NEWS IN BRIEF – REST OF THE WORLD

Sponsored by Exensor

www.exensor.com

————————————————————————-

19 Sep 20. Taiwan scrambles fighters as Chinese jets again menace island. Taiwan’s air force scrambled jets for a second consecutive day on Saturday as multiple Chinese aircraft approached the island and crossed the sensitive midline of the Taiwan Strait, with the island’s government urging Beijing to “pull back from the edge.”

Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen, U.S. Undersecretary for Economic Affairs Keith Krach and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) founder Morris Chang attend a banquet for the U.S. delegation in Taipei, Taiwan September 18, 2020. Taiwan Presidential Office/Handout via REUTERS

Taiwan’s Defence Ministry said 19 Chinese aircraft were involved, one more than in the previous day, with some crossing the Taiwan Strait midline and others flying into Taiwan’s air defence identification zone off its southwest coast.

It said China, which claims democratic Taiwan as its own territory, sent 12 J-16 fighters, two J-10 fighters, two J-11 fighters, two H-6 bombers and one Y-8 anti-submarine aircraft. According to a map the ministry provided, none got close to mainland Taiwan itself or flew over it.

“ROCAF scrambled fighters, and deployed air defence missile system to monitor the activities,” the ministry said in a tweet, referring to the Republic of China Air Force, the formal name of Taiwan’s air force.

Taiwan has complained of repeated incidents of Chinese aircraft near the island this year, and has regularly had to scramble its F-16s and other jets to intercept them.

China had on Friday announced, at a news conference in Beijing about China’s U.N. peacekeeping efforts, combat drills near the Taiwan Strait and denounced what it called collusion between the island and the United States.

U.S. Undersecretary for Economic Affairs Keith Krach arrived in Taipei on Thursday for a three-day visit, the most senior State Department official to come to Taiwan in four decades, angering China.

Taiwan’s Defence Ministry, in a separate statement, said China was carrying out provocative activities, seriously damaging peace and stability.

“The Defence Ministry sternly condemns this, and calls on the mainland authorities to control themselves and pull back from the edge.”

China’s widely read state-backed tabloid the Global Times, published by the ruling Communist Party’s official People’s Daily, said in a Saturday editorial that Friday’s drills were a rehearsal to take over Taiwan.

“The U.S. and Taiwan must not misjudge the situation, or believe the exercise is a bluff. Should they continue to make provocations, a war will inevitably break out,” it said.

Life has continued as normal in Taiwan with no sign of panic. The island has long been accustomed to living with Chinese threats.

Taiwan’s people have shown no interest in being ruled by autocratic China, re-electing President Tsai Ing-wen in a landslide last year on what was largely a platform of standing up to Beijing.

The latest Chinese flights came the same day Taiwan held a memorial service for former president Lee Teng-hui, dubbed “Mr. Democracy” for ending autocratic rule in favour of free elections and championing Taiwan’s separate identity from China.

Lee, who died in July, became Taiwan’s first democratically elected president in March 1996 after eight months of intimidating war games and missile tests by China in waters around the island.

Those events brought China and Taiwan to the verge of conflict, prompting the United States to send an aircraft carrier task force to the area in a warning to Beijing’s government.

Taiwan and China last fought on a large scale in 1958, when Chinese forces carried out more than a month of bombardments of the Taiwan-controlled Kinmen and Matsu islands, including naval and air battles. (Source: Reuters)

15 Sep 20. Defence Industry Minister reveals changes to CDIC. Defence Connect can officially reveal the long awaited details of the government’s audit into the Centre for Defence Industry Capability, commissioned by Defence Industry Minister Melissa Price.

The Commonwealth government has published findings from its review of the Centre for Defence Industry Capability (CDIC), launched in April.

Following extensive consultation (140 submissions and more than 50 interviews), the review has found that while helping to drive “improved business operations” for some stakeholders, the CDIC’s business advisory and facilitation services have “become generic” and are “not sufficiently targeted at defence specific support”.

The review noted that dissatisfied CDIC clients lamented the “inconsistency or relevance of advice provided”, which they described as “generic and transactional in nature”.

Some stakeholders also criticised the CDIC’s engagement and workshop offers, which were viewed as “one size fits all” and “not appropriately tailored” to the varying needs of the industrial base.

Feedback from the CDIC’s grants program was “overwhelmingly positive”, however, some stakeholders noted that the guidelines would “benefit from allowing more flexibility for shifting business strategies over time”.

In a bid to address these pain points, the CDIC review has recommended relocating the CDIC to the Department of Defence to strengthen the alignment between Defence, defence industry and the CDIC.

Commenting on the findings, Minister for Defence Linda Reynolds said a genuine partnership between Defence and industry was critical to ensuring the industrial base “effectively supports Australia’s national security”.

“Making it easier for industry to work with Defence to access opportunities in the defence sector, such as through the work of the CDIC, is essential in this endeavour,” Minister Reynolds said.

“This government has faith in Australian businesses to provide the technological advances and superior capability that Defence needs to protect Australia’s national interests.”

Other recommendations from the CDIC review include:

• Updating the CDIC’s role and purpose to reflect the 2020 Force Structure Plan (FSP);
• Scrapping the 200-employee limit on businesses being able to access the CDIC’s services;
• The implementation of a CDIC focus stream for Indigenous and veteran-owned small businesses and improving employment outcomes for veterans post-separation from the ADF;
• Appointing a representative from the office of the Minister for Defence Industry to the CDIC’s advisory board; and
• Developing a communications program for industry policy documents.

According to Minister for Defence Industry Melissa Price, the review has provided the government with an opportunity to strengthen the CDIC and bolster support for businesses as they grapple with economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Given the challenges thrown up by the COVID pandemic, it is more important than ever that we continue to develop new ways to support the Australian defence industry,” Minister Price said.

“The CDIC has a valuable role to play in supporting small and medium-sized businesses access Defence work and the review has identified a continuing need for the services provided by the CDIC.”

Minister Price added: “Implementing the review’s recommendations will ensure that the Centre continues connecting Defence and small business in a simpler, more cost-effective and outcomes-orientated way.”

Government response to recommendations

Minister Reynolds and Minister Price have confirmed that the government has accepted key recommendations regarding the relocation of the CDIC and scrapping the employee limit to boost access to services.

However, the government will not support the recommendation to add a representative from the Minister for Defence Industry’s office to the CDIC’s advisory board.

The remaining recommendations have been accepted “in principle”, and will be examined over the next six months before formal advice is issued to the government regarding implementation.

In addition to this, both ministers confirmed that both Defence and the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources provided support for the review of the CDIC’s role and future operating model.

“After almost four years in operation, the CDIC has shown its value in helping more small and medium-sized businesses access opportunities in the defence sector. Aligning the CDIC more closely with Defence will build stronger stakeholder relationships that serve to maximise its value for building Defence capability,” Minister Price explained. (Source: Defence Connect)

17 Sep 20. Russia announces troop build-up in Far East. Russia is increasing its military presence in the Far East in response to rising tensions in the wider region, Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu said on Thursday. In remarks cited on the defence ministry website, Shoigu said reinforcements were being sent because of tensions in the “eastern strategic direction”, referring to an area encompassing Russia’s eastern border with China and the wider Asia-Pacific.

Shoigu did not specify what the new threats were, or where the additional troops would go. He promised 500 units of new and modernised equipment for the region, as well as some improvements to the navy’s Northern Fleet.

Alexander Gabuev, an analyst at Moscow’s Carnegie Centre, said Russia was ensuring it has sufficient military capabilities in an area where conflicts could spill over, noting a rising risk of a naval clash between the United States and China.

“Russia cannot be left defenceless and it also needs to operate its capabilites there, in terms of air force, defence and personnel,” he said.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Russia’s concerns in the Far East centred around the actions of powers from outside the region, without specifying any countries or conflicts.

“All of these, of course, do not contribute to stability in this region,” said Peskov.

Russia’s Far East has also lately seen one of the longest sustained anti-government protest movements of President Vladimir Putin’s two decades in power. The city of Khabarovsk, near the Chinese border, has seen weeks of demonstrations against the arrest of a local political leader. (Source: Reuters)

17 Sep 20. US and Singapore agree to strengthen defence ties. Top defence officials of the US and Singapore have agreed to further strengthen bilateral defence relations. Top defence officials of the US and Singapore have agreed to further strengthen bilateral defence relations.

This comes after Singapore Permanent Secretary of Defence Chan Heng Kee and US Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Dr James Anderson co-chaired the 11th Singapore-US Strategic Security Policy Dialogue (SSPD).

In the meeting, both countries reaffirmed their existing bilateral defence relationship and discussed opportunities to further enhance their cooperation under the 1990 memorandum of understanding (MoU) that allows the US to use military facilities in Singapore.

The two countries also expressed their intentions to work together in defence technology and non-conventional security domains such as counter-terrorism.

The two sides shared opinions on regional developments and security cooperation under the ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting (ADMM)-Plus framework.

Before the meeting, Dr Anderson met Singapore Minister for Defence Dr Ng Eng Hen and Chief of Defence Force Lieutenant-General Melvyn Ong.

He also visited RSS Singapura – Changi Naval Base and Sembawang Air Base.

Singapore is a key military partner for the US in the region. Both countries regularly participate in military-to-military exchanges, training and cross-attendance of courses.

The US also supports overseas training of the Republic of Singapore Armed Forces (RSAF).

In December, the two countries signed an MoU for the establishment of an RSAF Training Detachment in Andersen Air Force Base, Guam.

Earlier this year, Singapore signed a treaty with Australia on military training and training area development.

The treaty will provide the RSAF with improved military training access in Australia. (Source: army-technology.com)

18 Sep 20. India raises cap on defence foreign investment. India has formally raised the cap on foreign direct investment (FDI) in the defence sector. New FDI regulations also introduce a ‘national security’ clause to heighten scrutiny of related investment proposals.

The government’s Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DIPPT) said in a press note issued on 17 September that it has lifted the limit on defence FDI from 49% to 74% of a local firms’ equity. The limit is applicable for investors under the “automatic route”, which means government approval is not required.

However, the DIPPT press note also included a list of “other conditions” for such foreign investment including a new clause citing national security.

“Foreign investments in the defence sector shall be subject to scrutiny on grounds of national security, and [the] government reserves the right to review any foreign investment in the defence sector that affects or may affect national security,” states the clause.

The previous FDI guidelines did not include a national security clause but did require that “foreign investment in the [defence] sector is subject to security clearance and guidelines of the Ministry of Defence”.

Other new conditions for FDI include requirements for new industrial licences in cases of new FDI up to 74%, and requirements for security clearances by the Ministry of Home Affairs. (Source: Jane’s)

18 Sep 20.  ‘A truly generational leap in capability’: Air Combat Group Commander spruiks JSF. The F-35 has suffered its fair share of criticisms, but Australia’s growing fleet of fifth-generation super jets appears to have shrugged this off to integrate with the rest of the Royal Australian Air Force to demonstrate its lethal capabilities.

It is designed to be the most lethal, technologically advanced air combat capability ever fielded by the Royal Australian Air Force. The F-35 combines low observability, unprecedented levels of sensor fusion and computational power, and a suite of next-generation weapons to boot, but it hasn’t been without its teething problems.

While much of these have been borne in large part by the US, by far the largest customer of the platform, the public perception has nevertheless landed in Australia as well. However, Exercise Lightning Storm has revealed the true potential of the wonder jet, particularly when combined with the RAAF’s other leading-edge capabilities.

Exercise Lightning Storm provided the RAAF with the opportunity to develop, study and train at a truly national scale, despite the limitations imposed by COVID-19, and was specifically designed to put the F-35 through its paces as the fleet in Australia continues to grow.

Speaking exclusively to Defence Connect, Commander Air Combat Group (ACG), Air Commodore Tim Alsop, shed some light on the training program and the performance of the F-35, as the RAAF put its new wonder jet through its paces.

“To say that the F-35 performed wonderfully is an understatement, it truly is a generational and transformational capability for the Royal Australian Air Force. Throughout the exercise, JSF really came into its own,” AIRCDRE Alsop said.

Exercise Lightning Storm saw a spectrum of RAAF assets combined around the nation, ranging from the E-7A Wedgetail Airborne Early Warning & Control (AEWC), the F/A-18A Hornets, F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, KC-30A Tankers and Hawk Lead-in fighters all combine with the F-35.

The exercise also provided an opportunity for the Air Force ground elements, particularly support elements from No 3 Squadron, combined with the No 3 Control and Reporting Unit (3CRU) utilising their TPS-77 radar capability to provide an essential surveillance picture which was transmitted by satellite to the unit’s control and reporting centre (CRC) at RAAF Base Williamtown.

AIRCDRE Alsop explained, “The exercise was designed from the ground up to validate the deployability and interoperability of the F-35 – this emphasised ‘deploying’ the F-35 and its support infrastructure ‘away from barracks’, which we were able to do in an ‘expeditionary’ manner despite not actually leaving the base.”

Originally planning to travel to RAAF Base Tindal to conduct Exercise Lightning Storm, No 3 Squadron instead put its personnel and systems to the test by conducting a simulated deployment in their own hangars at RAAF Base Williamtown.

“The nationwide effort required to support the exercise is testament to the air combat group, paired with aerial refuelling, E-7 Wedgetail AEW&C and the people around the country who worked to provide proof of concept,” AIRCDRE Alsop added.

Working with air and land-based assets enabled Air Combat Group to begin the integration of the F-35 as part of the broader fifth-generation air force, something that AIRCDRE Alsop said was a pivotal part of the exercise.

“It was important at the moment internally, it enabled us to work with the ground-based radars and the integrated battle management systems which enabled us to really test the capability delivered by the platform,” AIRCDRE Alsop explained.

“We’ve taken the lessons and best parts of Super Hornet, as a half generational stepping point to prepare for the F-35, doing so enabled us to not only prepare for JSF, but also develop a uniquely Australian capability.

“Bringing in the Hawks enabled us to bring in new pilots who in the near future will be introduced into the platforms they were witnessing and flying against, which highlights the importance of the person in the integration process and their role in the fifth-generation force.”

In addition to 3CRU’s assets, Exercise Lightning Storm included RAAF No. 114 Mobile Control and Reporting Unit’s deployable Mobile Control and Reporting Centre (MCRC) operating out of Oakey in Queensland, the E-7A Wedgetail, KC-30A multi-role tanker transports, F-35A Lightning and other fighter aircraft from Williamtown and Amberley airbases.

AIRCDRE Alsop added, “The whole exercise really enabled us to bring together the entire spectrum of capabilities delivered by F-35 and the rest of the RAAF’s inventory, the extra day really expanded this and showed off what this impressive piece of kit is capable of.”

For the RAAF, the F-35A’s combination of full-spectrum low-observable stealth coatings and materials, advanced radar-dispersing shaping, network-centric sensor and communications suites – combined with a lethal strike capability – means the aircraft will be the ultimate force-multiplying, air-combat platform.

Over the coming years, Australia will purchase 72 of the advanced fifth-generation fighter aircraft as part of the $17bn AIR 6000 Phase 2A/B program – which is aimed at replacing the ageing F/A-18A/B Classic Hornets that have been in service with the RAAF since 1985. (Source: Defence Connect)

17 Sep 20. Joint Communiqué on the conflict in Yemen. Joint Communiqué by Germany, Kuwait, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States, China, France, Russia and the European Union on the conflict in Yemen.

1. The Foreign Ministers of Germany, Kuwait, Sweden, and the United Kingdom co-hosted a meeting on Thursday 17 September 2020, in connection with the 75th United Nations General Assembly, with Ministers and representatives of United States, China, France, Russia, and the High Representative of the European Union, to discuss the urgent need for political progress in Yemen.
2. Following briefings by the UN Secretary-General and his Special Envoy for Yemen, the Group discussed the urgent need for military de-escalation and political progress in Yemen, underlining their full support for the Special Envoy, Mr Martin Griffiths, including his efforts to facilitate agreement between the Yemeni parties on the Joint Declaration comprised of a nationwide ceasefire, humanitarian and economic measures and the resumption of a comprehensive, inclusive political process. The Group reaffirmed the international community’s firm commitment to uphold Yemen’s sovereignty, unity, independence, and territorial integrity. They reiterated that only an inclusive political solution can end the conflict in Yemen.
3. The Group stressed the need for the parties, through the political process, to swiftly conclude a comprehensive transitional agreement in order to end the conflict, usher in a transitional period where power is shared among diverse political and social components, and at the end of this period, ensure a peaceful transition of power to a new, inclusive government on the basis of credible national elections. The Group underlined the need for an inclusive political process, including the full participation of women and youth. The Group called on the Government of the Republic of Yemen and the Houthis to engage with the Special Envoy constructively and continuously, without preconditions, in order to swiftly reach agreement on the UN peace proposals. The Group also called on the neighbours of Yemen to use their influence to this effect in support of UN efforts.
4. The Group stressed the urgent need for de-escalation across Yemen and a nationwide ceasefire, as well as a full implementation of resolution 2532. In this regard, they welcomed the Secretary-General’s call on 25 March for an immediate cessation of hostilities in Yemen as well as the unilateral ceasefire announced by the Coalition to Support Legitimacy in Yemen on 8 April, and expressed regret that the Yemeni parties did not seize the opportunity to achieve a nationwide ceasefire. The Group voiced its great concern about the continuing Houthi offensive on Marib, putting residents and displaced persons there at grave risk, which threatens to derail the UN peace process. The Group emphasised its concern about continuing violence in the Yemen conflict, including the continuation of Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia, which pose a serious threat to regional security. The Group expressed its concern about reports of continued civilian casualties. The Group called on all parties to fulfil their obligations under international humanitarian law, including the protection of civilians, notably humanitarian workers and health personnel, as well as civilian infrastructures.
5. The Group reiterated its commitment to the Yemeni peace process and the relevant Security Council Resolutions, including UN Security Council Resolution 2216, the Gulf Cooperation Council Initiative and its Implementation Mechanism, and the National Dialogue Conference outcomes. It reiterated the importance of full compliance by Members States with the arms embargo imposed by UN Security Council resolutions concerning Yemen. The Group welcomed the announcement on 28 July of acceleration of the Riyadh Agreement, mediated by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and welcomed the efforts of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in this regard, and called on the Yemeni Government and Southern Transitional Council to fully implement those steps urgently. If implemented these agreements would bolster UN efforts to achieve a comprehensive solution.
6. The Group welcomed the commencement of the latest round of prisoner exchange negotiations in Geneva and called on the parties to urgently implement their stated commitments in this regard. The Group reaffirmed its full support for UNMHA and called on the Yemeni parties to respect the ceasefire in Hodeidah and to engage constructively on the implementation of the Stockholm Agreement, including the UNVIM mandate, and which remains an important part of the Yemen peace process. In this regard, the Group further called on the Yemeni parties, to engage constructively with UN proposals to ensure the adequate and unhindered flow of fuel, humanitarian goods, and food into Yemen through Hodeidah port and to establish a mechanism for directing port revenues to civil servant salary payments, based on the 2014 payroll database. The Group expressed concern over the humanitarian consequences of fuel shortages in northern Yemen. The Group emphasized the importance of ensuring that the civilian population can regularly access adequate supplies of fuel and other essential goods. The Group also reaffirmed its support to the United Nations Verification and Inspection Mechanism for Yemen.
7. Following the white note issued on food security risks by the UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs on 4 September (with reference to UN Security Council Resolution 2417), the Group noted that economic and humanitarian indicators show rising food insecurity, and that famine is a realistic prospect in Yemen this year in the event of prolonged food import disruption or hindrances to distribution, exacerbated by the outbreak of Covid-19. In this regard, the Group expressed deep concern that the UN Humanitarian Response Plan has received only 30 per cent of the funding it needs this year. The Group expressed appreciation to the UK, US, Sweden, Kuwait, and the EU, for committing additional funding since the 2 June Pledging Conference to the UN Humanitarian Response Plan totalling over $350m. In order to prevent famine, the Group called on all donors to disburse existing pledges immediately and to consider making further contributions. The Group also discussed the central role of economic collapse in intensifying the risk of famine and urged Yemen’s partners to consider all possible measures to strengthen the economy, including regular foreign-exchange injections into the Central Bank and steps to encourage robust flows of critical commercial imports through all of Yemen’s ports. In this context, the Group reiterated the need to address the main drivers of the current humanitarian crisis, and referred to the ongoing coordinating efforts by the EU, the UN, and the World Bank in this regard.
8. The Group recognised that obstruction and interference with humanitarian assistance operations remains extremely challenging, particularly in northern Yemen. While the Group took note of initial steps taken by the Houthis, greater progress overall is needed to enable humanitarian organisations to continue delivering life-saving assistance to millions of vulnerable people throughout Yemen. The Group called on the Yemeni parties to facilitate full, safe, and unhindered humanitarian access to all the people in need. The Group urged potential donors who have made significant contributions in the past, to step-up humanitarian assistance to the UN-led response.
9. The Group further recognised the grave threat posed by the Safer oil tanker, whose dire condition risks an environmental, economic and humanitarian catastrophe to Yemen and the region, and called on the Houthis to urgently facilitate unconditional and safe access for UN experts to conduct an assessment and repair mission.
10. The Group looked to the Security Council to review progress at the next session, and agreed to reconvene at senior official level within six months. The Group welcomed the German offer to host such a meeting in Berlin. (Source: https://www.gov.uk/)

17 Sep 20. UK’s Defence Senior Advisor concludes visit to Egypt. Lieutenant General Sir John Lorimer, UK Chief of Defence Staff’s Senior Advisor to the Middle East and North Africa has concluded a three-day official visit. The visit aimed to further promote the bilateral military cooperation between both countries’ armed forces. During his visit, DSAME held high-level meetings with senior representatives from the Egyptian Armed Forces and was accompanied by British Defence Attaché Captain (Royal Navy) Stephen Deacon. The meetings touched on military aspects of common interest including opportunities to conduct joint military and naval exercises. Views were also exchanged on the latest regional military developments and ways to maintain maritime security in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Making remarks at the end of his visit, Lieutenant General Lorimer said: “I am delighted to be back in Egypt and to meet my friends in the Egyptian Armed Forces. COVID-19 has been a challenge for us all, so I am glad to be able to return to Egypt, whilst observing sensible precaution measures. We have had excellent discussions about regional security, current challenges, and discussed how we might work together more closely, including joint military training, COVID-19 permitting. We are determined to continue to cooperate closely in our counter-terrorism efforts and recognise that we have many shared responsibilities and objectives for regional security.”

British Ambassador to Egypt Sir Geoffrey Adams said: “DSAME’s visit reaffirmed the UK and Egypt’s longstanding military and strategic partnership. The UK is committed to Egypt’s security and stability, and we look forward to continued cooperation to strengthen our defence relations.” (Source: https://www.gov.uk/)

16 Sep 20. U.S. pushes arms sales surge to Taiwan, needling China – sources. The United States plans to sell as many as seven major weapons systems, including mines, cruise missiles and drones to Taiwan, four people familiar with the discussions said, as the Trump administration ramps up pressure on China.

Pursuing seven sales at once is a rare departure from years of precedent in which U.S. military sales to the island were spaced out and carefully calibrated to minimize tensions with Beijing.

But the Trump administration has become more aggressive with China in 2020 and the sales would land as relations between Beijing and Washington are at their lowest point in decades over accusations of spying, a lingering trade war and disputes about the spread of the novel coronavirus.

At the same time Taiwan’s desire to buy weapons increased after President Tsai Ing-wen was re-elected here in January and has made strengthening Taiwan’s defenses a top priority.

Taiwan is China’s most sensitive territorial issue. Beijing says it is a Chinese province, and has denounced the Trump administration’s support for the island.

Washington has been eager to create a military counterbalance to Chinese forces, building on an effort known within the Pentagon as “Fortress Taiwan”, as Beijing’s military makes increasingly aggressive moves in the region.

Taiwan’s Defense Ministry said the reported package was a “media assumption,” and that it handled weapons purchase talks and assessments in a low-key, confidential way, so could not offer public comment until there was a formal U.S. notification of any sales to Congress.

Taiwan’s military is well-trained and well-equipped with mostly U.S.-made hardware, but China has a huge numerical superiority and is adding advanced equipment of its own.

The weapons packages from Lockheed Martin Co LMT.N, Boeing BA.N and General Atomics are moving their way through the export process, three people familiar with the status of the deals on Capitol Hill said, and a notification to Congress is expected within weeks.

One industry source said President Donald Trump was slated to be briefed on the packages this week by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Some of the deals had been requested by Taiwan more than a year ago, but are only now being moved through the approval process. A State Department spokesman declined comment.

A senior U.S. official, citing Chinese assertiveness in the Taiwan Strait, said: “There is no equilibrium today. It is out of balance. And I think that is dangerous.”

Trump’s White House has made an here effort to export weapons to U.S. allies trying to bolster their defenses, decrease dependence on U.S. troops while boosting U.S. companies and jobs.

As he fights for re-election on Nov. 3, Trump and Republican supporters have ramped up their rhetoric against Beijing and sought to portray Democratic opponent Joe Biden as soft on China.

FILE PHOTO: U.S. military forces fire a High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) rocket during the annual Philippines-US live fire amphibious landing exercise (PHIBLEX) at Crow Valley in Capas, Tarlac province, north of Manila, Philippines October 10, 2016. REUTERS/Romeo Ranoco/File Photo

Other factors include Taiwan’s bigger defense budget, and the fear in Taiwan that if Trump loses, Biden would be less willing to sell the U.S.’s most advanced weapons to them.

Taiwan’s interest in U.S. weapons and equipment is not new. The island is bolstering its defenses in the face of what it sees as increasingly threatening moves by Beijing, such as regular Chinese air force and naval exercises near Taiwan.

The senior U.S. official said Taiwan’s increased defense spending was a good step, but it had to do more.

“Taiwan, frankly, needs to do more in order to ensure that they indigenously have an ability to deter Chinese aggression,” the official said.

Drones that can see over the horizon for surveillance and targeting, coupled with advanced missiles and coastal defenses that include smart mines and anti-submarine capabilities to impede a sea invasion, have been discussed at the highest levels to make Taiwan more difficult to attack, like a “porcupine”, according to industry and congressional sources.

A Lockheed Martin-made High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS), essentially a truck-based rocket launcher, is among the weapons Taiwan wants, people familiar with the negotiations said. Taiwan also seeks to buy sophisticated anti-tank missiles.

In early August, Reuters reported that Washington is negotiating the sale of at least four of its large sophisticated aerial drones to Taiwan for what could be about $600m.

Also under discussion are land-based Boeing-made Harpoon anti-ship missiles to serve as a coastal defense against cruise missiles.

Other systems include “underwater sea mines and other capabilities to deter amphibious landing, or immediate attack,” Taiwan’s de facto ambassador here to United States said in July. (Source: defense-aerospace.com/Reuters)

16 Sep 20. Maintaining lasting peace and stability in South Sudan. Statement by Ambassador James Roscoe, Acting UK Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, at the Security Council briefing on South Sudan. Thank you, Mr President. I would like to also thank SRSG Shearer and USG Lowcock for their briefings, and I’m particularly grateful to Ms Tai for bringing her story and her pragmatic and clear vision to this Council. Between them, they illustrated the dire and deteriorating humanitarian situation faced by millions of South Sudanese and the urgent need for the full implementation of the Peace Agreement.

I also want to convey the United Kingdom’s gratitude for the work of the humanitarian community in South Sudan. We’ve heard today how challenging the humanitarian environment is; with seven aid workers killed this year alone, it’s a sad fact that South Sudan remains one of the most dangerous places in the world to be an aid worker. But we know that without them, countless more lives would have been lost.

I’d like to touch on three issues, Mr President. The first is the implementation of the Peace Agreement. Two years ago, this Council welcomed the leadership shown by all sides in signing the revitalised Peace Agreement. Despite significant delays, we also welcomed in February the leadership by the parties in forming the revitalised Transitional Government of National Unity. Since then, we have seen some positive steps taken to build state-level institutions. However, the people of South Sudan need to see the dividends of peace. And we’ve heard this a lot from colleagues today. Implementation of the peace agreement must now be accelerated and we stand ready to support further progress.

But, Mr President, ongoing violence is the key driver of humanitarian need in South Sudan. We’re deeply concerned by the increased violence that has led so many civilian deaths in recent months. We call on the government in Juba and all those involved to make concerted efforts to stop the killing and address the root causes of conflict through effective governance and dialogue at a national and local level. This includes addressing outstanding issues under the Peace Agreement, notably the appointment of the Governor in Upper Nile State. We also call on non-signatories to engage in the Rome process and for all sides to respect the cessation of hostilities. With thousands of South Sudanese lives at risk, compromise and collaboration is needed now more urgently than ever.

Secondly, on the humanitarian situation, Mr President, the stalled peace process and increasing subnational violence have exacerbated the stark deterioration of the humanitarian situation. As we’ve heard today, the situation is desperate: 7.5 million in humanitarian need, economic deterioration and a growing risk of famine. This has been amplified by the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, by desert locusts and by flooding. Already, over half the population face acute food insecurity, and some areas now face the very real prospect of famine-like conditions. This must be addressed without delay. I was impressed by USG Lowcock’s innovative approach to dealing with these challenges. But the bottom line is clear: they need more resources.

The other impediment is the limits of humanitarian access that hurt those who need it most. Again, it was good to hear that OCHA are innovating to deal with challenges and provision, but it’s also vital that South Sudan’s government ensure that humanitarian workers can access communities in need and that UNMISS can carry out its mandate unhindered.

Finally, on the protection of civilians, it was incredibly worrying to hear about the spike in violence, particularly the presence of actors from outside South Sudan exacerbating the problem. Ultimately, the primary responsibility for protecting South Sudan’s citizens rests with the government of South Sudan, including the respect to those currently living in the UN’s Protection of Civilian Sites. The mission’s plan to re-designate PoC Sites should be implemented through close consultation with the affected communities and with humanitarian actors in a transparent process that prioritises safety and security. Again, we were encouraged to hear SRSG Shearer talk about how the mission can adapt to their operating environment and find new ways to deliver its mandate.

As others have said, it’s also critical that South Sudan cooperate rather than inhibit UNMISS and ensure the mission can deliver its PoC mandate. I join Kristof and others saying we hope the representative of South Sudan can join us in December to give us the government’s perspective on these issues and also to hear directly the Council’s concerns and the briefings.

Mr President, the South Sudanese people deserve lasting peace and stability. And we call on all parties to redouble their efforts to realise that aim in the spirit of cooperation envisaged in the 2018 Peace Agreement. Thank you, Mr President. (Source: https://www.gov.uk/)

16 Sep 20. Australian Opposition defence industry spokesman hits back at CDIC review. Shadow minister for defence industry Matt Keogh has responded to the recently announced report and review into the efficacy of the Centre for Defence Industry Capability.

Australia’s burgeoning defence industry applauded the Commonwealth government commissioning an extensive review of the Centre for Defence Industry Capability (CDIC) in April.

After an extensive consultation (140 submissions and more than 50 interviews), the review has found that while helping to drive “improved business operations” for some stakeholders, the CDIC’s business advisory and facilitation services have “become generic” and are “not sufficiently targeted at defence-specific support”.

The review noted that dissatisfied CDIC clients had lamented the “inconsistency or relevance of advice provided”, which they described as “generic and transactional in nature”.

Some stakeholders also criticised the CDIC’s engagement and workshop offers, which were viewed as “one size fits all” and “not appropriately tailored” to the varying needs of the industrial base.

While Defence Minister Linda Reynolds said a genuine partnership between Defence and industry was critical to ensuring the industrial base “effectively supports Australia’s national security”.

“Making it easier for industry to work with Defence to access opportunities in the defence sector, such as through the work of the CDIC, is essential in this endeavour. This government has faith in Australian businesses to provide the technological advances and superior capability that Defence needs to protect Australia’s national interests,” Minister Reynolds explained.

This was reinforced by Defence Industry Minister Melissa Price, who explained that the review has provided the government with an opportunity to strengthen the CDIC and bolster support for businesses as they grapple with the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Implementing the review’s recommendations will ensure that the centre continues connecting Defence and small business in a simpler, more cost-effective and outcomes-orientated way,” Minister Price said.

Minister Reynolds and Minister Price have confirmed that the government has accepted key recommendations regarding the relocation of the CDIC and scrapping the employee limit to boost access to services.

However, opposition defence industry spokesperson Matt Keogh MP has issued a scathing response to the government’s announcement and the outcome of the review into the effectiveness of the CDIC.

“The report into the CDIC released today shows the Morrison government’s failings to support Australian companies into the Defence supply chain.

“Established in 2016, the CDIC was intended to support the Defence supply chain through both business grants and mentorship; however, one in five successful grant recipients reported that they saw no tangible benefit from the grants they received,” Mr Keogh explained.

Mr Keogh added, “This eye-opening review of the CDIC is a shopping list of the Morrison government’s failings to support Australian companies into the Defence supply chain.

“After reading the concerns highlighted in this report, it is clear Minister Price was trying to hide the Morrison government’s complete mishandling and mismanagement of defence industry,” Mr Keogh said.

“We must be investing in Australia’s sovereign defence capability, developing our local businesses and providing sustainable jobs for the Australian industry of the future,” Mr Keogh said.

“Australian defence businesses have been crying out for support for a long time now, and it doesn’t help that we are still waiting for the government to begin its much-delayed Australian industry capability (AIC) audit.

“Australian industry needs the Morrison government to implement measurable and enforceable Australian industry capability requirements into defence contracts, so industry has assurance they are working towards a tangible outcome and our nation develops the sovereign capabilities it requires. The ultimate success of the CDIC is measured in Australian industry involvement in Defence projects, and that is in decline. That says everything you need to know about the success of the Morrison government’s approach to AIC and the CDIC,” Mr Keogh said.

The review assessed the CDIC’s current operational model to ensure it can continue supporting the growth of the Australian defence industry now and into the future.

The review offered an opportunity to strengthen the delivery of the CDIC, clarify its role and assess its capacity to continue to support small and regional businesses looking to enter the defence market or grow their industry footprint.

The full review of the CDIC is available here https://www.defence.gov.au/CASG/Multimedia/2020_CDIC_Review.pdf (Source: Defence Connect)

15 Sep 20. China air force plays up J-20 stealth strength as Taiwan tensions brew.

• PLA highlights fighter’s combat capacity in drill led by junior pilot from the Eastern Theatre Command
• Pilot shoots down 17 enemy planes without loss in exercise, report says.

The Chinese military has highlighted advances in stealth jet technology as tensions rise with Taiwan, reporting record results in a simulated combat exercise. The PLA Daily, the official newspaper of the People’s Liberation Army, reported on Monday that a junior pilot in a

J-20 stealth fighter “shot down” 17 enemy planes without taking any “hits” in the simulation exercise.

According to the report, the pilot, Chen Xinhao, had just 100 hours in the J-20 and is from the PLA Air Force’s elite Wang Hai Unit under the Eastern Theatre Command, which would spearhead any military campaign in a conflict with Taiwan.

Chen and his wingmen challenged “multiple waves of enemy planes from different directions” and knocked down a total of 17 with “0 damage” on his side, the report said.

The report did specify the opponents in the exercise but three J-16 multirole fighters were also pictured in the report.

Beijing views Taiwan as a breakaway province to be reunified with the mainland by force if necessary, and tensions have risen between the two in recent years, with the PLA mounting regular air patrols around the self-ruled island.

The single-seat twin-engine fighter is the air force’s first, and so far only, heavy stealth air superiority fighter in service. Its speed and ability to evade enemy radar and advanced avionics has made it the “backbone” of China’s air strength.

It has big advantages over older generations of aircraft but has been dogged by engine development problems.

The WS-15 engine designed for the fighter has long been behind schedule, forcing the air force to use inferior engines that limit the aircraft’s performance.

The J-20s are also in short supply. Although its maker, Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group, is believed to have a production line to build about one plane a month, only around 50 are thought to have been delivered.

Meanwhile, the Taiwanese air force is becoming the world’s biggest operator of fourth-generation aircraft, last month placing a US$8bn order for 66 upgraded

F-16V fighters

The first two planes in the order are expected to be delivered in 2023 and will add to the 150 F-16A/B fighters the island bought in the 1990s.

China’s J-20s have also been spotted near the disputed border with India, where New Delhi deployed its new fourth-generation French Dassault Rafales.

India and China have engaged in the worst stand-off for decades on their Himalayan border and have sent reinforcements to the front line. (Source: Defense News Early Bird/https://www.scmp.com/)

15 Sep 20. Trump: ‘No problem’ selling F-35 jets to UAE. U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday said he personally would have “no problem” selling the advanced F-35 fighter jet to the United Arab Emirates, despite objections from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“I would have no problem in selling them the F-35, I would have absolutely no problem,” Trump told Fox News in an interview ahead of a signing ceremony at the White House for agreements normalizing relations between Israel, the UAE and Bahrain later on Tuesday.

Trump also said he would be willing to sell other Middle Eastern countries the same weapons systems sold to Israel. He noted the region’s wealth and said it would be good for the United States and American jobs.

“They’re very wealthy countries for the most part, like the UAE, and they would like to buy the fighter jets, and I personally would have no problem with it,” Trump said. “Some people do, they say maybe they go to war.”

Trump affirmed that his strategy is to forge pacts with other Mideastern nations in an effort to push the Palestinians toward negotiating a peace deal with Israel.

Even though Trump favors the sales, there’s no guarantee they would happen. The F-35 sale, a longtime request from Abu Dhabi, is not written into the UAE-Israel deal, Emirati Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Anwar Gargash told reporters Monday.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., warned any such sales would demand congressional scrutiny and said Congress must protect Israel’s military edge, even as he hailed the bilateral agreement.

“In this case, we in Congress have an obligation to review any U.S. armed sales package linked to the deal,” McConnell said in a floor speech Monday. “As we help our Arab partners defend against growing threats, we must continue ensuring that Israeli’s qualitative military edge remains unchallenged.”

Likewise, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was among Democrats who questioned whether F-35 sales were part of the deal.

“As we learn more about the full details of both agreements, questions remain – specifically, regarding the commitment that the UAE has received from the Trump Administration to purchase American-made F-35 aircraft,” Pelosi said in a statement Tuesday.  “The U.S. Congress, on a bipartisan basis, will be watching and monitoring to ensure that Israel can maintain its qualitative military edge in the region.”

Netanyahu has said he would oppose the arms sale, despite the historic UAE deal, amid reports that the normalization accord that Trump brokered included language to supply the Arab Gulf nation with advanced U.S. weapons systems.

Maintaining Israel’s regional military supremacy has been a hallmark of Israeli policy for decades, and the country has used its close ties with Washington to ensure that certain sophisticated weapons are not sold to neighboring countries. It’s reported the UAE has long been interested in acquiring American-made F-35 stealth fighter jets and attack drones like those used by Israel. (Source: Defense News)

13 Sep 20. South Korean agencies agree to boost import substitution drive. South Korea’s Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) and Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (MOTIE) signed an agreement on 15 September to support collaboration on the local production of components for key military platforms.

The memorandum of understanding (MOU) is the latest in a series of reforms in South Korea to boost import substitution efforts and support local capability advancement. The emphasis on such initiatives has increased during 2020 in response to the impact of Covid-19.

DAPA said in a statement that the new agreement supports co-operation on the local sourcing and production of “raw materials, parts, and equipment” for military platforms operated in South Korea. Under the arrangement, MOTIE will be expected to widen opportunities for local industry to participate in defence procurement projects managed by DAPA.

One of the first projects under the agreement, said DAPA, will be to locally develop and build an engine for Hanwha Defense’s K9 155 mm tracked self-propelled howitzer. The gun system is presently powered by an engine sourced from Germany’s MTU.

“With this business agreement,” said the statement, “DAPA will identify and plan projects in the defence sector, and [MOTIE] will support development costs and support the management of projects to develop and build parts for systems that the South Korean military is operating or planning to operate.”

It added, “[The agreement] plans to preferentially develop replacements for core imported parts that can create high added value due to the technological ripple effect and export potential.” (Source: Jane’s)

15 Sep 20. Israel Seeks $8bn Arms Deal At White House: F-35s, V-22s, KC-46s. The new weapons are meant to keep Israel’s qualitative edge after President Trump agreed to sell the F-35 to the UAE and Teheran rattles its homemade swords, furious about the new era between Israel and some Gulf states.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked President Donald Trump today for 12 Boeing V-22s, another squadron of F-35s to bring the total to 75, and the very early delivery of two Boeing KC-46As at the White House today.

The request was made during a day of extraordinary meetings as President Trump, the Prime Minister of Israel and the Foreign Ministers of Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates were to sign what are being called the Abraham Accords, meant to normalize relations between the Arab states and Israel.

The new weapons are meant to keep Israel’s qualitative edge after the U.S agreed to sell the F-35 to the UAE and Teheran rattles its homemade swords, furious about the new era between Israel and some Gulf states.

Hours before hosting the signing of historic peace agreements between Israel and the UAE and Bahrain, President Trump doubled down on the idea of selling F-35s to the UAE.

“I personally would have no problem with it,” the president told Fox and Friends this morning, “I would have no problem in selling them the F-35.”

The Israelis, who understand the US political system well, are likely to press Trump to put the new sales in motion before the November elections to minimize the chances they might fall victim to a change in power in Washington.

“The Israeli request will be based on an accelerated process aimed at getting all the approvals before the November presidential elections” one Israeli source told BD.

The request is also likely to include a replacement for Israeli Apache AH-64A combat helicopters that are planned to go out of service in 2025. Israel, one source says, will also ask for “increased numbers” of bunker buster bombs, usually thought to be designed to strike Iranian nuclear sites.

On top of all that, the Israelis may seek an advanced communication satellite, a source told Breaking D.

The request for a new weapons package would be in addition to the existing Foreign Military Financing agreement with the US. The current agreement, signed in 2016, increased US assistance from $34bn in the decade to $38bn between 2019 and 2028.

Why is Israeli seeking so much new gear? It’s not, Israeli sources explain, because of the prospective sale of F-35s to the UAE, but because they believe this deal will open a new arms race in the region and they want to stay head of it. Israel is also concerned about the possibility of leadership changes in some Gulf countries

The assessments for what’s needed were drawn up when the IDF formed a special team headed by Maj. General Tomer Bar, the IDF’s head of its planning and force building department. This team is reviewing the operational demands of some of the IDF ground forces units. (Source: Breaking Defense.com)

15 Sep 20. Indian and U.S. Defense Delegations Conduct Virtual Discussion of Defense Cooperation. The 10th Defense Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI) Group Meeting was held virtually on Sept. 15, 2020.  The meeting was co-chaired by Mr. Raj Kumar, Secretary, Defence Production, from the Indian Ministry of Defence, and Ms. Ellen M. Lord, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, from the U.S. Department of Defense. DTTI Group Meetings are normally held twice a year, alternating between India and the United States.  This time, the meeting was held via video conference on account of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.

The aim of the DTTI Group is to bring sustained leadership focus to the bilateral defense trade relationship and create opportunities for co-production and co-development of defense equipment.  Four joint working groups focused on land, naval, air and aircraft carrier technologies have been established under DTTI to promote mutually-agreed projects within their domains.  The groups reported to the co-chairs on ongoing activities and collaborative opportunities, including a number of near-term projects targeted for completion on priority.

As evidence of their commitment to demonstrating the success of DTTI, the co-chairs signed a Statement of Intent (SOI) that declared “to strengthen our dialogue on defense technology cooperation by pursuing detailed planning and making measurable progress” on several specific DTTI projects.

The co-chairs were also pleased to note that since the last DTTI Group meeting in October 2019, a DTTI Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the identification and development of cooperative projects under DTTI has been completed.  The SOP will serve as the framework for DTTI and allow both sides to reach and document a mutual understanding on how to define and achieve success.  A publically releasable extract of key elements of the SOP was also published in July as the DTTI Initial Guidance for Industry, and distributed through Indian and U.S. industry associations.

Further efforts to encourage U.S. and Indian industry to cooperatively develop next-generation technologies under the DTTI Group were highlighted by the 1st DTTI Industry Collaboration Forum (DICF), which took place virtually on Sept. 10, 2020. The DICF was convened by Mr. Sanjay Jaju, Joint Secretary (Defence Industries Production), Mr. Michael Vaccaro, Director, International Armaments Cooperation, and Ms. Amy Murray, Director, Small Business Programs.  This forum offers an opportunity for Indian and U.S. industry to be directly involved in DTTI and facilitates dialogue between government and industry on issues that impact industrial collaboration.  The results of the discussion were briefed to the DTTI Group co-chairs. (Source: US DoD)

15 Sep 20. Addressing the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Statement by Ambassador Jonathan Allen and right of reply by Political Counsellor Sonia Farrey at the Security Council briefing on Syria chemical weapons

Thank you very much, Mr President, and I want to thank Undersecretary-General Nakamitsu again for another of her briefings.

Mr President, in August 2013, when hundreds of people were killed in a UN-verified Sarin attack on Ghouta, the use of chemical weapons in Syria was regrettably added to the list of violations in an already brutal war. Following that Ghouta attack, this Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2118. In that resolution, we – all of us – condemned the use of chemical weapons in Syria. We endorsed the procedures for destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons programme. We decided that Syria should not produce or use chemical weapons ever again. We decided that they should comply fully with the OPCW and the United Nations. And we noted Syria’s accession to the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Now, Mr President, some Council members would have you believe that this was the end of it, that Syria’s chemical weapons programme was entirely destroyed, that the Syrian regime never used or produced them again, and that any use was by non-state actors or that attacks were staged. They maintained that Syria has and continues to comply fully with the OPCW.

Mr President, however inconvenient they may find the truth, unfortunately their interpretation is not borne out by the facts. Independent United Nations and OPCW fact-finding missions have concluded that chemical weapons have been used in Syria on over 40 occasions since 2014, including the Sarin attack on Khan Sheikhoun on the 4th of April 2017, which killed hundreds, and the chlorine attack on Douma on the 7th of April 2018, which killed dozens of people. These technical missions comprise different experts from many countries who, over many years, all independently came to the same conclusion.

Now, Mr President, it remains impossible, over seven years after Resolution 2118 and following 83 monthly reports from the Director General of the OPCW, for this Council to verify the complete destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons programme. As we’ve been told again by the High Representative today, due to the unresolved gaps, inconsistencies and discrepancies in Syria’s declaration under the Chemical Weapons Convention, that declaration cannot be considered accurate and complete.

The outstanding issues are significant, and they go to the heart of Syria’s compliance – or rather, non-compliance – with the convention for the following reasons:

Since 2014, the number of chemical agents identified by the Declaration and Assessment Team as having been in Syria’s possession has more than doubled when compared to their initial declaration. The fate of more than 400 tonnes of chemicals and thousands of ammunitions is unclear. This includes the whereabouts of 5.2 Tons of DF, which is a key component of Sarin, and 2000 aerial bombs, a delivery system for chemical weapons, including the sarin used in the Khan Sheikhoun incident in 2017.

Since their initial declaration in 2013, the Syrian authorities have themselves admitted to having produced chemical weapons not in the original declaration. That includes Ricin, which the Syrian authorities admitted in 2014. And then Soman, which the regime admitted to in 2016, along with what they call ‘R&D activities’ on Nitrogen Mustard, which they admitted in 2019. Other so far undeclared chemical agents or their precursors or degradation products have been also detected and identified by the OPCW.

Furthermore, the fact that the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism and now the OPCW’s Investigation and an Identification Team (IIT) have found the Syrian authorities responsible for using chemical weapons on no fewer than seven occasions is inconsistent with claims that Syria has no chemical weapons capability. And it’s notable that the first IIT report confirms that Syrian-made aerial bombs of the type unaccounted for in the declaration were used as a delivery system for the attacks in Ltamenah in March 2017.

So after six years of outstanding compliance issues and further confirmation of the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons, we welcome the robust, proportionate and reasonable action taken by the OPCW Executive Council in its decision of 9 July. The Executive Council accepted the findings of the IIT report, provided a deadline for Syria to comply finally with its obligations and recommended the Conference of State Parties should take actions that Syria failed to comply.

And just as the OPCW Executive Council has a role in upholding compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention and its own decisions, so the Security Council, this Council, has a clear and distinct obligation to address the repeated breaches of UNSCR 2118. These breaches include: the use of chemical weapons, as identified by both the JIM and the IIT; the retention and production of chemical weapons to carry out attacks; and the lack of full compliance with the OPCW. We should do as we decided in Resolution 2118 and take action in response to noncompliance and the threat to international peace and security. Not to do so would be a dereliction of his Council’s duty.

Mr President, this Council should be able to act in unity on the basis of the findings by two independent bodies, which have identified the perpetrators of these chemical weapons attacks. And so it’s a matter of great regret that some Council members have sought to politicise what should be a nonpartisan issue and have attempted to undermine and block investigations into chemical weapons use in Syria and their perpetrators. They have spread conspiracy theories and disinformation designed to block, undermine and call into question the integrity and reports of the Joint Investigative Mechanism and the IIT.

This disinformation we’ve seen in action today in the form of lengthy, somewhat random assertions about various incidents, which it is claimed undermine the many independent expert teams that have carried out their work. Mud is thrown everywhere in the hope that some will stick somewhere. An anecdotal approach is taken rather than the evidence-based approach, which is taken, in contrast, by the teams carrying out the investigations, which includes the consistency and corroboration of evidence and information obtained from the Fact-Finding Mission, coupled with information obtained through interviews, analyses of samples, reviews of laboratory results and analyses of munition remnants, reports and advice from experts, specialists and forensic institutes, all of which allowed the conclusion to be drawn that units of the Syrian Arab Air Force were responsible for attacks.

By contrast, some Council members would have you put aside the evidence-based approach of independent investigators in favor of what Russian and Syrian military police, engaged in a bloody battle against the Syrian people, say they’ve discovered.

Mr President, when the Council sought to take action on the basis of the findings of the JIM in 2016, Russia used its veto to block it. When the JIM found the Syrian regime was responsible for the chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoun, they used their veto to stop the JIM’s work. When the OPCW Conference of States Parties established its own identification team, they refused to recognise it and have sought since to impugn its cross-regional representation. As many have said today, it’s vital for upholding the international nonproliferation regime that organisations such as the OPCW and the United Nations are able to act without interference and without politicisation of their work.

Mr President, I don’t want to dwell on these issues of division. I believe that the majority of this Council accept the findings of the United Nations and the OPCW and are strong supporters of the OPCW Technical Secretariat, its staff and its integrity. And we hope that when the time comes, members of this Council will act on the evidence and on their conscience.

Mr President, others have mentioned the issue of Mr Alexey Navalny. We are gravely concerned by the poisoning of Mr Navalny by Novichok, a banned chemical weapon. A similar nerve agent, you will recall, was previously used with lethal effect in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has full confidence in Germany’s findings, and we stand united with them.

The use of a banned chemical weapon is absolutely unacceptable. As this Council reaffirmed last November in a presidential statement, any use of chemical weapons anywhere at any time by anyone under any circumstance is unacceptable and a threat to international peace and security. The Russian Federation should urgently conduct a full and transparent investigation into this use of a banned chemical weapon and should uphold the Chemical Weapons Convention. We cannot allow this behaviour to become normalized.

It’s difficult not to conclude, Mr President, that Russia’s attacks on the international architecture to prevent the use of chemical weapons are not only designed to protect its Syrian clients, but to protect itself.

That, Mr President, is a sad state of affairs. It is also a very dangerous state of affairs for all of us.

Thank you, Mr President.

Right of Reply by Sonia Farrey, UK Political Counsellor at the UN, at the Security Council briefing on Syria

It would take too long to address all the familiar allegations and inaccuracies, but I do want to respond to the point raised on the White Helmets.

The UK is proud of its support to the White Helmets and their life-saving search and rescue activities in Syria, alongside other donors. The organisation is estimated to have saved over 115,000 lives and provided essential services to more than four million Syrians.

Allegations linking the White Helmets to terrorist groups are baseless and are part of a concerted disinformation campaign by the Syrian regime and Russia seeking to undermine the White Helmets’ valuable work. (Source: https://www.gov.uk/)

15 Sep 20. Improving peacekeeping operations around the world. Statement by Ambassador James Roscoe, Acting UK Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN, at the Security Council briefing on peacekeeping operations reform. Thank you, Mr President, and our thanks also to Under-Secretary-General Lacroix for his briefing today.

Mr President, today we take stock of a year in peacekeeping unlike any other. I want to salute the dedication and courage of our peacekeepers, as others have, who have persisted with mandate delivery in the face of the challenges of Covid-19. I also pay tribute to the peacekeepers who sadly have lost their lives this year.

Mr President, the challenges of recent months underline why we must continue to pursue the Secretary-General’s Action for Peacekeeping agenda. Reforms to improve planning and decision-making have helped missions respond with resilience to the challenges of Covid-19, including by using the Comprehensive Performance Assessment System. The CPAS is just one vital component of the Integrated Performance Policy Framework mandated by resolution 2436.

Improving peacekeeping performance must remain a priority. When missions and personnel perform to the high standards we all expect, they are better able to deliver their mandates and ensure their own safety and security. We are encouraged by the progress made in developing a rigorous performance and accountability framework. I look forward to seeing this implemented.

Mr President, as well as action at the mission level, it is important that all of us as Member States live up to our respective peacekeeping reform commitments. The United Kingdom has continued efforts to streamline mandates on which we hold the pen, aiming to ensure that they are clear, focused, realistic and achievable.

This year, we worked with our German co-penholders to secure Council agreement to respond to the government of Sudan’s request to help with their political transition while ensuring continued UN support for stability and security, particularly in Darfur.

As one of the largest and most consistent extra-budgetary contributors to the Department of Peace Operations, we continue to support projects which are helping to drive key reforms, totalling almost $4m this year alone.

And as a troop contributing country, we are responding to the capability needs identified by the UN, including through our upcoming deployment of a 250-strong long-range reconnaissance task force to MINUSMA.

And finally, Mr President, in this 20th anniversary year of Resolution 1325, we remain especially committed to advancing the participation of women in UN peacekeeping. To this end, we are continuing to support the Senior Women’s Talent Pipeline, as well as the Elsie Initiative Fund.

Mr President, as we prepare to mark the 75th anniversary of the United Nations, it is fitting that we reflect on how the collective enterprise of UN Peacekeeping has evolved. It is imperative that we keep our reform momentum in order to give our peacekeepers every chance of success.

Thank you, Mr President. (Source: https://www.gov.uk/)

14 Sep 20. Chinese military calls US biggest threat to world peace. China’s Defense Ministry on Sunday blasted a critical U.S. report on the country’s military ambitions, saying it is the U.S. instead that poses the biggest threat to the international order and world peace.

The statement follows the Sept. 2 release of the annual Defense Department report to Congress on Chinese military developments and goals that it said would have “serious implications for U.S. national interests and the security of the international rules-based order.”

Defense Ministry spokesman Col. Wu Qian called the report a “wanton distortion” of China’s aims and the relationship between the People’s Liberation Army and China’s 1.4 billion people.

“Many years of evidence shows that it is the U.S. that is the fomenter of regional unrest, the violator of the international order and the destroyer of world peace,” he said.

U.S. actions in Iraq, Syria, Libya and other countries over the past two decades have resulted in the deaths of more than 800,000 people and displacement of millions, Qian said.

“Rather than reflecting on itself, the U.S. issued a so-called report that made false comments about China’s normal defense and military construction,” he said in the statement. “We call on the U.S. to view China’s national defense and military construction objectively and rationally, cease making false statements and related reports, and take concrete actions to safeguard the healthy development of bilateral military relations.”

Running to more than 150 pages, the Defense Department report examined the PLA’s technical capabilities, doctrines and the ultimate aims of China’s military buildup. It said it includes becoming a “practical instrument” of China’s statecraft with an active role in advancing Beijing’s foreign policy and “aims to revise aspects of the international order.”

“Certainly, many factors will determine how this course unfolds,” the report said. “What is certain is that (the ruling Communist Party) has a strategic end state that it is working towards, which, if achieved and its accompanying military modernization left unaddressed, will have serious implications for U.S. national interests and the security of the international rules-based order.”

Much of the report was devoted to analyzing China’s strategy toward Taiwan, a U.S. ally which China considers a part of its territory to be annexed by force if necessary. China’s military capabilities dwarf those of the island of 23 million in numerical terms, although any invasion of Taiwan would be complex and would carry major political risks, the report said.

It also looked at areas where the 2 million-member PLA, the world’s largest standing military, has overtaken the U.S., including in the size of its navy, now the world’s largest with approximately 350 ships and submarines compared to around 293 for the U.S.

China has also built a considerable arsenal of land-based ballistic and cruise missiles and has one of the world’s largest forces of advanced long-range surface-to-air systems, the report said.

This year’s report comes as relations between Beijing and Washington have hit their lowest ebb in decades amid simmering disputes over trade, technology, Taiwan, human rights and the South China Sea. (Source: Defense News)

15 Sep 20. Beware the wolf: ASPI executive director issues renewed warning.  ASPI executive director Peter Jennings has issued a renewed warning for Australian policymakers: “Beware the wolf”, as Beijing steps up its economic and political coercion attempts of Australia.

There is an old saying that “while the Lion is the King of the Jungle, the Wolf doesn’t perform in the circus”, which seeks to highlight the unpredictable and dangerous nature of the wolf, even for skilled experts.

While it might seem like an odd analogy, many public policy and strategic policy experts around the world have long believed that they more than suitably prepared for the rise of China and its increasingly belligerent attempts to economically, politically and strategically coerce regional and global powers.

It is now clear that even in the hands of skilled diplomats, politicians and strategic minds, the threat was minimised in favour of the economic prosperity and growth provided by the rising superpower, often to the detriment of national security and resilience, something, in the aftermath of COVID-19’s devestating impact, we are now all too aware of.

Australia, in particular, is vulnerable to these efforts and has been for some time, with Chinese foreign direct investment worth approximately $16bn at its peak in 2016 and the superpower’s voracious appetite for raw resources, financial and education services, and quality agricultural the foundation of the now strained relationship between the two nations.

This new reality comes as a shock, particularly as Australia has enjoyed relative geographic isolation from the flashpoints of global and regional conflagration of the 20th century.

Blessed with unrivalled resource wealth and, despite public commentary an immense industrial potential, the nation has enjoyed the benevolence of the post-Second World War order, caught up in the promise of easy wealth generation through unfettered globalisation, economic neo-liberalism and the “end of history”.

In response to the growing levels of economic and political coercion, now expanded to target Australian wheat, ASPI executive director Peter Jennings has issued a renewed warning for serious consideration, asking an important and poignant question:

“What is China trying to achieve by its sudden lurch to a bullying, ‘wolf warrior’ global stance? For all the billions of dollars of intelligence hardware and software pointed at Beijing right now, the reality is that Xi Jinping’s strategic thinking is a black box.

“The leadership intent of the Communist Party must be glimpsed through opaque speeches, the coded signals of coercive behaviour and the increasingly unhinged statements of China’s diplomats and party-controlled media,” Jennings posits.

Be thankful the mask slipped now

For Jennings, the now blatantly obvious regional and global ambitions of President Xi Jinping, particularly in the aftermath of COVID-19 and its ensuing economic, political and strategic impact is both a blessing and a curse, and needs to be approached as such.

However, Jennings also counts the lucky stars that Beijing under President Xi took a dramatically different path to what was proposed under former Chinese statesman, Deng Xiaoping, stating, “Here’s one measure of how quickly and dramatically things have changed: on January 20 this year John Howard chaired the ‘sixth annual Australia-China High Level Dialogue’ sponsored by the Foreign Affairs Department, whose press release claimed that ‘the Dialogue will help strengthen partnerships and friendships, maintain trust and develop deeper understanding between Australia and China’.

“Eight months later not one word of that sentence could be applied to our relationship with China. Even China’s rusted-on Australian cheer squad is losing vigour in claiming it is Canberra’s lack of pragmatic wordsmithing that’s causing the rift.

“Had China continued down the Deng Xiaoping-mandated path of ‘Hide your capacities, bide your time’, I’m no longer sure Australia would have been able to muster the collective willpower to prevent the wholesale compromising of our economy, political system, critical infrastructure, universities and business community — such was the attraction of Chinese money.

“In reality, COVID-19 and wolf warrior coercion was the wake-up call we needed, but that still leaves the essential puzzle about why it is that Beijing abandoned a strategy that was delivering its objectives and replaced it with an approach that is damaging its position.”

Australia has in someways been willfully blind as to Beijing’s ambitions in both the Indo-Pacific and more broadly around the world, emphasising the economic relationship and the immense potential over the security realities.

In particular, Jennings believes Australia should avoid bending the knee to Beijing, rather navigating the relationship from a position of strength, because at this point in the relationship everything Canberra says or does will be taken as an insult by an increasingly sensitive regime, saying: “The point for Australia is simply that, short of complete capitulation of our interests and values, there is nothing Canberra can do or say that will avoid China’s criticism.

“This needs to be understood by elements of the Australian business community and university sectors that persist in thinking Beijing’s behaviour is somehow the result of our actions — like the claim by one commentator in this newspaper last week that China is ‘ruthlessly exploited’ because we are forcing them ‘to pay exorbitant prices for iron ore’. Seriously? So much for supply and demand.”

Masters of our own destiny

For far too long Australia has deferred to the leadership and guidance of others, preferring to be shaped by the economic, political and strategic realities of the world.

In doing so, as a nation we have failed to reach our true potential, we have failed to become the masters of our own destiny and we have failed to bend the majesty and potential of the continent to our will, often leaving the nation equally as vulnerable to domestic shocks as it is to global ones.

As Australia and the globe enter what could be the single greatest economic depression since the Great Depression of the 1930s, Australia has two choices, be defined by the global shocks and continue to limp along as our regional neighbours surge ahead or grasp the reins and drive our own future.

There are some models to follow, ranging from the New Deal of US president and wartime leader Franklin Delano Roosevelt or, looking more closely to our regional neighbours, South Korea’s recently announced ‘Korean New Deal’, which leverages the length and breadth of state power to develop an economic transformation strategy for the 21st century.

In order to achieve this Australia must not only embrace the very real potential of becoming the “poor white trash of Asia” as so eloquently established by Lee Kuan Yew.

But, Australia should also use such an outcome as a rallying call, a wall against our back to unify and pull the nation in a common direction, shaking off one of the very apt criticisms of Australian policy making: the fact that public policy-making decisions are based on the comparatively short election cycles and further impacted by conflicting jurisdictional interests and actions.

In light of this, it is time for Australia to plan for the next 15 to 20 years, not the next term of state, territory or federal government, providing policy consistency, vision for the public and surety in a period of global and regional turmoil.

Jennings explains the critical importance of an Australian response to these challenges, particularly as the balance of power between the US and China continues to narrow towards parity, stating: “In my assessment, this undermines the argument that Australia should some how try to plot a ‘middle course’ between the US and China. Beijing’s current approach does not leave room for the possibility that countries can shape a course that is in any way different from China’s definition of what the right behaviour should be.

“Based on this assessment of Chinese strategic motivations, it is highly likely Beijing’s more assertive approach will continue if Xi stays in office. This is going to hurt Australia, but the only mitigation is to reduce our economic dependence on China.

“It is desperately important for Australian interests that whoever is the American president after November, the US sets down a set of clear red lines on Chinese behaviour on Taiwan and Asian security more widely.

“Finally, Australia needs to keep accelerating the pace of our own military plans, especially adding to our deterrent capacity with sufficient hitting power to raise the costs and challenges for any potential aggressor that might wish to do us harm.”

Each of these contribute to the nation’s sovereignty and security at a time when many of the principles that Australia’s post-Second World War public and strategic policy is based upon coming under threat – serving to make Australia a more reliable economic, political and strategic partner amid a period of great power competition.

Furthermore, it serves to make Australia more resilient to man-made and natural shocks, resistant to coercion, economically competitive and robust at a time when the Australian public are calling for leadership, forward planning and vision.  (Source: Defence Connect)

15 Sep 20. Opposition MP calls on government to reconsider Darwin port deal. Northern Territory MP Luke Gosling has called on the Commonwealth government to conduct an in-depth review of the Chinese acquisition of the Port of Darwin, with the ultimate goal of reconsidering the deal.

Since former US president Barrack Obama announced a reinvigorated US presence in the Indo-Pacific as part of the Pacific Pivot in 2013, Darwin has emerged as one of the key focal points for both US strategic planners and the Australian Defence Force, as the nation responds to an increasingly assertive China and rapidly evolving economic, political and strategic environment.

Located in close proximity to the strategic sea lines of communication (SLOC) of Malacca, Sunda and Lombok, Darwin is also Australia’s gateway to the Indo-Pacific, serving as a launching point for Australia’s economic and strategic engagement with the region.

While the broader economic potential of Darwin is heavily under-utilised, the strategic potential of the city is equally under-utilised, particularly given the rise of Indo-Pacific Asia and China – something increasingly recognised by the US as it seeks to re-position itself in the region.

As the regional dynamics have changed, successive Australian governments have sought to re-position key Australian military assets throughout the northern approaches to the landmass.

However, it wasn’t until the 2016 Defence White Paper that this tactical and strategic reorientation was set in stone, with the white paper identifying the need for Australia to shift beyond the narrow sea-air gap with the aforementioned facilities serving as key staging points for Australia’s engagement in the region.

“Australia’s strategic outlook to 2035 also includes a number of challenges which we need to prepare for. While there is no more than a remote prospect of a military attack by another country on Australian territory in the foreseeable future, our strategic planning is not limited to defending our borders,” the white paper identified.

“Our planning recognises the regional and global nature of Australia’s strategic interests and the different sets of challenges created by the behaviours of countries and non-state actors such as terrorists.”

On the back of these factors, there is a growing consensus among Australia’s strategic policy apparatus that the north of the continent is going to play an increasingly important role in the nation’s future force posture and geo-strategic, economic and political engagement with the Indo-Pacific.

However, in recent years, the “lease” of the Port of Darwin to the Chinese-backed Landbridge has drawn an ever-increasing amount of public and media attention and criticism about the impact of the deal upon Australia’s economic and strategic security.

In particular, Northern Territory-based opposition MP Luke Gosling has called for the government to review and reconsider the acquisition through the prism of the new Foreign Relations legislation and empowered Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB).

Gosling sets the scene, explaining, “The Australian government says its new foreign relations bill is about one thing: ensuring foreign policy consistency by reviewing state and territory deals that could undercut Canberra.

“Fair enough. Foreign policy is a federal — and constitutionally enshrined — responsibility. State and territory governments have been increasingly active in international engagements in recent decades. That’s a perfectly normal feature of globalisation that’s here to stay.

“But there’s good reason to keep foreign policy powers concentrated in federal hands. Thanks to its expertise, real-time reporting from the overseas diplomatic network and intelligence collection and assessments from all sources, the federal government will always be the best informed about the world and the custodian of Australia’s strategic policy.”

There are some differences between jurisdictions

For Gosling, the very nature and difference of larger states like NSW, Victoria and even Queensland beget a sense of complexity, expertise and that helps them navigate the world of foreign direct investment and negotiating with foreign powers more effectively and efficiently, however they’re not without their flaws.

Gosling explains, “A state like Queensland or New South Wales cannot be expected to have anywhere near the same situational awareness when making commercial deals with foreign powers. And in a dangerous world, hostile actors will seek to divide us. So, let’s not help them.

“If this bill helps reverse the hollowing out of our capacity to prosecute Australia’s national interests, I’m all in. That would need to include a serious discussion about the chronic cuts to our frontline diplomatic network and aid program. But what concerns me is the clear political slant in this bill.”

Turning his attention to the now well-publicised commitment of Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews to seek funding from Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the potentially disastrous national security implications such a deal could have, Gosling draws some clear comparisons between that and the deal for Port of Darwin.

“From the get-go, the government framed Victoria’s 2018 memorandum of understanding with China on the Belt and Road Initiative as the main problem that needed fixing. To be clear, the federal Labor leader, Anthony Albanese, has said that we would not have signed up to the BRI.

“It’s curious, though, that the government is waving the Victorian deal like a red rag while ignoring other BRI-related deals that are in plain sight. Like the lease of the Port of Darwin. To avoid blatant double standards, Darwin should be in the same conversation as Victoria.”

This is particularly relevant as many state and territory jurisdictions are struggling to juggle the national security and economic ramifications associated with increasing levels of foreign direct investment, particularly from China.

While much has been made of Premier Andrews’ plan to sign Victoria up to Beijing’s BRI, NSW is not to be outdone as it has been revealed that a Chinese owned company responsible for shipping Australian medical supplies back to China during the height of COVID-19 is close to securing tenders to construct pumped hydroelectricity generation facilities in the north of the state.

It has been revealed by Clare Armstrong of The Daily Telegraph that the Beijing-linked Goldwind Australia is expected to be selected to build WaterNSW’s Glennies Creek and Glenbawn Dam hydroelectricity projects in the NSW Hunter region at a time when Australian companies like AGL and Meridian dropped out of the race due to concerns about the commercial viability of the programs.

Request declined

Despite growing public and media calls for a closer review and consideration of the Port of Darwin deal, it appears at this stage, despite many similarly-sized infrastructure acquisition and/or partnership programs being similarly scrutinised, Darwin won’t, much to the chagrin of Gosling.

“‘No, it shouldn’t!’ the government is now saying. The foreign minister has explicitly denied that Darwin Port would be reviewed as part of this bill. Marise Payne has claimed that this is because the 99-year lease of the port by the NT government was to a privately owned Chinese company, Landbridge Group, not a government entity. The bill excludes ‘a corporation that operates on a commercial basis’,” Gosling says.

“Yet it doesn’t take a degree in Sinology to understand that Western and Chinese private companies differ in important ways. In the Chinese system, outbound investors must register deals for approval with three government bodies, including the trade ministry. A private company that owns critical infrastructure abroad is still accountable to Beijing.

“This is confirmed by private companies’ mandatory reporting requirements under China’s national intelligence law. Just last year, a Foreign Investment Review Board source suggested that the Chinese law had effectively ‘done away with the distinction between private and state-owned companies’.”

Critically, Gosling draws an interesting and a concerning parallel between the Darwin deal and Beijing’s broader BRI initiative, stating, “Even if the government dismisses any questions around the lease of a critical infrastructure asset like Darwin Port to a foreign power, be it China or Canada, there’s a bigger issue. You won’t hear the government say this openly for obvious reasons — it oversaw the sale — but the 2015 lease of Darwin Port was part of the Belt and Road Initiative.

“Officially, the Darwin Port sale wasn’t badged as a BRI project. But it was undoubtedly part of it from Beijing’s point of view, even if not from ours. For more than a decade, China has been buying up critical infrastructure such as ports around the world. But this strategic buy-up was given an authoritative policy rationale when Chinese President Xi Jinping launched his flagship Belt and Road Initiative in 2013.

“That’s when China’s ports buy-up officially became part of the seagoing aspect of the BRI, dubbed the Maritime Silk Road. Confusingly, the ‘road’ part of the initiative is actually maritime. Through this BRI-propelled strategy, Chinese private or state-owned companies quickly acquired significant or controlling stakes in more than 76 ports in 35 countries, including Darwin and Melbourne.” (Source: Defence Connect)

15 Sep 20. Australian Defence Industry Minister reveals changes to CDIC. Defence Connect can officially reveal the long awaited details of the government’s audit into the Centre for Defence Industry Capability, commissioned by Defence Industry Minister Melissa Price.

The Commonwealth government has published findings from its review of the Centre for Defence Industry Capability (CDIC), launched in April.

Following extensive consultation (140 submissions and more than 50 interviews), the review has found that while helping to drive “improved business operations” for some stakeholders, the CDIC’s business advisory and facilitation services have “become generic” and are “not sufficiently targeted at defence specific support”.

The review noted that dissatisfied CDIC clients lamented the “inconsistency or relevance of advice provided”, which they described as “generic and transactional in nature”.

Some stakeholders also criticised the CDIC’s engagement and workshop offers, which were viewed as “one size fits all” and “not appropriately tailored” to the varying needs of the industrial base.

Feedback from the CDIC’s grants program was “overwhelmingly positive”, however, some stakeholders noted that the guidelines would “benefit from allowing more flexibility for shifting business strategies over time”.

In a bid to address these pain points, the CDIC review has recommended relocating the CDIC to the Department of Defence to strengthen the alignment between Defence, defence industry and the CDIC.

Commenting on the findings, Minister for Defence Linda Reynolds said a genuine partnership between Defence and industry was critical to ensuring the industrial base “effectively supports Australia’s national security”.

“Making it easier for industry to work with Defence to access opportunities in the defence sector, such as through the work of the CDIC, is essential in this endeavour,” Minister Reynolds said.

“This government has faith in Australian businesses to provide the technological advances and superior capability that Defence needs to protect Australia’s national interests.”

Other recommendations from the CDIC review include:

• Updating the CDIC’s role and purpose to reflect the 2020 Force Structure Plan (FSP);
• Scrapping the 200-employee limit on businesses being able to access the CDIC’s services;
• The implementation of a CDIC focus stream for Indigenous and veteran-owned small businesses and improving employment outcomes for veterans post-separation from the ADF;
• Appointing a representative from the office of the Minister for Defence Industry to the CDIC’s advisory board; and
• Developing a communications program for industry policy documents.

According to Minister for Defence Industry Melissa Price, the review has provided the government with an opportunity to strengthen the CDIC and bolster support for businesses as they grapple with economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Given the challenges thrown up by the COVID pandemic, it is more important than ever that we continue to develop new ways to support the Australian defence industry,” Minister Price said.

“The CDIC has a valuable role to play in supporting small and medium-sized businesses access Defence work and the review has identified a continuing need for the services provided by the CDIC.”

Minister Price added: “Implementing the review’s recommendations will ensure that the Centre continues connecting Defence and small business in a simpler, more cost-effective and outcomes-orientated way.”

Government response to recommendations

Minister Reynolds and Minister Price have confirmed that the government has accepted key recommendations regarding the relocation of the CDIC and scrapping the employee limit to boost access to services.

However, the government will not support the recommendation to add a representative from the Minister for Defence Industry’s office to the CDIC’s advisory board.

The remaining recommendations have been accepted “in principle”, and will be examined over the next six months before formal advice is issued to the government regarding implementation.

In addition to this, both ministers confirmed that both Defence and the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources provided support for the review of the CDIC’s role and future operating model.

“After almost four years in operation, the CDIC has shown its value in helping more small and medium-sized businesses access opportunities in the defence sector. Aligning the CDIC more closely with Defence will build stronger stakeholder relationships that serve to maximise its value for building Defence capability,” Minister Price explained. (Source: Defence Connect)

14 Sep 20. India says China laying cables to bolster communications at border flashpoint. Two Indian officials said Chinese troops were laying a network of optical fibre cables at a western Himalayan flashpoint with India, suggesting they were digging in for the long haul despite high-level talks aimed at resolving a standoff there.

Such cables, which would provide forward troops with secure lines of communication to bases in the rear, have recently been spotted to the south of Pangong Tso lake in the Himalayan region of Ladakh, a senior government official said.

China’s foreign ministry did not immediately respond to questions on the matter from Reuters, while defence officials could not immediately be reached for comment.

Thousands of Indian and Chinese troops backed by tanks and aircraft are locked in an uneasy stalemate along a 70 km-long front to the south of the lake. Each country has accused the other of escalating the standoff.

A third Indian official said on Monday that there had been no significant withdrawals or reinforcements on either side since the foreign ministers of the two countries met last week.

“It is as tense as earlier,” he said.

Above Leh, Ladakh’s main city, Indian fighter planes flew throughout the morning, their engines booming and echoing across the valley surrounded by brown, barren mountains.

“Our biggest worry is that they have laid optical fibre cables for high-speed communications,” the first official said, referring to the lake’s southern bank, where Indian and Chinese troops are only a few hundred metres apart at some points.

“They have been laying optical fibre cables on the southern bank at breakneck speed,” he said.

Indian intelligence agencies noted similar cables to the north of the Pangong Tso lake around a month ago, the second government official said.

The first Indian government official said the authorities were alerted to such activity after satellite imagery showed unusual lines in the sand of the high-altitude deserts to the south of Pangong Tso.

These lines were judged by Indian experts – and corroborated by foreign intelligence agencies – to be communication cables laid in trenches, he said, including near the Spanggur gap, among hilltops where soldiers fired in the air recently for the first time in decades.

Indian officials say a build-up in border infrastructure on their side is also likely to have played a part in the months-long confrontation.

The Chinese have complained about India building roads and air strips in and around their disputed border, and Beijing says this triggered tensions along the border.

A former Indian military intelligence official, who declined to be named because of the sensitivity of the matter, said optical fibre cables offered communications security as well as the ability to send data such as pictures and documents.

“If you speak on radio, it can get caught. Communications on optical fibre cables is secure,” he said.

The Indian military still depends on radio communications, the first official said, although he said it was encrypted. (Source: Reuters)

14 Sep 20. Bahraini, Israeli defence ministers hold first phone call. The defence ministers of Bahrain and Israel held their first publicly acknowledged phone call on Monday since their countries agreed to normalise ties.

Bahraini state news agency BNA and a spokeswoman for Israel’s defence ministry said Bahrain’s minister of defence affairs, Abdulla bin Hassan Al-Nuaimi, and Israeli Defence Minister Benny Gantz had spoken as Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates prepare to sign agreements with Israel in Washington on Tuesday.

The ministers discussed the importance of the agreement for regional stability and “common expectations for establishing a close partnership between the two defence ministries,” the BNA statement said.

Gantz invited the Bahraini minister to make an official visit to Israel, and the two agreed to continue their dialogue, a statement from Gantz’s office said.

Earlier on Monday, BNA said Bahrain’s industry and trade minister and Israel’s regional cooperation minister had spoken by phone and discussed trade, industry and tourism cooperation between the two countries.

Normalization will “positively impact both countries’ economies”, BNA said. (Source: Reuters)

16 Sep 20. South Korea says no use of nuclear weapons in joint operational plans with U.S.. South Korea said on Tuesday none of its joint military action plans with the United States include any use of nuclear weapons, after a book by a U.S. journalist sparked debate over whether scenarios of a full-blown war with North Korea would entail a nuclear attack from either side. In his new book, titled “Rage,” Washington Post associate editor Bob Woodward wrote that the United States had devised plans for a possible armed clash with North Korea, such as “the U.S. response to an attack that could include the use of 80 nuclear weapons.” The book was based on multiple interviews with U.S. President Donald Trump.

The passage fueled debate in South Korea over whether it meant Washington or Pyongyang would detonate 80 bombs against each other.

Seoul’s defense ministry said on Tuesday its joint operational plans (OPLAN) with the United States did not include any use of nuclear weapons, reiterating the view of the presidential office.

A presidential official said on Monday there must not be another war on the peninsula and any use of force cannot be implemented without South Korea’s consent.

“I can say clearly that the use of a nuclear weapon does not exist in our OPLANs, and it is impossible to use military force without our agreement,” the official told reporters.

Seoul officials say there appears to be confusion in the book because the OPLAN 5027 it referred to was not designed for nuclear war but to map out troop deployment plans and key targets.

“It might indicate the maximum levels of the bombs the North could resort to in an all-out war, but the number itself is too high and hardly comprehensible in any case without clear contexts,” said Kim Hong-kyun, a former South Korea nuclear envoy.

After trading insults and nuclear threats that had pushed their countries to the brink of war, U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un held an unprecedented summit in Singapore in 2018.

But negotiations aimed at ending Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile programs have stalled since their second summit early last year.

The two leaders continued to exchange letters, however, often expressing thanks for their previous meetings and at times calling for concessions, the book said.

In an August 2019 letter, Kim urged that South Korea-U.S. military exercises be canceled or postponed before working-level negotiation. Planned drills, which Pyongyang has called a rehearsal for war, were scaled back later on, and both sides described it as a move to expedite the talks.

“I am clearly offended and I do not want to hide this feeling from you. I am really, very offended,” Kim wrote, referring to the exercises.

Trump also said during their first summit that he did not want to “remove” Kim, and that North Korea could become “one of the great economic powers” if it abandons weapons programs, the book said.(Source: Reuters)

————————————————————————-

Founded in 1987, Exensor Technology is a world leading supplier of Networked Unattended Ground Sensor (UGS) Systems providing tailored sensor solutions to customers all over the world. From our Headquarters in Lund Sweden, our centre of expertise in Network Communications at Communications Research Lab in Kalmar Sweden and our Production site outside of Basingstoke UK, we design, develop and produce latest state of the art rugged UGS solutions at the highest quality to meet the most stringent demands of our customers. Our systems are in operation and used in a wide number of Military as well as Home land Security applications worldwide. The modular nature of the system ensures any external sensor can be integrated, providing the user with a fully meshed “silent” network capable of self-healing. Exensor Technology will continue to lead the field in UGS technology, provide our customers with excellent customer service and a bespoke package able to meet every need. A CNIM Group Company

————————————————————————-