East Asia Policy

Corri Zoli Awarded US Intelligence Community Grant to Offer Geopolitical Simulation

Professor Corri Zoli, Syracuse University College of Law Director of Sponsored Research, has been awarded an Intelligence Community Center for Academic Excellence (ICCAE) Program Office grant for a 2020 Virtual Summer Session Simulation project she is spearheading entitled “Strategic Triangulation in Central, South, and East Asia.” The award is made through the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), which directs the national ICCAE program. 

The nationwide ODNI ICCAE Summer Session takes place across 26 July and 7 Aug., 2020. The simulation, which will be presented to ICCAE students twice, draws on the international security subject matter expertise of Zoli, a Co-Investigator for the Syracuse University ICCAE, and Robert B. Murrett, Professor of Practice in the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs and SU ICCAE Primary Investigator. Also helping to design the simulation are Professor James Edward Crill II, Forensic and National Security Sciences Institute (FNSSI), College of Arts and Sciences; Professor Margaret Hermann, Director of the Moynihan Institute of Global Affairs, Maxwell School; Professor Michael Marciano, Associate Director of FNSSI Research; and Professor Robert A. Rubinstein, Distinguished Professor of Anthropology and Professor of International Relations, Maxwell School. 

“The ODNI ICCAE online simulation scenario reflects today’s highly dynamic strategic environment and the stressors currently faced by the 17 elements of the US Intelligence Community (IC) and our national security institutions,” explains Zoli. “This environment is characterized by complexity and unpredictability, asymmetric actors, transformative technology, and global economic and public health variables, to name just a few challenges.” To provide a realistic geopolitical theater, the simulation begins with a recent real-world event: on April 2, 2020, an Indian quadcopter was shot down by the Pakistan Army after it violated Pakistan’s airspace in the Sankh district and entered 600 metres into Pakistan’s territory to conduct surveillance. 

“As the simulation unfolds, ICCAE students will discover, through plot-twists and seemingly unrelated incidents in Afghanistan—including the release of a modified vaccinia virus and the recovery of fissile material from a dirty bomb—that China is influencing actors in the background,” explains Zoli. The students, adopting various roles in the IC community, must puzzle their way through this combustible mix of events, involving operationalized chemical and nuclear capabilities, illicit global economic collaboration, disrupted supply chains, and the role of transnational critical infrastructure, such the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative. 

“ICCAE students will play US intelligence analysts from many of the 17 IC agencies and must make sense of the threats and opportunities that these kaleidoscopic challenges create,” says Zoli.

Zoli explains that in the interdisciplinary spirit of the SU ICCAE program, the simulation exercise is the result of a collaborative partnership that includes faculty from the College of Law, College of Arts and Sciences, and the Maxwell School. Zoli adds that several of her College of Law colleagues also will share their expertise with participating ICCAE students from across the nation. Furthermore, SU ICCAE graduate students have been invited to join with and mentor ICCAE summer session students during the simulations. 

About SU ICCAE

Recently renewed for year two, the Syracuse University Intelligence Community Center for Academic Excellence (SU ICCAE) is a Congressionally-mandated, $1.5 million federal award program designed to increase the recruitment of diverse candidates into US public service and the 17 agencies of the Intelligence Community. SU ICCAE—which includes minority-serving partner institutions CUNY Grove, CUNY John Jay, Norfolk State University, and Wells College—is open to all Syracuse University faculty and students. Embracing a broad understanding of diversity, SU ICCAE prioritizes the central role and contribution of diversity to public service, building next-generation knowledge professionals, and the ethics and rule of law tradition essential to US security policy and governance.

Fox News Interviews Robert B. Murrett on North Korea Summit

Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un expected to discuss denuclearization, economy during historic summit

(Fox News | May 8, 2018) Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un expected to discuss denuclearization, economy during historic summit

President Donald Trump says a date and location have been set for the U.S.-North Korea summit, though he has yet to give specifics.

“It’s important because of the potential opening it has; there is potential diplomatic progress.”

“We now have a date and we have a location. We’ll be announcing it soon,” Trump told reporters from the White House South Lawn in early May.

In the past, Trump said the meeting with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un would take place sometime in May or early June. It will be the first-ever meeting between a U.S. president and a North Korean leader.

“It’s important because of the potential opening it has; there is potential diplomatic progress,” former Vice Adm. Robert B. Murrett, a professor of practice, public administration and international affairs at Syracuse University, told Fox News.

Murrett, who also serves as deputy director of the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism at the college, specializes in national security, international relations, military and defense strategy.

“This is something we haven’t been able to do for many years,” he added.

Fox News asked Murrett to explain what the summit could mean for this nation’s future, and he answered three questions about the historic event that Americans should know.

Why is this meeting so significant?

Aside from the potential diplomatic benefits between the U.S. and North Korea, the summit could benefit other countries.

“It not just about the United States,” he said, explaining that the meeting could also be a win for “our partners in the east, such as South Korea and Japan, but also areas in the South Pacific region such as Australia.”

He added, “These talks have the ability to reduce security tensions in East Asia and present an opportunity for the U.S. to reinforce the strong links with South Korea, Japan and even China.”

What topics should we expect Kim and Trump to discuss?

Denuclearization will be at the forefront, Murrett said.

North Korea’s “nuclear weapons and ability to deliver them at long distances should be central,” said Murrett, who added that recent talks between North and South Korea “would suggest that it would remain a core issue.”

President Trump says meeting with the leader on North Korea has a chance to be a big event.

But Murrett also expects discussion of the Hermit Kingdom’s role in the global economy.

Despite various sanctions placed on the country, North Korea’s economy grew by 3.9 percent in 2016. But Murrett said diplomatic talks represent the “prospect of North Korea rejoining the family of the Asians” if only from an economic standpoint, potentially opening the door for the country to trade with more than just China.

“It would be in the interest of the people of North Korea,” Murrett added.

Does Trump deserve credit for the summit?

In short: Yes. In part.

While Trump does deserve credit for agreeing to meet with Kim, his decision to do so was likely sparked by “the window of opportunity that has existed because of ongoing pressure” on North Korea to better its relations with surrounding countries and beyond, Murrett said …

Read the full article here.

Robert B. Murrett Speaks to Brazilian Media About Trump’s Visit to Asia

Com trunfos, China recebe americano

(Estadão Jornal Digital | Nov. 8, 2017)

… The President of the Republic of Korea today arrives in Beijing from South Korea. After saying that it was a “waste of time” to talk to North Korea last month, the American adopted a diplomatic tone and invited Pyongyang to “sit at the table” to discuss the nuclear issue. “I think we’re making a lot of progress, I think we’re showing great strength. I think they understand that we have unparalleled strength,” Trump told a news conference alongside South Korean President Moon Jae-in. “In the end, this will work.”

Deputy Director of the Institute of National Security and Counterterrorism at Syracuse University, Robert Murrett evaluated the change in the president’s tone as an attempt to reduce tension in the region. The South Korean president was elected on a platform that advocates negotiation with Pyongyang and rejects any military confrontation. Trump’s bellicose rhetoric was not well received by the South Korean population, who would be directly hit in a possible war. Research by Pew Research has shown that two-thirds of South Korean respondents consider Trump to be “dangerous.”

Murrett recalled that the issue of North Korea will be at the center of Trump’s agenda in Beijing. “Any kind of action against North Korea has to include the Chinese.” …

To read the article in the original Portuguese, click here.

“Never Underestimate”: USA Today Speaks to Robert B. Murrett About Japan’s Military Posture

When it comes to North Korea, what is Japan’s military role?

(USA Today | Nov. 6, 2017) President Trump pressed Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on Monday to purchase more military hardware from the United States and take a more active role in its defense against North Korea.

“I would never underestimate the Japanese military.”

Trump had privately questioned why Japan didn’t shoot down the North Korean missiles launched over the northern island of Hokkaido in August and September, according to a report Saturday by Japan’s Kyodo News Agency. The report, citing diplomatic sources, said Trump wondered why a nation of “samurai warriors” wouldn’t take action.

At a news conference in Tokyo with Abe, Trump addressed the question, saying: “(Abe) will shoot them out of the sky when he completes the purchase of lots of additional military equipment from the United States. … And we make the best military equipment by far” …

… For more than 60 years Japan has operated the Self-Defense Forces, with some 250,000 air, naval and ground troops that experts say are among the best-trained and most well-equipped in the world.

“I would never underestimate the Japanese military,” said retired vice admiral Robert Murrett, deputy director of the Institute of National Security and Counterterrorism at Syracuse University. “In terms of just sheer military proficiency — unit for unit, person for person, they’re the best military in Asia.”

Murrett said that North Korea is continuing to push Japan to toward a more assertive posture.

“From a policy approach, they’re getting more energetic and less deferential to their neighbors or to the umbrella provided by the United States,” he said …

To read the full article, click here.

 

“Deal Very Carefully”: Robert B. Murrett Weighs US Options Regarding North Korea with Politico

Trump’s tough talk does little to deter North Korea

(Re-published from POLITICO | Aug. 29, 2017) Short of launching a military attack that would carry enormous risks, President Donald Trump has few military options at his disposal to back up his rhetorical assault against North Korea — as some arms control experts and members of Congress fear the president’s tough talk has only increased tensions.

“It is very important to deal very carefully with North Korea. They are [a] less rational actor than other international players.”

Indeed, North Korea’s latest provocation, following a large-scale U.S. military exercise, was seen by many as evidence that Pyongyang has responded to the president’s more bellicose approach than President Barack Obama’s, as well as new international sanctions, by instead stepping up its missile development.

“It makes it a little difficult to continue to be talking about, ‘Oh, you better watch out, North Korea, we’re going to get you,’” said James Moore, a former assistant secretary of Commerce with experience in the region who is now a professor at Georgetown’s McDonough School of Business. “Our options are really very limited.”

The test of an intermediate-range ballistic missile on Monday was seen as especially provocative because it flew over Japanese territory before splashing down in the ocean, drawing widespread condemnation.

Trump — who earlier this month threatened “fire and fury” upon Pyongyang — on Tuesday issued a statement saying that “all options are on the table.” U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley said that ”enough is enough” as the world body planned to convene an emergency meeting to address the latest development in the crisis.

But it will prove exceedingly difficult at this stage for the Trump administration to compel North Korea to stand down by threats or military moves.

Retired Adm. Robert Murrett, a former director of naval intelligence, said there are a range of options at the military’s disposal — but none of them are likely to make much difference in the near term.

They include sending additional reinforcements to the region in the form of air, ground or naval forces. The United States and South Korea could also conduct additional military exercises like the one completed just as the North Koreans test-launched the latest missile, he said.

American and Japanese military forces were wrapping up the war games called Northern Viper on Hokkaido, the island in northern Japan that was overflown by the North Korean missile. About 2,000 U.S. Marines participated, according to the Defense Department.

Kelsey Davenport, the director for nonproliferation policy at the Arms Control Association, which supports negotiations with North Korea, said that the missile test over Japan is “not surprising” given the timing of both Trump’s recent comments and the military exercise.

“North Korea often responds to threats with threats and to provocations with provocations,” she said.

Murrett also expressed doubt that additional military steps by the United States and its allies would force a change in behavior on the part of Pyongyang resulting in stabilizing the situation.

“It is very important to deal very carefully with North Korea. They are [a] less rational actor than other international players,” said Murrett, who now teaches at Syracuse University.

Yet he stressed that backing down from regularly scheduled military exercises with South Korea and Japan, as some recommended as a way to ease some of the recent tension, is not the answer, either.

“Canceling such a long-planned exercise would have sent the wrong signals” to U.S. allies, he said, and have a “negative impact on our current and long-term readiness.”

Another military option being raised in news reports is for the United States to position “strategic” weapons on the Korean peninsula, such as nuclear-armed bombers. The Pentagon declined to address questions about whether it is contemplating such a move …

To read the whole story, click here.

Members of INSCT Offer Thoughts on North Korean Threat

(SU News | Aug. 11, 2017) Syracuse University faculty members William Banks, a professor in both the College of Law and Maxwell School, and Robert Murrett, who also is a professor at both the Maxwell School and the  College of Law, offer their thoughts on the possible threat of North Korea to U.S. interests at home and abroad. Both are also members of the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism (INSCT).

“The US is forbidden from using military force against North Korea absent a Security Council Resolution or action by North Korea against us that would trigger self-defense.”

When it comes to declaring war on North Korea, according to Banks, the founding director of INSCT, “Under United States law, the president cannot lawfully strike militarily at North Korea without authorization from Congress. Under international law, the U.S. is forbidden from using military force against North Korea absent a Security Council Resolution or action by North Korea against us that would trigger self-defense.”

When asked if the armistice still in place from 1953 between the U.S. and DPRK gives the U.S. president international law options he might not have when dealing militarily with another country, Banks says “the fact that the Korean War ended in the stalemate of an armistice has little or no bearing on the current military situation and the legality of a strike against North Korea.”

As for Murrett, the former director of naval intelligence, “When it comes to the intelligence assessments of North Korea, we look at three tiers: their nuclear capability, the weaponization of their nuclear capability and the types of delivery vehicle they have, be they missiles, submarines or aircraft. When it comes to degrees of certainty in regard to North Korea’s current nuclear capability, I have very high confidence in the assessment of the U.S. intelligence community, and these intelligence assessments will influence U.S. policy and planning.

“The U.S. military is a planning machine and U.S. Forces Korea, part of the U.S. Pacific Command, has detailed contingency plans for the Korean Peninsula—drawn up in collaboration with South Korea and Japan—which offer a range of different options. Although I am concerned about the North Korean threat to Guam—that territory is an essential part of the U.S. presence in the Pacific—we can’t forget our Pacific allies, not just South Korea and Japan but Australia, New Zealand and others. We must keep them informed of the planning we perform and the diplomacy we execute.”

Members of INSCT Offer Thoughts on North Korean Threat

War Games: Robert B. Murrett Discusses North Korea Tensions with CNBC

US-South Korean war games provide trigger that could further inflame Pyongyang

(CNBC | Aug. 10, 2017) Annual war games exercises with tens of thousands of U.S. and South Korean forces are expected to start later this month and could further inflame tensions with North Korea.

Defense experts see little or no chance Washington will call off the two-week drills. They believe doing so would jeopardize readiness and be the wrong signal to nuclear-armed North Korea and U.S. allies in the region. The North has previously indicated it might sit down for talks but first wanted joint military exercises to be halted.

The North Korean regime led by 33-year-old Kim Jong Un sees the drills as a provocation and sometimes responds with threats and a show of power. For example, last year the hermit regime conducted its fifth nuclear test exactly a week after the joint military exercises had formally concluded …

… In June, a North Korean diplomat raised the possibility that Pyongyang might be “willing to talk” with the U.S. about freezing its nuclear and missile tests but first asked for the U.S. to “completely stop” large-scale joint military exercises with South Korea, temporarily or permanently.

“I would be reluctant to trade on those terms because of a signal it may be sending to others around the world and specifically to others that rely upon us heavily in the region,” said retired Navy Vice Adm. Robert Murrett, deputy director of the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism at Syracuse University.

Murrett, a former director of Naval Intelligence who also ran the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, added that it still maybe a good idea to “do a day in, day out” assessment because of the situation on the Korean peninsula …

To read the full article, click here.

 

Can Donald Trump Avoid a Dangerous South China Sea Showdown?

By James Steinberg & Michael O’Hanlon

(Re-published from The National Interest | Jan. 18, 2017) Donald Trump’s election has raised questions about the future of U.S. foreign policy—and perhaps nowhere more consequentially than for Sino-U.S. relations. During the presidential campaign, Trump focused most of his fire on China’s economic policies, but during the transition he has broadened his critique to include China’s military buildup and activities in the South China Sea, and he has called into question America’s long-standing One China policy. In light of these comments, it’s particularly timely to assess the state of the bilateral security relationship, and whether new developments warrant a fundamental rethink of our security policy toward China.

“In response to those developments, President Barack Obama elaborated an approach to China that responded to China’s actions while preserving the basic framework of the One China policy—an approach which has been called the Asia-Pacific rebalance or pivot. The rebalance focused not only on security, but also broader economic and political issues as well.”

Many scholars and policymakers would agree. But while there is ample reason to be concerned about trends, we would contend that the state of U.S.-China security relations is a glass half full. It is important that both sides make maximum efforts to stabilize the security relationship, lest tensions in both the economic and security dimensions feed on each other, and the risks of rivalry and conflict deepen.

Until recently, there was considerable bipartisan continuity in U.S. policy towards the PRC. The pillars of this policy have included support for economic engagement and diplomatic partnership with China, combined with ongoing security commitments to regional allies, a capable U.S. military presence to back up those commitments, robust trade and investment relations, and involvement in range of multilateral institutions. This strategy served U.S. interests well for decades—helping pull the PRC away from the Soviet Union and thus accelerating the end of the Cold War. It also preserved security for Taiwan, Japan, South Korea and East Asia. The peaceful regional environment provided a context for China’s leaders to launch a strategy of “reform and opening up,” which lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese out of poverty and contributed to regional and global economic growth as transnational supply chains offered consumers lower prices for tradeable goods.

As the decades went by, however, this strategy produced other, more worrying consequences. China became the world’s top manufacturing nation and boasted the world’s second-largest economy. That status came with dramatic implications for jobs and investment, especially in the manufacturing sectors of developed countries—particularly the United States and Europe. Those developments gave China the wherewithal to field the world’s second most expensive military force, featuring a growing range of high-technology weapons, which now challenge America’s military supremacy in the Western Pacific. That burgeoning capability has been accompanied by an increasingly assertive foreign policy, particularly with respect to China’s territorial and maritime claims in the East and South China Seas. Taken together, the developments have led growing numbers of Americans to question whether China’s rise was of mutual benefit both on security and economic fronts. The tension in U.S.-China relations was exacerbated because the hoped-for political reforms, which were expected to follow the economic opening, failed to materialize. On the contrary, under President Xi Jinping, the movement toward a more open and rights-respecting China seems to have reversed course in favor of more central control and an assertive nationalism, which rejects what most people in the United States and countries around the world consider to be universal principles of human rights.

In response to those developments, President Barack Obama elaborated an approach to China that responded to China’s actions while preserving the basic framework of the One China policy—an approach which has been called the Asia-Pacific rebalance or pivot. The rebalance focused not only on security, but also broader economic and political issues as well. It has been generally well received among American strategists and leaders of both parties, and among American allies in Asia as well. Yet the new approach has not, by itself, stabilized the Sino-U.S. relationship. Many in China see the rebalance as thinly disguised containment, while critics in the United States fault the Obama administration for an inadequate response to China’s assertiveness—a critique reflected in the president-elect’s rather cryptic comments to date.

As we see it, the reality of Sino-U.S. relations since the launch of the rebalance is more complex.

If one dates the formal inauguration of the rebalance policy to former secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s Foreign Policy article on the subject in October 2011, followed by President Obama’s visit to Australia and the broader region in November of 2011, then the regional security situation involving China deteriorated in many ways in the following months and years. In April 2012, China moved military forces into position to establish control of the Scarborough Shoal. (In July 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration for the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea in The Hague ruled this action to be an infringement of the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone.) China also established a new administrative unit to oversee the Paracel and Spratly Islands of the South China Sea. China asserted an air-defense identification zone—without consulting other countries—in the East China Sea region in 2013. It moved oil rigs into Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone in 2014 and 2016 …

To read the complete article, click here.

INSCT Affiliated Faculty Member Jim Steinberg is University Professor of Social Science, International Affairs, and Law, and Former Dean, Maxwell School of Syracuse University. He is also Former Deputy US Secretary of State. Michael O’Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

David M. Crane Interviewed by Daily Orange About Sri Lanka Appointment

SU College of Law Professor Provides Legal Counsel in Sri Lanka

(Re-Published from The Daily Orange, 14 Jan., 2015) The rule of the law is more powerful than the rule of the gun.

That was a guiding principle in Syracuse University College of Law professor David Crane’s work as the chief prosecutor for the Special Court of Sierra Leone, then later in his work with Syria and now in his work with Sri Lanka.

[pullquoteright]I wanted to walk the ground where the alleged war crimes took place in northern, northeastern Sri Lanka.”[/pullquoteright]This past winter break, Crane spent eight days in Sri Lanka as part of an ongoing mandate. He was appointed by the president of Sri Lanka in the fall of 2014 to provide legal counsel to a commission that is investigating alleged war crimes from a 30-year war.

“The commission has certain legal issues related to international humanitarian law and they ask those questions and a member of the advisory panel provides those answers,” Crane said. “Like any legal situation, there’s a client who says ‘I have a legal question,’ and they ask us.”

His work is part of the aftermath of a 30-year civil war in Sri Lanka. The Tamil people of the north sought independence from the majority ethnic group, the Sinhalese. The Tamil Tigers, as they’re called, used “extreme terrorist tactics” in this war, Crane said.

“The Tamil Tigers are the group that developed the weapons of terror that are currently being used by other terrorist organizations today,” Crane said. “A pretty brutal group. And they used terrorist tactics to try to advance their cause. And of course, in this civil war, both sides had challenges related to war crime allegations, but the Tamil Tigers particularly were very, very brutal.”

That war came to an end in 2009. Now, the Sri Lankan government and the United Nations are investigating potential war crimes on both sides of the conflict.

“The international community over the last couple years has been looking into investigating allegations that took place at the end of the civil war as well, and there currently is a UN commission looking into these issues,” Crane said. “The president, aware of the concerns by the international community, created his own presidential commission to look into these allegations, and that’s where I fit in.”

Crane is one of four lawyers who does this. He provides legal advice, mostly from the states, but he will be making some trips to Sri Lanka.

“I was in Sri Lanka because I hadn’t been out there yet and wanted to meet with the members of the presidential commission looking into that and also to meet with various senior members of the Sri Lankan government,” Crane said. “I wanted to walk the ground where the alleged war crimes took place in northern, northeastern Sri Lanka.”

All of this experience abroad has helped Crane in his job as a professor.

He started Impunity Watch, a law journal, in 2007 and the Syrian Accountability Project in 2011. SAP is a group of roughly 35 Syracuse law students participating in an international effort to help bring President Bashar al-Assad to justice, along with others who have committed war crimes in Syria, Crane said …

To read the complete article, click here.