthermore it is hard for the US to put pressure on Europe to up its defense budgets, when the US itself is slashing its expenditure.

And what do the cutbacks mean for NATO? Thomas Valasek of the Centre for European Reform points out, that as forces on both sides of the Atlantic are cut back, NATO’s security guarantees will increasingly lose their credibility. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to see the US shift toward the Asia-Pacific, coupled with the transatlantic defense cuts, as the end for NATO as we know it. Instead of an institution of collective defense, NATO will be the framework within which smaller coalitions of the willing operate.

So, perhaps Europe must seek out alternative security arrangements for itself? For example, smaller coalitions formed around core nations on more or less ad hoc basis, coupled with intergovernmental asset sharing agreements, such as the French-British talk of coordinating aircraft carrier patrols. Regardless of the desirability of such solution, considering the current state of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, solutions outside the EU framework seem the only way forward.

The US military will become “leaner” while maintaining superiority as it switches focus to the Asia-Pacific, US President Barack Obama has announced. In a rare appearance at the Pentagon, he unveiled a far-reaching defence review under which thousands of troops are expected to be axed. The tide of war was receding and the US must renew its [...]

Osh, Kyrgyzstan — A security guard stands near an overturned Russian-made Tupolev Tu-34 passenger jet at the airfield outside the southern Kyrgyz city of Osh, a day after the plane crash. The packed passenger jet flipped over and caught fire on landing. PHOTOGRAPH BY: JILDIZ BEKBAEVA / AFP / GETTY IMAGES

It was a rough but lucky landing (both “rough and “lucky” are strong understatements here) when a Soviet-built Tupolev (Tu-134) crash landed in dense fog in the city of Osh in southern Kyrgyzstan. According to The Washington Post 82 passengers and 6 crew members were evacuated, 31 of them were injured and 17 hospitalized. Miraculously everyone on board survived. No doubt, the local emergency services deserve some major kudos for reacting quickly, killing the fire and safely evacuating everybody from the scene.

RT reports there were about a dozen of children among the passengers. One of them, a seven-month-old girl, was diagnosed with a head injury and concussion. The Ministry of Transportation of Kyrgyzstan said that the crashed vehicle was working its last days, with its airworthiness due to expire on 19 January. It was also reported that the aircraft had been manufactured in 1979 and was not equipped with modern navigation systems such as GPS. Reports say one of the likely causes is a mistake made by the pilot operating the aircraft, but the accident is still to be investigated.

Here’s the description of the crash from The Aviation Herald. Note that this report on the number of passengers and crew on board of the aircraft differs from other sources. “An Altyn Air (alias Kyrgyzstan Altyn) Tupolev TU-134A, registration EX-020 performing flight QH-3 from Bishkek to Osh (Kyrgyzstan) with 73 passengers and 6 crew, suffered a hard landing resulting in the right main gear collapse, right main wing separation and the airplane rolling on its back while landing on Osh’s runway 12 in fog and low visibility around 12:15L (06:15Z), official times of landing varying from 12:05L to 12:48L. The aircraft came to a stop on soft ground about 10 meters off the right runway edge. A fire fed by a fuel leak off the left wing erupted which was quickly extinguished by airport emergency services. One passenger received serious injuries, 24 people received minor injuries (concussions, bruises), 16 of which were taken to local hospitals.”

We know that the bird involved in the crash is a Tupolev-134. Here’s a little blurb about the Tu-134s from the Associated Press: The twin-engined Tu-134, along with its larger sibling the Tu-154, has been the workhorse of Soviet and Russian civil aviation since the 1960s, with more than 800 planes built. It also has remained in service with many post-Soviet carriers. In recent years, Russia and other former Soviet nations have had some of the world’s worst air traffic safety records. Experts blame poor maintenance of the aging aircraft, weak government controls, insufficient pilot training and a cost-cutting mentality.

This type of Soviet-built aircraft was infamously involved in several deadly crashes. Here’s more info on Tupolev crashes. More recently, this past June a Tu-134 crashed in northern Russia killing 43 passengers, but it appears that a drunken pilot was at fault. Earlier in 2011 at least 43 were injured when a Tu-154B carrying 124 people, burst into flames before take-off from Surgut, Russia. And of course another painful reminder of Soviet-era aviation was the crash of a Tu-154 plane near Smolensk that killed Polish President Lech Kaczynski and 95 other people in April of 2010. Pilot error was clearly at fault here – both captain and first officer ignored numerous instrumentation warnings including verbal commands from the plane’s terrain awareness warning system (TAWS) warning the pilots to “PULL UP.” Procedure requires any pilot who receives that warning from the TAWS to immediate pull up and throttle to maximum to avoid an imminent collision with the ground. Clearly both pilots heavily deviated from standard safety protocols.

Back to our Kygryztan Air crash. Until the final findings of the commission are published it’s too early to draw any conclusions, although bad weather conditions had something to do with it. The Tupolevs are aging and even though in the past they might have been sound and well engineered planes, they have become outdated compared to modern aircraft. Not to mention they are not being properly maintained as they are mostly employed in cash-strapped countries. Modern day aircraft are sophisticated enough to be able to land automatically without human intervention more akin to a tram with a stop-and-go button. No Cold War-era planes can compete with that. In an initiative to keep its skies safe,  the E.U. banned airlines it deems unsafe from operating in European airspace and according to its website this includes the airline that was involved in the Kyrgyz crash.

There’s a lot of chatter and opinions on aviation websites debating the airworthiness of Soviet-built planes and the skill of Soviet/post-Soviet pilots. I found one post on The Aviation Herald board about the Osh accident particularly interesting. “There has been a lot of pressure on the pilot to fly (as the only road linking the northern and southern parts of the country has been often closed recently because of snow and avalanches. Flying is the only way to get to Bishkek in a reasonable time (road 14 to 16 hours now for a flight that takes 40 minutes). A TU 134 with its navigation equipment should not have been clear on that day. That the pilot was able to bring down the plane speaks for his skills and the robustness of the plane. A similar crash with one of the old Boeing 737 they use here had been fatal for sure.”

One of my colleague here at the Foreign Policy Blogs recently wrote a post in a similar vein about the safety of Soviet-made planes.

Here are more photos of the crash.

Today is the first of January 2012, a new year has begun. It will bring joy and happiness for many, some will suffer and some will struggle. That is the reality of life.

2012 will be a challenging year for small businesses across the globe. With deepening economic crisis in Europe, threat of Euro zone and Euro, possibility of Greece and Italy defaulting and push to convince Germany to take the hit by paying for financially strangled nations in Europe, things are not promising!

The US Economy continued in depression since 2007. Although, US economists and the media, including New York Times. Los-Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, Herald Tribune have acknowledged US economic growth in 2011, the consumer market still looks dull!

Middle East remained a turbulent region during 2011; it is highly unlikely for this region to perform well in the New Year.

According to Moody’s, Asia Pacific economies are going to see some slowdown mainly reflecting upon the economic crisis in Europe. There are chances of recovery in the second half of 2012, but a lot depends on how well the US and European economies perform!

The situation is alarming and a number of businesses particularly domestic businesses in smaller economies will be required to play safe. To be able to survive, small businesses must focus avoiding four major mistakes during 2012:

Expansion without growth:

A number of enthusiasts consider expansion as a tool to increase revenue. A major misconception! Before expansion starts brining revenue, a lot needs to be spent on hiring people, capital expenditure, benefits, marketing etc. If the market does not offer some growth potential in the normal course, expansion will be self-destructive!

Underutilized resources:

It is often seen that companies fail to optimize their resources. Spend time and energy in identifying the right potential of your human and other resources and engage them at an optimal level to achieve maximum output. Any underutilized resources, is money going down the drain!

Increasing Cost of Doing Business:

Cost of doing business increases exponentially for companies that are not managing their accounts well. One of the ways to keep the cost of doing business low is by balancing the receivables and payables. This reduces the financial cost of your businesses. Save energy, manage productivity and reduce cost of inventory – somehow keep strong focus on reducing your cost of doing business.

Saying no to technology:

In this world of social networking, digital marketing and technological advancement, it is highly lethal to delay integrating technology in your business model. Small or big, businesses need to learn how best they can deploy technology.. Social Media and Digital marketing is particularly supportive in case of local retail businesses. Technology is something cannot be ignored in 2012!

I wish you all a very Happy and prosperous 2012!

Gen Jean-Paul Paloméros, chief of staff of the French air force,
is confident about the Dassault Rafale's prospects in major
international competitions, and partially attributes the aircraft's
previous losses in Singapore and South Korea to politics.

"I've
flown in the Rafale and I know what it can do," said Paloméros, speaking
to Flightglobal at the Langkawi International Maritime and Aerospace
exhibition in Malaysia late last month. "Rafale was designed since
conception as a multi-role aircraft," he added.

According to
Paloméros, the Rafale is well suited to handle emerging air-to-air and
air-to-ground threats in the Asia-Pacific region.

"The Rafale has
very high manoueverability," he said. "It will be getting an AESA
[active electronically scanned array] radar and it has good weapons. It
will also receive the MBDA Meteor air-to-air missile, offering extra
range against any types of threats."

The AESA version of the
Thales RBE2 radar will be introduced into Rafale in 2013, when French
forces begin receiving the fourth block of production aircraft. The
Meteor is still undergoing development, but should be deployed on the
Rafale after the middle of the decade.

Paloméros is confident the
Rafale will emerge triumphant in India's medium multi-role combat
aircraft competition for 126 fighters, where it is on a shortlist with
the Eurofighter Typhoon. Indian media reports suggest the decision is
imminent, possibly before the end of 2011.

READ MORE

(c) BBC News – In pictures Tajik village life

Another year is coming to a close. It’s time to look back, recap and rewind 2011 in Central Asia. Let’s start with elections: two Central Asian states, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, held elections this year.

Kazakhstan’s presidential election took place on April 3, 2011.

Guess who won? Not surprising to anybody who follows Kazakhstan in the news, it’s Nursultan Nazarbayev who garnered 95.5% of the vote (with a total turn out of 89.5%) outperforming his earlier achievement of 91% in the previous election in 2005. Nazarbayev began his fourth term in office and thanks to the amendments to the constitution that makes an exception for him as “the leader of the nation,” he can run for the highest office in the country an unlimited number of times. Read the OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission Final Report here. Kazakhstan is due to hold early parliamentary elections on January 15, 2012. The snap election was expected following the April presidential poll, but was just announced last month.

Kyrgyzstan also held a vote for the country’s president. Prime Minister Almazbek Atambaev won an overwhelming share of votes on October 30, 2011 obviating the need for a run off. There was a gag on foreign press during the campaign, a strange thing by Western standards. According to the Guardian, “International observers had largely praised the runup to the election but some complained of counting irregularities. They said the scale of Atambayev’s apparent win indicated he may have benefited from reliance on state resources.”

Here’s a quick glance at year in review in Central Asia.

Kazakhstan:

U.S. Peace Corps Quits Kazakhstan. The exact reason is not clear, but Kazakhstan is definitely a loser in this situation as the opportunity for the Kazakh people to interact with foreigners and learn English got much smaller. It’s interesting that Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan are now the only countries in the Central Asia region with a Peace Corps presence.

In November, Kazakhstan witnessed one of the worst terrorist attacks the country has ever seen. A suspected militant shot dead four members of the security forces and two civilians before blowing himself up, killing another police officer, in the city of Taraz.

In October, two explosions hit the oil city of Atyrau in western Kazakhstan, killing a suspected suicide bomber.

Kyrgyzstan:

For Kyrgyzstan, the most important evens of the year were the presidential elections and healing the wounds of ethnic violence of 2010.

On May 3, 2011, the Independent International Commission of Inquiry or the Kyrgyzstan Inquiry Commission (KIC) released its final report on the interethnic violence and clashes between the country’s ethnic Kyrgyz and Uzbek communities last year. Read more about the findings here.

Tajikistan:

In January, the Tajik government ratified a 1999 deal handing over 386 square miles (1,000 sq km) of land in the remote Pamir mountain range to China.

The women’s lot in Tajikistan remains abysmal as is the situation with the freedom of speech and press.

The case of Urunboy Usumov’s is probably the most infamous this year. The 60 year old BBC reporter was arrested in June and sentenced to three years in jail over alleged connections to the Hizb ut-Tahrir group, but the judge granted him an amnesty and ordered his release. After his release, he told the BBC’s Uzbek Service he would appeal against his conviction. The BBC has strongly condemned the verdict, insisting Mr Usmonov was carrying out journalistic duties.

Last month a court in Tajikistan released two pilots, one Russian and one Estonian whose sentencing of 8.5 years in prison escalated the Tajik-Russian tension and caused a retaliation by the former.

By and large, the shenanigans between Russia and Tajikistan is not something new as it tried to raise petroleum tariffs for Tajikistan earlier this year.

Turkmenistan:

This year, Turkmenistan’s leadership received ample attention in the press and in the blogosphere along with other Central Asian leaders given the region’s democratic credentials.

Linking articles and news would probably make a long list…Just a few examples: here and here.

In other news, TAPI has been a bumpy road.

Uzbekistan:

In March of this year, for an unspecified reason, the Uzbek government shut down the Human Rights Watch offices in Tashkent. It is the first time in the organization’s 33 year history that it was kicked out from a country where it was operating. This ends HRW’s 15 year presence in Uzbekistan, since its established its offices following the country’s independence from the Soviet Union.

Much was written in the press and on the Internet about Lola Karimova, the youngest daughter of Uzbek president Islam Karimov, who in May of this year filed a law suit seeking €30,000 (US$43,000) in damages against a French news website Rue89, claiming that it described her as a “dictator’s daughter” and stated that she paid Monica Bellucci, the Italian actress, €190,000 (US$272,000) to appear at a charity event. On July 1, 2011, the French court ruled that the article was both fair and true, and could not be taken as a personal attack – the judge found that there was not sufficient evidence for the charge of libel under French law. But the issue of alleged payments to Belluci was not resolved. Ironically, the opposite of what Karimov’s daughter was trying to accomplish became obvious. The trial exposed human rights violations and the brutality with which the regime deals with opposition as two well-known exiled human rights defenders from Uzbekistan testified for the defense.

Ah,  Uzbek cotton, always creates a stir in the news every year starting in September when the cotton harvesting season begins in Central Asia. This year was no exception, although some welcoming developments took place. Sixty of the world’s major retailers, including Walmart, Walt Disney, H&M and Adidas agreed to boycott all products known to contain Uzbek cotton. In addition, The European Parliament’s foreign affairs committee unanimously blocked a trade deal that would have lowered the tariffs on EU imports of Uzbek cotton, citing objections to that country’s continued use of forced child labor in its cotton harvests. These are all promising steps.

Don’t forget about U.S. dealings with Uzbekistan. Despite it’s poor human rights record, the West depends on this Central Asian country for supply roots to Afghanistan.

Natural Disasters in the Region:

On January 24 a 6.1 magnitude earthquake struck a remote mountainous region of Tajikistan near the Chinese boarder. There were no reported deaths.

On July 19 a 6.2 magnitude earthquake with an epicenter just inside Kyrgyzstan shook the Fergana Valley affecting Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, killing at least 14 people.

Russia and Central Asia:

In October Russia signed a free trade agreement with seven other former Soviet republics among which are Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan. There are reports that Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan might join next year.

Kyrgyzstan named a mountain peak after Putin earlier this year – perhaps they had a feeling.

By: Tan Sri Omar Abdul Rahman

The government’s science and technology (S&T) apparatus is now in active consultations to formulate the third national S&T policy (NSTP3) and I have been involved in some and benefitted from them.

In an earlier article (NST 9/7/11), I had briefly described the two previous policies and given some thoughts on what the essentials of the NSTP3 should be.  I am now offering further thoughts on the subject.

However, let us first briefly revisit the evolution of science policies in general.  Initially it was just a “science policy” emphasizing the need to do “good science”.  Then it was an “S&T policy”, linking knowledge (science) do its application (technology).  Much later there was a move for a policy for “science for technology for development” focusing on harnessing S&T for national development.  This gave rise to the concept of science for development (role of S&T in implementing development) and development for science (measures to strengthen S&T capacity).   Currently it is “science, technology and innovation (STI)” policy, implying that doing good science is not good enough.  Science must translate into innovative technologies at the marketplace.  In other words STI must be an instrument of economic transformation program (ETP), (STI for policy) and in turn STI must be strengthened so it can deliver (Policy for STI).

In this connection, it is important to recognize the two crucial parallel systems of research, development and commercialization (R,D&C) and STI.  Research gives knowledge (science), development results in technology which becomes innovation when applied or commercialized.

Policy formulation must therefore be inclusive and provide for the total ecosystem.   Decoupling innovation from overall STI policy, for example, is simply not innovative.  However, once the total ecosystem is recognized and provided for, a number of subsystems such as one for innovation, another for commercialization can be formulated.  Therefore, our new policy should be the third National Science, Technology and Innovation policy (NSTIP3).

There are five main components the NSTIP3 must address. 

First, STI for policy: The current national policy is of course based on the new economic model (NEM) and the ETP with the eight strategic reform initiatives (SRIs), 12 national key economic areas (NKEASs) and 131 entry points projects (EPPs).  The recurring key words from the SRIs relate to the weakness or inefficiency of both government and industry in creativity, entrepreneurship, knowledge base, technology, innovation and value add.  These are clear indication of the need for increasing capacity in STI to support the ETP and take Malaysia out of the middle income trap.  Hence, the necessary STI components to support the NKEAs and the EPPs must be identified.   In my view the EPPs at present deal largely with the business and financial dimensions.  STI components must now be factored in for viability, competitiveness and sustainability of the businesses in the long term.  The NSTIP3 must therefore identify the technologies and supporting sciences critical to each of the EPPs and the R&D priorities to meet the needs or to solve existing and anticipated problems.  In this respect we can take a leaf from the experience of our rubber and palm oil industries, which remain strong and competitive with the support of their R&D infrastructure.

Second, policy for STI:  In order to deliver the support mentioned above, our STI capacity and capability must be strengthened in terms of institutions, mandates, personnel, funding and linkages.  Measures to strengthen education and research for capacity building in the sciences relevant to the needs of policy and for public good (e.g. water, energy, biodiversity) must be part of the NSTIP3.

Third, private sector buy-in:  There are numerous reports and analyses, including the SRIs, themselves, highlighting the weakness of our companies in terms of technology and innovation.  Since our ETP is to be private sector driven, getting their involvement and commitment to the STI agenda is crucial.  But one cannot expect the SMEs to drive innovation.  It is like tasking a 1000cc engine to pull a 40 seater bus.  The big companies and especially the GLCs must be the drivers, and the role model.  A number of initiatives to secure private sector involvement in the government’s STI agenda including cooperative research centres, industry-specific research institutes and research syndication, has been made as far back as 1997 (Danabalan, 1997 ; Omar Abdul Rahman, 1997).  These are as well as others can be re-examined by the NSTIP3.   The strategy to get private sector buy-in must include presentation (of available innovation), persuasion, incentivisation, legislation and active cooperation and collaboration with government entities.   A designated agency should be assigned the task of engaging and motivating the private sector to be a partner in implementing the STI agenda for the ETP.

Fourth, STI governance:  Since STI cut across many government ministries and must be linked to industries, consultation, coordination, collaboration and harmonization become both important and difficult.  Hence, the overall governance for STI must be enhanced.  Existing STI institutions and agencies must be reviewed in terms of their legitimacy, authority and capacity including linkages.   The return of the Science Advisor and MIGHT to the Prime Minister is a laudable move.  Autonomy should be reinstated to ASM so that it can provide unbiased and timely advice to the government.  Parliament should be a platform for debate on STI issues affecting the government, industry and the public.  A parliamentary committee on STI can be established.   It is assuring that the government is now considering legislation to strengthen STI governance.

Fifth, STI and the community:  A supportive and science-literate community is part of the total STI ecosystem.  The NSTIP3 must deal with issues of science literacy and enculturization.   The “science for all” program is school, must be re-introduced.  It must also deal with an education system that promotes creativity, innovativeness and entrepreneurship.  Additionally, the NSTIP3 must deal with ethical issues as well as issues of public interest (safety, health, security and the environment).  In view of the above, I am recommending 15 policy responses for our NSTIP3 (see Appendix).

These 15 policy responses under the five major components described above will then provide the foundation for the total national capacity (TNC) in STI that is essential to achieve the national ETP.  The TNC comprises: a government committed to providing a comprehensive STI physical and soft infrastructure; a scientific fraternity able to contribute and draw from the global pool of scientific knowledge and technological  knowhow; a private sector capable of creating wealth through the application of technology and innovation in all sectors of the economy and a society which is science literate, imbued with a culture of creativity, innovativeness and entrepreneurship.

The work of the policy planners is cut out for them.  This time round our policy must be supported by the political will to achieve full implementation.

The author is the former Science Advisor to Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammed of Malaysia. He is also a Senior Fellow and Founding President of Academy of Sciences, Malaysia.

References:

1) Danabalan V (1997).  The science and technology implications of the Seventh Plan, in “Harnessing Science and Technology for the Seventh Malaysia Plan”, Acad. Sci. Malay. Report, 1997.

2) Omar Abdul Rahman (1997).  Productivity-driven growth, a strategy for implementation, in “Harnessing Science and Technology for the Seventh Malaysia Plan”, Acad. Sci. Malay. Report, 1997.

Source: Google Images

Events of this past November revealed more cracks in U.S. -Russia relations that seemed propitious just several months ago. To start with, on November 22, the U.S. announced the decision to cease its obligations under The Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE), referring to information sharing and mutual inspections with Russia. The decision came as a delayed countermeasure to Russia’s unilateral suspension of its own obligations under the same Treaty in 2007.

Just a day later following the U.S. announcement, Russian President Medvedev responded with its own “if-then” stipulation when mentioning that Russia could possibly opt out from the START Treaty, if the United States continues its ambitious ballistic missile plan in Europe. Moscow has repeatedly expressed its discontent with the development of the missile defense project in Europe, accusing the West of excluding Russia from participating in the decision – making process. This is especially sensitive since Moscow perceives the radar installations in Poland, Romania and Turkey as a direct threat to its nuclear deterrence capabilities.

Finally, few days after a Pakistani decision to close supply route for U.S. troops, the Russian Envoy to NATO threatened to suspend Northern Distribution Network (NDN) that serves as a critical component to U.S. operations in Afghanistan as it allows the transportation of almost fifty percent of all non-lethal goods to U.S. troops. Consequently, a shut down of the alternative route could seriously undermine U.S. military capacity and put U.S. troops in a vulnerable position. By pointing out at the vital role Russia plays in U.S. military engagement in Afghanistan, Moscow shows that it is entitled to have an equal say in security matters.

All of the above-mentioned events carry an important message that although an attempt to improve the relations between Russia and the United States might have had a good start, as long as their positions on the pre-existing matters are not reconciled, a meaningful cooperation is hardly possible. That said, the split over Georgia, Moldova, and the ballistic missile defense in Europe continues to persist and define Russian and U.S. policies towards each other, much as any attempt to address them unilaterally only exacerbates the situation.

Let’s go back to the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty. It was signed on November 19, 1990 establishing equal limitation on armed forces that NATO and Warsaw Pact member-countries could deploy between Atlantic Ocean and Ural Mountains. For several years it served as a guaranty of security and control over the overwhelming amount of Russian military weaponry.

Consequently, the lack of a similar security agreement, especially the one regarding nuclear weapons, relaxes limitations and allows the parties more room in their defense planning. All that leads to growing uncertainty, distrust and risk of escalation that would keep the parties uneasy and suspicious of each other actions. In the absence of an agreed structure or a system for minimizing perceived threats, old concerns will persist and grow as will the rhetoric that accompanies these types of ‘Tit-for-Tat’ actions.

By not renewing the CFE Treaty obligation, Russia demonstrated that it has not reconsidered its position in the neighborhood, neither has it overcome its disagreement with NATO’s eastward expansion. Russia chose to unilaterally suspend its participation in the Treaty in 2007, which allowed to keep its troops in Transdniestria and Abkhazia, breakaway Republics of Moldova and Georgia.

Finally, while the United States turns its attention to the Asia Pacific region, it seems that Russia is gradually slipping from U.S. foreign policy agenda. At the same time Russia looks for ways to emphasize its critical role for the success of the U.S. foreign policy goals and to establish a status of an equal partner on security matters.

Children in Uzbekistan often pick cotton with bare hands, with sometimes nothing more than slippers or sandals on their feet. © Environmental Justice Foundation

As I’ve written on the subject before, Uzbekistan is one of the worst human rights offenders out there. Recent news of child labor during this fall’s cotton harvesting season once again put the country into the international spotlight drawing sharp criticism by human rights activists. Meanwhile, in the same vein, Bell Pottinger Group’s dealings with the dictatorship was recently revealed and criticized in the news. This firm is a London-based public relations agency and is one of the largest lobbying companies in the U.K.

For the past several years each fall, when the cotton harvesting season in Uzbekistan begins, the news media and human rights groups sound the alarm about children as young as ten years old (reports on this differ) being pulled from school and forced to work the cotton fields. Bear in mind that the Uzbek government bars independent international observers in the country during the harvest season.

This year the story largely remains the same – there was a spike in coverage of this issue starting in September. However, a few positive developments took place this fall:

1) Sixty of the world’s major retailers, including Walmart, Walt Disney, H&M and Adidas agreed to boycott all products known to contain Uzbek cotton. But skepticism remains. According to the Uzbek-German Forum for Human Rights’ Director Niyazova Umida, “such kind of a boycott will not help immediately because there are a lot of other cotton traders – from China, Bangladesh and Pakistan and other Asian countries.”

2) The European Parliament’s foreign affairs committee unanimously blocked a trade deal that would have lowered the tariffs on EU imports of Uzbek cotton, citing objections to that country’s continued use of forced child labor in its cotton harvests.

The situation surrounding forced child labor in the cotton industry remains appalling. I have no way of knowing that the clothes I’m wearing today are not made out of Uzbek cotton which made its way to Bangladesh or somewhere else where it was processed into yarn or sown and later sold to large retailers in Europe or the U.S. and finally found its way to a consumer like me. I know that H&M is one of the companies that made an effort to eliminate cotton from Uzbekistan from its supply chain and this is explicitly stated on their website.

I love Lucky Brand and I especially like their jeans so I decided to check out their website and see if there is any information about the source of their cotton or their social responsibility policy regarding child labor or other unethical practices. I don’t see anything of this sort on their web page. I do see this:

We were born in Southern California and it’s a big part of what we make. We’re inspired by amazing nature, like the orange groves and mountains of Ojai and the beach towns that dot the pacific Coast Highway. We love great music, art and photography – new and old. And we can’t get enough of the casual lifestyle and amazing weather (Who doesn’t like taking a drive with the top down on a 70-degree winter day?). In addition to giving our jeans their distinctive look and vibe, Southern California also inspires our seasonal Lucky Brand fashion collections – jackets, sweaters, dresses, pants and accessories that work with or without your denim.

There’s certainly nothing wrong with this. I too love all those things as I spent a large chunk of my life growing up in So Cal. But while thinking about the ocean breeze and orange groves I had a haunting image of children forced to pick cotton instead of attending school under the scorching Central Asian sun. It doesn’t sit well with me.

I recently went to lunch with a German friend. Somebody complimented her scarf and she said she got it at Primark. I had never heard of the store before so I asked about it and one of her first comments was that it seems like a sweatshop and she doesn’t like it despite the fact that they sell cheap clothes. This reminded me of the sandblasted/distressed jeans story that was making rounds on my Facebook newsfeed shared and reposted by friends. People were appalled by it. Consumers do care and I hope they can make a difference. But without calling attention to this issue chances are nothing will change.

If you’re in Liverpool, the International Slavery Museum is hosting an exhibition White Gold: the True Cost of Cotton until September 2012. The exhibition highlights the abuse of labor rights in the cotton industry primarily focusing on in Uzbekistan.
Boy picking cotton. Photo: Courtesy National Museums Liverpool.

Watch White Gold – the True Cost of Cotton from Environmental Justice:

Other videos about child labor in Uzbekistan worth checking out: Newsnight Investigates the Uzbek Cotton Industry.