The Consular Corner

The World is Open for Orange County Business

This is the first installment of an occasional features.  Over the months to come, we will be presenting interviews with members of the diplomatic community in Southern California.  We begin with the Honorable Nasimi Aghayev, Dean of the Los Angeles Consular Corps.

The international community is open to deeper cooperation with Orange County, said the Dean of the Los Angeles Consular Corps and Consul General of Azerbaijan Nasimi Aghayev.  “The majority of countries with consulates in Southern California represent large communities of Orange County residents,” he said on November 11.  “International corporations housed in our countries would like to do business in the county.  Any information regarding business opportunities in Orange County would be very helpful.”

The Los Angeles Consular Corps is the third largest grouping of international consulates in the world, representing 100 different nations. There are 65 Consulates General and 35 honorary consuls.   They represent everywhere from Afghanistan to Zambia.  “We are open for business,” said the Consul General.  “But remember, an international corporation can do business anywhere.  They want to feel welcome.”

“We would like to see more outreach by Orange County to the Consular Corps,” said Aghayev, who has been Dean of the Consular Corps since December 2017.  “With the only exception being the current mayor of Irvine, Farrah Khan, there has not been much outreach from Orange County to the Consular Corps.”

As Consul General of Azerbaijan, Aghayev has been posted to Los Angeles for over nine years, making him currently the longest serving consul general in Los Angeles.  Azerbaijan, he said, is looking for Orange County investors in agriculture, high tech, ports and transportation, green energy, tourism industry, and manufacturers of equipment for the oil and gas industries. 

Azerbaijan wants to position itself as the transportation hub linking Europe to Asia, so it is interested in expanding its transportation infrastructure. High tech industries have a home in duty free zones, incubators and technological parks. At the recent COP 26 conference in Glasgow, the government committed to lower CO2 emissions 40 percent by 2050.  Areas of the country that are being newly developed with billions of dollars of investments, such as Karabakh and East Azngezur, are planned to be zero emission zones.  “As the first international investor in turning these areas into a ‘green zone,’ BP has pledged to build solar power plants there,” he said.

Azerbaijan is important to the United States and its allies.  It provides 40% of the oil consumed in Israel, and it is a non-Russian source of natural gas for Europe.  American aid to the country has been used to strengthen its borders with Iran, resulting in the seizure of 1.5 million tons of heroin.  “Just last week,” he said, “with the aid America has given us we seized a half ton of heroin, with a street value of $70-80 million.  That aid is an American investment that keeps those profits out of the pockets of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.” 

   Chapman expert James Coyle explains the realities of terrorism and security after Paris, San Bernardino and North Korea

 January 11, 2016 at 10:00 pm

Originally published by the Orange County Register https://www.ocregister.com/2016/01/11/chapman-expert-james-coyle-explains-the-realities-of-terrorism-and-security-after-paris-san-bernardino-and-north-korea/ 

Oh, the times, they are a changin’.
In the wake of the attacks on Paris and San Bernardino, the world is facing yet another paradigm shift – one of terrorism’s lamentable place in our world.
While still a relatively young insurgency, the methods of the Islamic State render the group a rowdy foe. Even now, it’s working to construct the state that al-Qaida never managed to achieve, leaving the corpses of former countrymen in its wake.
Coupled with self-radicalized terrorists born within our borders and molded by the Internet, these new realities are leaving governments scrambling to keep their citizens safe in an unstable world.
Further complicating the world stage, North Korea last week conducted a nuclear test – one it claims was a successful hydrogen bomb detonation. Condemnation has rained upon North Korea from the United States, Japan, South Korea, China and the United Nations, though the state of world affairs leaves what action – if any – will be taken up in the air.
James Coyle, director of Chapman University’s Center for Global Education, is an expert on terrorism, national security strategy and Middle East politics – among many other topics.
Co-author of “Politics in the Middle East: Culture and Conflict in the Middle East,” published by Prentice-Hall, Coyle also has held several positions in the federal government. Over the last three decades, Coyle has been director of Middle East studies at the U.S. Army War College, first secretary for political-military affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Ankara, senior political analyst for Palestinian affairs and special assistant to the FBI/New York Joint Terrorism Task Force.
We sat down with Coyle to discuss world affairs and the new realities of terrorism after Paris and San Bernardino.
QUESTION Given the growth of the Islamic State group in recent years, did the Paris and San Bernardino attacks come as a surprise or were these types of attacks to be expected?
ANSWER First of all, I’m going to contradict you, if I can. ISIS is not growing any more. ISIS is actually on the retreat. They’ve lost quite a bit of territory in Iraq. They’re being pummeled in Syria. The groups outside of Iraq and Syria that call themselves ISIS, they’re really nothing new.
A lot of these groups, five years ago, were all considered al-Qaida affiliates – now they’re ISIS affiliates. Basically, they’re groups that are unhappy with the governing structures of whatever country they’re in. They’ve chosen to use an Islamic ideology to motivate their base. Before, they were loyal to Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden’s dead and ISIS is on the rise, so they’ve sworn allegiance to them. They’re the same groups, they’ve just changed names in a sense.
Paris is not a surprise to me. Paris was a disaster waiting to happen with the large waves of immigration that had been passing through France, not just in the last year but in the last 50 years. It was just a matter of time until this sort of thing occurred.
San Bernardino is a surprise. First of all, the shooters themselves – it appears their connection to the radical groups overseas was tangential. In reality, these are what the press is calling “self-radicalized” individuals. We haven’t seen that before. There’s not really a lot you can do to stop that. The FBI, since 9/11, has done a very good job of stopping any of these attacks inside the United States, but how do you do that? You penetrate organizations, keep track of them. But if you have a guy and a gal sitting in San Bernardino who aren’t in touch, are not using these groups for support, how do you stop them? It was a surprise, and I think we’ll probably see more.
QUESTION What should the takeaway be from these attacks for policymakers as they work to prevent further attacks?
ANSWER You cannot win this battle militarily. Neither on the battlefields of Iraq and Syria nor using homeland security here in the United States. This is a battle for hearts and minds. Everyone who works this field, from (retired) Gen. David Petraeus on down, will tell you the same thing. Yes, you do have to provide a modicum of security. Granted, but that’s only step number one. You’ve got to win the hearts and minds.
This is the difficult part. The United States can’t really be engaged in that debate. That is a debate within the Muslim community itself. The moderate voices in the Muslim community need to engage with the radical Islamists. There are elements within the Quran that substantiate that Islam is a religion of peace. Surah 5 says that if you kill an innocent man, it’s the same as if you have killed all men in the world. A message like that is antithetical to the message of ISIS. That dialogue has to be encouraged, but we can’t be the ones holding that dialogue. We’re not part of the community, and our voice – because we’re outsiders – is suspect from the very beginning.
QUESTION What are some of the major differences, in goals and methods, to consider when looking at the Islamic State as opposed to an entity like al-Qaida – are we seeing the start of a new age of terrorism?
ANSWER It’s only methodology. The goals are the same. The goals are Islamic rule over Muslim lands. The sole difference that I see is that al-Qaida was looking at this as a future goal. The original goal of al-Qaida was the elimination of the Saudi monarchy. They weren’t even interested in the United States. Eventually, bin Laden decided he could not get rid of the Saudi monarchy, which he called “the near enemy,” unless he got rid of the organization that was propping “the near enemy” up. That was the United States, which he identified as “the far enemy.”
So, even though we remember al-Qaida because of 9/11, that was not the main thrust. The main thrust was the elimination of the Saudi monarchy and the imposition of a more authentic Sharia law on the Saudi peninsula.
Now, in the case of ISIS, they’re not even interested at this point in the Saudi peninsula. Their goal is the establishment of Sharia law throughout Muslim lands, but they’ve actually created a caliphate and are trying to establish a government. They’ve established a caliph, they’ve got taxation services, a military, garbage collection – they’re trying to be an actual state. Al-Qaida never got that far.
In my mind, we’re looking at three separate groups. Al-Qaida is your traditional terrorist organization. It had a central authority in Bin Laden. He and his henchman directed operations around the world, and it was pure terrorism: killing a second party in order to influence a third party for political goals. The second group is ISIS. They’re not really a terrorist group, they’re an insurgency. They want to overthrow the government in Iraq and Syria, replacing it with themselves. It’s an insurgency. We sometimes make the mistake in lumping them together because sometimes insurgents will use terrorist tactics. They’re not trying to influence somebody, they’re trying to set up a state.
Now, you’ve got the third “group,” and when I say “group” I don’t really mean an organized entity, more like an amorphous mass. It’s all these people around the world that are self-identifying with ISIS or even with al-Qaida. That’s the group we have to be careful of, that’s the group that’s relatively new. There’s always been that element out there. You have these terrorist waves that come through periodically, this is another wave. What’s different? The Internet.
The Internet not only allows people to become radicalized without ever meeting anybody from the organization, it allows them to communicate with people, order whatever materials you need for a terrorist attack and even publicize what you’ve done in a way that was not possible in the old days.
QUESTION In light of recent events, there have been many reports of religious intolerance – people being assaulted even for just looking how a Muslim is believed to look, and a presidential candidate discussing a ban on Muslims entering the country. Even so, it’s been said that Muslims are the chief victim of the Islamic State. Could you comment on this current state of religious intolerance?
ANSWER If you look from a historical viewpoint, the United States has always had a very strong nativist streak within it. Every ethnic group that comes into this country is opposed by people who were here first. The German Americans didn’t want the Irish to come, the Irish didn’t want the Italians to come, the Italians didn’t want the Poles to come and the Poles didn’t want the Slavs to come. The latest is we don’t want the Mexicans to come, and now we don’t want the Muslims to come.
It happens. It’s true that terrorism makes it worse. I’ve heard the phrase “not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslim,” which, by the way, is not true. There are lots of non-Muslim terrorists out there. But it strikes fear into people and they have a tendency to overreact, simple as that.
What we have to remember is the First Amendment of the Constitution says Congress shall pass no law on the establishment of religion. That’s the Constitution.
QUESTION Cooperation between the United States, China and Russia seems to be a major make-or-break element in dealing with the current state of world affairs. In terms of these relations, what are the biggest obstacles to a united dismantling of Islamic State and containment of North Korea, and how can we hope to overcome them?
ANSWER The biggest obstacle is national interests. The national interest of the United States is not that of Russia or China. Where those interests converge, there can be cooperation. Where they don’t, there cannot be. We would like Russia to cooperate with the United States against ISIS. That’s good, except that leaves the American-backed opposition untouched. That’s antithetical to the Russian national interest, which is to keep Assad in power. (Bashar Assad is the president of Syria.) It doesn’t make sense to cooperate against ISIS when Russia also wants to take out the American-backed groups.
Same thing in North Korea. Yes, both the United States and China are interested in maintaining stability on the Korean peninsula. Both of us are opposed to North Korea having nuclear arms. It sounds easy! There ought to be a large basis for cooperation. In point of fact, however, the Chinese have decided the best way for there to be stability for the peninsula is for North Korea to continue on its way. The concern is that if there were anything to destabilize the North Korean regime, then China would suddenly be inundated with a massive wave of North Korean refuges. Where our national interests converge, it’s fine, but eventually you reach a point where our interests and theirs are not the same.
It’s a question of where the goals are in the hierarchy. In China’s case, the goals in which the U.S. and China cooperate on in North Korea are lower in the hierarchy than stability on the peninsula.
QUESTION North Korea appears to have conducted another nuclear test. It may or may not have been a hydrogen bomb, but China, the U.S., Japan, South Korea and the U.N. are upset over what happened. Is there any long-term significance to this, or is it just another in a series of provocations by North Korea in recent years?
ANSWER It’s the latter. This is their fourth nuclear test. The first test took place under the Bush administration. There’s now been three tests under the Obama administration. China is not going to allow any sort of significant sanctions to be placed against North Korea. We can count on China to condemn the tests, we can count on them to verbally chastise North Korea, but we cannot count on them to actually support anything that would hurt North Korea.  When the first nuclear test occurred during the Bush administration, the United States actually considered launching a unilateral strike to take out North Korea’s nuclear facilities. They didn’t do it, for a simple reason. Seoul is 40 kilometers from the DMZ, and North Korea has had 50 years to zero in long-range artillery on Seoul. North Korea has chemical warheads – not for bombs, not for missiles, but for good-old-fashioned artillery. The Bush administration received an assessment at that time that if there was an attack and North Korea response against Seoul, you could be talking hundreds of thousands of deaths in the first few minutes. That hasn’t changed, and that’s not going to change. As long as North Korea has the ability to respond that way against an American ally, the United States’ hands are tied. And as we talked about before, when you talk about China and Russia, it’s because of their national interests that they aren’t interested in responding either. 

April 24, 2018

Ukraine May Be Getting Its Own Church, but Not as Fast as Poroshenko Thinks

By James J. Coyle

Originally published by the Atlantic Council  http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/ukraine-may-be-getting-its-own-church-but-not-as-fast-as-poroshenko-thinks 

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko announced on April 17 that Ukraine might have an independent, unified Ukrainian Orthodox Church as early as July 28—the anniversary of Kyivan Rus’ adoption of Christianity. He made this prediction after the Ukrainian parliament voted to support the president’s efforts to convince Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to grant autocephalous status to the combined Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC)-Kyiv Patriarchate and Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church.

During an official state visit to Istanbul, Poroshenko met with Patriarch Bartholomew on April 17. The two leaders held seven hours of closed-doors discussions before the president announced “Ukraine is as close as ever to the emergence of its own Unified Orthodox Church.” Poroshenko refused to divulge the details of the agreements he reached with the Ecumenical Patriarch. Opposition members of parliament claim that Poroshenko’s efforts are a charade designed to help the president’s party at the polls next year. While electoral politics may have influenced the exact timing of the talks in Istanbul, they represent the culmination of many years of efforts to have the Kyiv Patriarchate recognized. Two hundred sixty-eight parliamentarians voted to endorse Poroshenko’s efforts, far more than the 132 members of the president’s party.

Ukrainian nationalists have been trying to establish an autocephalous church since 1992, when Patriarch Filaret broke with the Moscow Patriarchate and established his own congregation, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyiv Patriarchate. The Moscow church banned Patriarch Filaret, excommunicated him, and eventually declared him anathema for his action. For the nationalists, however, it is a question of politics, not theology. “Unity is our main weapon in the fight against the Russian aggressor," Poroshenko told the parliament. “This question goes far beyond the ecclesiastical. It is about our finally acquiring independence from Moscow.” 

Poroshenko pointed out that the Kremlin regards the Moscow Patriarchate as “one of the key tools of influence over Ukraine.” His thoughts are echoed by Archbishop Zoria Yevstratiy of the Kyiv Patriarchate, who said that the differences aren’t about faith. “Moscow is using its influence over Ukraine in the church as an instrument of hybrid warfare against Ukraine,” said the prelate. 

Within Ukraine itself, the Kyiv Patriarchate is clearly winning.  According to the Razumkov Center, among the 27.8 million Ukrainian members of Orthodox churches, allegiance to the Kyiv Patriarchate has grown from 12 percent in 2000 to 25 percent in 2016. Much of the growth has come from believers who previously did not associate with either patriarchate. The undeclared war with Russia has forced people to choose between the rival churches, a choice that was not necessary before 2014.

Another study puts the number of Kyiv Patriarchate members at 46 percent of Orthodox believers. According to Archbishop Yevstratiy, “When those in the Moscow Patriarchate declare that they supposedly are the largest confession (in Ukraine), this isn’t true.” The Moscow Patriarchate is “at a minimum two or even two and a half times smaller a confession than that of the Kyiv Patriarchate.”

As expected, the bid for independence from the Moscow Patriarchate faces stiff ecclesiastical opposition from the Moscow church.  They point out that Moscow annexed Kyiv’s Metropolitan in 1686, and that Ukrainian clerics are therefore under Moscow’s authority, and not Constantinople’s.  Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew therefore lacks the authority to grant Ukraine an independent status.

Archbishop Yevstratiy dismisses these arguments. He claims that the 1686 annexation was accomplished by use of force, already a violation of canonical law.  In a Facebook posting, he wrote that the ecumenical patriarch had granted autocephaly unilaterally to Orthodox churches in Estonia in 1996, Bulgaria in 1998, and the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 2014.  Thus, “the practice of granting Tomos (an official Church declaration) on autocephaly by Constantinople in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries confirms that the Ecumenical Patriarchate alone makes this decision, without the need for prior agreements with other Churches.”

What happens among the various Orthodox communities is worth watching, as it impacts questions of Ukrainian sovereignty, the influence of Moscow, and the ecclesiastical legitimacy of the congregations. Poroshenko’s July 28 deadline might be rushed, however. 

To avoid making a decision on autocephaly, the Ecumenical Patriarch referred the recognition question to a study group two years ago. Without additional knowledge of what occurred between Patriarch Bartholomew and the president, it is impossible to state with any certainty if the patriarch has come to a decision.  As the editorial board of the Union of Orthodox Journalists wrote, “You do not have time to count how many times a week the mass media express the thesis of official representatives of the Kyiv Patriarchate about the ‘soonest recognition’ by the Ecumenical Patriarchate.”

James J. Coyle is the author of Russia’s Border Wars and Frozen Conflicts (2017: Palgrave Macmillan) and a non-resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council.

Possible sanctions for the Russia-Armenia-Iran axis

By James J. Coyle, opinion contributor — 03/30/18 09:30 AM EDT

Originally published by The Hill http://thehill.com/opinion/international/380747-possible-sanctions-for-the-russia-armenia-iran-axis 

In the past 10 days, the Trump administration has taken a significantly harder line against the Kremlin and its supporters. Following the alleged Russian use of nerve gas in the United Kingdom, the United States has expelled 60 intelligence officers and imposed sanctions on 19 Russian persons or entities for cyberattacks on America. Secretary of State nominee Mike Pompeo is a supporter of Russian-related sanctions, according to a number of experts interviewed by the Atlantic Council. 
Ariel Cohen characterizes Pompeo as “much tougher on the Kremlin” than former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. Adrian Karatnycky predicts that Pompeo will support sanctions, and Brookings Institute’s Alina Polyakova thinks it is likely he will advocate a strong policy to deter Russia. Incoming National Security Advisor John Bolton is also a known hawk on Russia.

This is bad news for countries doing business with the Russian defense establishment. In August 2017, Congress mandated further sanctions on these countries. While President TrumpDonald John TrumpRomney denounces pastor slated to speak at US embassy in JerusalemPentagon finds problems with Kushner-backed health program: reportApple CEO Tim Cook praises Parkland, 'Me Too' activists in commencement speechMORE waived these penalties in February 2018, the White House’s new make-up could mean trouble for almost all former Soviet republics (only Ukraine and Georgia avoid purchasing Russian military equipment).

One of America’s non-NATO allies in the Caucasus, Armenia, is in danger for its ties with Russia and with Iran. Shortly before President Trump announced his waiver, the U.S. embassy in Yerevan warned the Armenian government they risked sanctions, according to Haykakan Zhamanak newspaper. Officially, the Armenian government follows a policy of “complementarity” that balances good relations with Russia and the West. In reality, however, more than 5,000 Russian troops are bivouacked on Armenian soil, and Russia has been a vital source of military equipment for the country.

Armenia also has defense ties with Iran. United Nations sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program hampered the growth of military ties between the two countries, but the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2015 has opened new possibilities for Yerevan. Deputy Ministers of Defense David Tonoyan and Movses Hakobyan (currently chief of general staff) led delegations to Iran in May and June 2016. According to press, “The visit resulted in a memorandum of mutual understanding and a number of agreements that are being kept secret.”

In early 2017, the new Armenian defense minister, Vigen Sargsyan, paid an official visit to Iran to discuss military cooperation in the fields of military industry and science. Sargsyan also held security discussions with Iran’s National Security Council, and visited several defense industries.  “Armenia seeks to expand its cooperation with Iran in the defense sphere and we believe that this visit will promote further cooperation,” he said.

Iran made a reciprocal trade visit in October, when Iranian Defense Minister Nasrollah Kalantari traveled to Armenia to renew talks about Armenian-Iranian military cooperation. Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarifi applauded Armenia’s initiative, emphasizing the importance of increased bilateral cooperation.

The recent flurry in defense cooperation is merely the resumption of older military ties. In 2002, the United States blacklisted the Lizin biochemical corporation for selling dual-use equipment to the Iranian-controlled Al-Ahd Sadeq Trading Company in the United Arab Emirates. Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian admitted that Lizin had sold the products, and that the United States had warned Yerevan of the product’s dual use capability. Armenian president Robert Kocharian denied any government involvement in the company, despite the fact that the United States identified Armen Sarkisian as the deal’s broker. Sarkisian is the brother of two previous Armenian prime ministers.

Between April 2006 and June 2008, according to a State Department cable released by WikiLeaks, coalition forces in Iraq recovered from Iranian-backed militias multiple RPG-22 antitank weapons and PKM machine guns purchased by Armenia. Some of the weapons were used to kill American servicemen. The United States concluded the weapons could only have reached Iraq via a deal between Armenia and Iran.

Yerevan has become the pivot point of a potential Russia-Armenia-Iran axis. According to Lt. Col. Vladimir Evseev, member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and head of the Caucasus Department of the CIS Institute, it is time to create a more formal defense triangle. To cement this alliance, the three countries signed a roadmap in 2016 to unite the three (and Georgia) in a North-South energy corridor. Armen Manvelyan of the National Academy of Armenia said that in this process, Armenia should put emphasis on its experience in cooperation with Russia and Iran.

Armenia is a small country and needs the support of its more powerful neighbors, but it is treading a dangerous road in uniting two countries that oppose American interests. The European Union is taking the right steps in signing a Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement with Armenia, giving it an alternative to these hostile powers. The United States should also take steps to encourage Armenia to look to the West for help.

James J. Coyle, Ph.D., is the author of “Russia’s Border Wars and Frozen Conflicts,” and a non-resident senior research fellow of the Atlantic Council.

'Business as usual' with Russia defeats sanctions

By James J. Coyle, opinion contributor — 04/05/18 01:00 PM EDT

Originally published by The Hill http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/381690-business-as-usual-with-russia-defeats-sanctions 

The Trump administration continues to put sanctions on Russia using its executive powers, even as it refuses to implement congressionally-mandated sanctions. On Jan. 26, 2018, Washington sanctioned 21 individuals and nine entities for their connection to the Russian takeover of Crimea. On the diplomatic front, the United States and NATO allies have expelled scores of Russian diplomats for Russia’s alleged poisoning of double agent Sergei V. Skripal in the United Kingdom.

Despite these efforts, Russia shows no indication of altering its behavior. Sanctions have failed to influence President Vladimir Putin, because Russia’s ability to earn massive amounts of foreign currency through the sale of oil and gas remains untouched.  All countries are involved in this: the European Union, China, even the United States.

In the European Union, as Germany expelled Russian diplomats, it quietly approved the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline on its territory. This pipeline will increase Russia’s ability to ship natural gas to Europe, while bypassing Ukraine. The long-term effect of this measure will be to deprive Ukraine of transit revenues after that country’s contract with Gazprom expires in 2019. British Conservative Member of Parliament Bob Seeley declared Germany’s action a big victory for the Kremlin, which would increase Europe’s energy dependence on Russia. The European Union taps Russia for 40 percent of its natural gas.


Russian sale of gas to Europe increased 8 percent in 2017, and Gazprom anticipates this trend continuing. “Europe completely miscalculated when they assumed that they won’t need much additional gas, and if they need some it can be supplied from outside Russia,” said the deputy chief of Gazprom, Alexander Medvedev.

The West’s “business as usual” attitude has convinced the Kremlin it can wait out the expulsions and sanctions. When French President Emmanuel Macron announced he still would visit the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov immediately labeled the action a constructive position. Further, according to Alexei Pushkov, the head of the information policy committee in Russia’s upper house of parliament, German approval of Nord Stream 2 shows Chancellor Angela Merkel is trying to limit the damage in relations. Another parliamentarian cynically noted that transatlantic solidarity lasts only until it affects a country’s pocket.

In China, Russia is the largest supplier of crude oil, surpassing Saudi Arabia. In January and February, Russia shipped 20 percent more oil to the Middle Kingdom than the year before. The increase is the result of a second East-Siberia-Pacific Ocean (ESPO) pipeline opening between Siberia and Daqing, China. “We estimate that Russian crude inflows to China will grow by at least 11 percent in 2018,” said a senior analyst with S&P Global Platts China Oil Analytics.

Russia is shipping so much crude oil to China that the quality of the crude it is sending to Europe is declining. European refineries are threatening to reject the heavier Ural blend that remains.  Energy traders already are thinking about a fix, however. “There is only one way out,” said one buyer.  “… which is to cut Urals purchases and get supplies of lighter grades for blending.”
In natural gas, China currently gets its pipeline gas from Central Asia but that could change. The new “Power of Siberia” pipeline is over 75 percent complete, and Gazprom has a contract to deliver 1.3 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of gas per year for the next 30 years.

China is not the only country in East Asia poised to provide the Kremlin with more cash. In America’s ally South Korea, Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha has begun speculating about connecting to the Russian gas grid via a Trans-Korea gas pipeline. America’s other ally in the area, Japan, is considering similar plans. While most energy experts consider it unfeasible, Prime Minister Abe has held talks with President Putin about building a gas pipeline from Sakhalin Island to the Japanese main island of Honshu.

The problem is not just with American allies but with America itself. The French energy company Engie has shipped a couple of tankers full of LNG to Boston. Under U.S. law, the gas is French despite its Russian origins.

If the United States and the West want to be serious about pressuring Russia to change its actions, it must begin to implement serious sanctions. Keeping the occasional oligarch from vacationing in Disneyland while continuing to prop up the Russian hydrocarbon economy through purchases is not enough. A first step — but not the last — would be American implementation of the congressionally-mandated sanctions the executive branch is obligated by law to impose.

James J. Coyle is the author of “Russia’s Border Wars and Frozen Conflicts,” and a senior, non-resident research fellow at the Atlantic Council.

Defending the Baltics is a conundrum

By James J. Coyle, opinion contributor — 04/15/18 11:30 AM EDT

Originally published by The Hill http://thehill.com/opinion/international/382964-defending-the-baltics-is-a-conundrum 

When leaders of the Baltic States returned to the White House on April 3, 2018, it marked the third visit by leaders of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania; previous heads of state gathered in Washington in 1998 and 2013. As it was before, the purpose of their visit was to secure American protection from Russia for their tiny countries.

They probably left disappointed. President Donald Trump told Kersti Kaljulaid of Estonia, Dalia Grybauskaite of Lithuania and Raimonds Vejonis of Latvia that he wants better relations with Russia. “Nobody has been tougher on Russia,” said the American president. For the future, however, Mr. Trump told the assembled leaders that improved ties “would be a good thing, not a bad thing.” He implied that Baltic concerns were misplaced. “Just about everybody agrees to that, except very stupid people, OK?” he asked rhetorically.

Washington had been a staunch supporter of the Baltic States throughout the Cold War. Soviet troops conquered the three countries in 1940 as part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Acting U.S. Secretary of State Sumner Welles condemned the occupation, and governments-in-exile kept their independent embassies open in Washington until the 1991 collapse of the USSR.


Faced with a resurgent Russia, the Baltics again have turned to the West for military and ideological support. There are good reasons, however, that the United States should not have involved itself in the defense of these countries. They were part of the Soviet Union for over a half-century, which allowed many residents to develop an affinity for Russia. One-third of the population of Latvia and one-quarter of Estonians consider themselves ethnically Russian.   Russians in these countries are not entitled to automatic citizenship and must pass a rigorous naturalization process. This leaves most Russians “stateless,” a condition that makes Moscow’s promises of citizenship and passports look attractive.

Russia beams radio and television broadcasts into the countries, depicting their governments in the worst light. The Kremlin subsidizes Russian ethnic groups and political parties in all three states. Russian oligarchs own many of the industries. The countries face pressure from Moscow in the energy sector. Lithuania gets all its oil and natural gas from Russia, and Latvia receives the majority of its energy from the same source. Only Estonia has its own supply of shale oil, and ports to bring non-Russian oil into the country by sea.

The Baltics are under threat. According to Lithuanian Army Lt. Col. Algimantas Misiunas, Russian plans to seize the Baltics are more than a wish or desire, but a need. Russia needs a land bridge with Kaliningrad, full access and control of the Baltic Sea, and the restoration of its Soviet-era influence in Europe. Independent Baltic States stand in the way of all these goals.

These are all strong arguments against getting involved in the Baltics, and they should have been made in 2003. Conditions changed in 2004 when NATO admitted the Baltics into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. As such, the three countries joined a military grouping that Russian National Security Strategy identified as a threat to Russian national security: “The strengthening of Russia is taking place against a backdrop of new threats to national security that are of a multifarious and interconnected nature … (including) opposition from the United States and its allies.” The  Baltics, then, are under greater threat than ever — because of their association with the United States.

Since the 2004 accession to NATO, the United States and its allies have been the guarantors of Baltic security because of Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty, which states that “… an armed attack against one or more of (the parties) in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.” This is the centerpiece of the alliance and, should these countries be abandoned in the face of Russian aggression, it would mean the collapse of the alliance. For this reason, since 2014 the United States rotated troops throughout the Baltic States. Today, the Americans have been replaced by the United Kingdom in Estonia, Canada in Latvia, and Germany in Lithuania.    

Writing for the Army War College, a variety of military authors advocate increasing the NATO military presence through more ground troops (permanently stationed or rotated), air assets and coastal defense forces. None of these measures makes sense from a military viewpoint.  Geopolitically, the area is squeezed between Russia and Belarus on the East, and the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad in the West. There is no strategic depth, and the states are only connected to Europe by the 65-kilometer-wide Suwalki Gap. The entire area is covered by Russian Anti-Access Area Denial (A2/AD) capabilities. It would be suicide to try to fight a war with the Kremlin on this territory.

The United States and NATO are committed to the defense of three countries whose combined population is roughly equal to the population of the Washington, D.C. area and whose alliance with the West is a threat to Russian national security interests. The West has dealt itself a bad hand. If the West were to abandon the Baltics, however, the Russian threat would move to Poland and beyond while the NATO alliance was fractured.

NATO and America can protect the Balkans only through the projection of steadfast resolve.  The deployment of token NATO troops combined with surge exercises are insufficient to stop a Russian advance, but they serve as a warning that an attack on the Baltics is an attack on the entire alliance. It is Western unity, combined with the American nuclear umbrella, that can keep the Kremlin from the shores of the Gulf of Riga.

James J. Coyle is the author of “Russia’s Border Wars and Frozen Conflicts” (2017) and a senior, non-resident research fellow of the Atlantic Council.

An Unlikely Peacemaker: Will The Pope Bring Resolution In The Caucasus?

Featured in The Daily Caller on April 27, 2016. To access the original article, click here.

Hope for peace may be coming to the Caucasus. The Holy See has announced Pope Francis has accepted the invitation of the Catholicos of all Armenians, His Holiness Karekin II, to visit Armenia in June. The pope is also scheduled to visit Georgia and Azerbaijan on September 30-October 2 at the invitation of the governments of those states.

The papal visits could not come at a more important time. On April 2, fighting in the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan broke out on the contact line between Azerbaijani and Armenian forces. Over 75 soldiers and many civilians were killed in the worst outbreak of violence since the two sides signed a ceasefire in 1994. The Minsk group, and two of its co-chairs France and the United States, failed to restore the peace. The only effective movement was from the third co-chair, Russia, acting in a unilateral capacity. This is unfortunate.

The Minsk group is the negotiating body charged by the international community to negotiate a peace between the two sides. While it is strong in international representation, its influence is weak in the region. The outline of that peace has been known — and accepted by the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia — since 2007. The “Madrid Principles” call for the following:

• Return of the territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijani control;

• An interim status for Nagorno-Karabakh providing guarantees for security and self-governance;

• a corridor linking Armenia to Nagorno-Karabakh;

• future determination of the final legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh through a legally binding expression of will;

• the right of all internally displaced persons and refugees to return to their former places of residence; and

• international security guarantees that would include a peacekeeping operation.

Russia has considerable weight in the area. It owns a large, 5000-man military base in Armenia, and sells weapons to both Armenia and Azerbaijan. “Beyond all doubt, we are interested — maybe more than the other foreign partners of these two countries — in this conflict being settled as soon as possible,” said Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov.

Russia carries considerable baggage, however; primarily because of its support to separatists in neighboring Georgia, as well as in Moldova and Ukraine. The West should share the diplomatic lead, because Western interests are at stake. The area is a geopolitical tinderbox:  wedged between Turkey, Russia and Iran, this area could easily become a proxy war between any of these contending forces. Oil and gas pipelines running from Azerbaijan westwards bypassing both Russia and Iran offer Europe an alternative to the Russian energy monopoly. The countries are an easy day’s drive from Moscow, and sit astride the new Silk Road to Central Asia.

A lasting peace will not be easy to achieve. Negotiators have been arguing about various interpretations of the Madrid principles for almost a decade. The problem is a lack of mutual trust between the two sides. The current generation of fighters has inherited the conflict from their forbearers.

The current conflict began in 1988, in the ashes of the imploding Soviet Union. Fighting killed 30,000, and displaced almost a million, mostly Azerbaijanis. Both sides have suffered: Azerbaijan has lost 20 percent of its internationally recognized territory, and Armenia has lost the chance to share in the area’s economic development. The energy pipeline, whose most direct route from the Caspian would have taken it through Armenia, was routed through Georgia. Today, Georgia collects money from the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan in two forms: transit fees and tax revenues from the country’s largest taxpayer. By contrast, Armenia had to sell its energy distribution network to the Russians, to stay financially afloat.

The United States and France need to be more actively involved to protect the West’s interests in the peace process.  Lacking any movement from the White House or the Elysee Palace, however, a visit from the Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church is a good second choice.