$2B Taiwan arms sale in works; Saudi gets missile help from China; Allies’ D-Day message to Trump; And a bit more.

A $2 billion U.S. arms sale to Taiwan is in the works, which could be big news for northwest Ohio, Reuters reported Wednesday. The sum is “more than the total combined value of all arms sales (incl. maintenance) to Taiwan so far under the Trump administration,” The Diplomat’s Ankit Panda tweeted.

Where things stand presently: “An informal notification of the proposed sale has been sent to the U.S. Congress,” four nameless sources told Reuters.

Involved in this sale:

  • “108 General Dynamics Corp M1A2 Abrams tanks worth around $2 billion”;
  • “409 Raytheon Co and Lockheed Martin Corp-made Javelin missiles worth as much as $129 million”;
  • “1,240 TOW anti-tank missiles worth as much as $299 million”;
  • And “250 Stinger missiles worth as much as $223 million,” Reuters writes.

China’s reax: “We are severely concerned about the U.S. move and are firmly against U.S. arms sales to Taiwan,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said in Beijing.

Taiwan’s reax to China’s reax: “Going forward our government will continue to deepen the close security partnership between Taiwan and the United States,” Taipei’s Foreign Ministry told Reuters.

About those Abrams tanks: The factory where they’re made — in Lima, Ohio — “had only one tank coming from the plant a month, General Dynamics CEO Phebe Novakovic said during an April conference call with investors” before promising “we’ll be rolling out 30 tanks a month by the end of this year.”

Where are the jets? In late March, we learned that Taiwan had requested an unspecified number of tanks and 66 fighter jets. But fighter jets were not part of Wednesday’s notification, according to Bloomberg’s Tony Cappacio.

China’s reax at the time: We are “firmly opposed” to the deal, according to defense ministry spokesman Wu Qian.

How China could react now: It might "curtail the export of rare earths" again, or "dumping U.S. treasury bonds as a financial weapon," writes former DOD-er Joseph Bosco in an op-ed for The Hill.

Here’s one thing China did this week for the first time ever: Launch a satellite from a ship at sea. The Long March 11 rocket, which is “designed to be deployed quickly and from mobile launch sites such as a ship, carried seven satellites, including one that measures sea-surface winds to forecast typhoons,” Reuters reported Wednesday. More here.

Newsflash: China helped the Saudis “significantly escalate” their ballistic missile program, and the Trump administration kept it quiet, CNN reported Wednesday citing U.S. intelligence. “The previously unreported classified intelligence indicates Saudi Arabia has expanded both its missile infrastructure and technology through recent purchases from China,” CNN’s Phil Mattingly, Zachary Cohen and Jeremy Herb write.

Additionally concerning: “The Trump administration did not initially disclose its knowledge of this classified development to key members of Congress… infuriating Democrats who discovered it outside of regular US government channels and concluded it had been deliberately left out of a series of briefings where they say it should have been presented.”

Bigger picture: “The intelligence also raises questions about the administration's commitment to non-proliferation in the Middle East and the extent to which Congress is kept abreast of foreign policy developments in a volatile region.”

China’s reax: Riyadh and Beijing are "comprehensive strategic partners” that “maintain friendly cooperation in all areas, including in the area of arms sales. Such cooperation does not violate any international laws, nor does it involve the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.”

For the record: Riyadh “is barred from purchasing ballistic missiles from the US under regulations set forth by the 1987 Missile Technology Control Regime, an informal, multi-country pact aimed at preventing the sale of rockets capable of carrying weapons of mass destruction.”

Said Jeffrey Lewis of the Middlebury Institute: “Told you so.” Read why in this January report from the Washington Post’s Paul Sonne.

About that Post report: CNN writes “Several sources said the analysis presented in the classified briefing, held on April 9, went far beyond the January Washington Post story about the satellite images, and provided concrete evidence that Saudi Arabia has advanced its missile program to a point that would run in direct conflict with long-established US policy to limit proliferation in the region.”

Related analysis: MIDDLE EAST MISSILE MANIA: IT’S NOT JUST IRAN,” also from Jeffrey Lewis, writing last Tuesday.

The quick read — but you should really mark off time soon for the whole project: “Iran’s missile program does not exist in a vacuum. It is part of a decades-long process during which many regional states have acquired similar capabilities. Israel and Egypt were the first countries in the region to pursue long-range ballistic missiles, while Iran’s program did not begin until Iraq launched missiles at Tehran and other urban centers during the so-called War of the Cities in the 1980s.”

In other arms sales news: Senators will try to block Trump’s recent massive arms sales to the Middle East. “A bipartisan group of senators will try to block the Trump administration’s use of emergency authority to sell arms to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, setting up a possible showdown with the White House,” Politico and a host of outlets reported Wednesday.

What’s going on, via NBC News: “Congress by law reviews all arms sales. But Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared a national security ‘emergency’ to push through the package without congressional approval, citing what he called an urgent threat posed by Iran.”

Involved: “22 separate joint resolutions of disapproval for each of the sales,” which total worth $8.1 billion, NBC writes. “If the resolutions are adopted and Trump vetoes the measures, Congress would have to secure a two-thirds majority to override a presidential veto.”

Why go this route? To “protect and reaffirm Congress’ role of approving arms sales to foreign governments,” Reuters reports.

Joining the bipartisan protest: Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who said in a statement Wednesday, “Now is not the time to do business as usual with Saudi Arabia… I am also very concerned about the precedent these arms sales would set by having the administration go around legitimate concerns of the Congress. I expect and look forward to strong bipartisan support for these resolutions of disapproval.”

The outlook on all this? “It’s unclear if the legislation could secure the two-thirds majority needed to overcome a presidential veto,” NBC writes. “But there is growing concern across the political spectrum over the administration’s approach to Saudi Arabia and its treatment of Congress.”


From Defense One

Allies Try Using D-Day to Remind Trump Who America's Real Friends Are // Yasmeen Serhan and Peter Nicholas via The Atlantic: The U.S. president has expressed affection for authoritarian leaders, so it's unclear what impression the celebrations will make on him.

The US Needs an Industrial Policy for Cybersecurity // UC Berkeley’s Vinod K. Aggarwal and Andrew W. Reddie: Government intervention is needed to fend off the steady barrage of attacks on the digital infrastructure of U.S.-based companies and public agencies.

The People of Baltimore Are Beginning Their Fifth Week Under Electronic Siege // UMBC’s Richard Forno: It's more important than ever to be vigilant, responsible digital citizens.

Welcome to this Thursday edition of The D Brief by Ben Watson. Thanks for reading! Subscribe here. For the history-lovers among us, Michael Beschloss sends: “Here is the entire 82-minute version of CBS’s 1964 program ‘D-Day Plus 20 Years - Eisenhower Returns to Normandy’ with Walter Cronkite.”


Niger fallout continues. ABC News reported Wednesday that “Family members of some of the special operations soldiers killed in a 2017 ambush in Niger reacted angrily Wednesday after being handed a 289-page report by Army officers and learning that no further disciplinary action was required beyond the letters of reprimand that have already been issued.”
Where this outrage comes from: “On Wednesday, family members of the four soldiers received redacted copies of the original investigation into the ambush that was completed a year ago. A six-page summary of the investigation's conclusions was made public last May, but the release of the full report was delayed pending decisions about who should be held accountable and who should receive awards for valor.”
ICYMI: One minute after midnight this morning, the Pentagon put out a statement on its investigation into the Niger attack. According to the statement, Acting Defense Secretary Pat Shanahan is “satisfied that all findings, awards, and accountability actions were thorough and appropriate.” ABC News writes “Shanahan's decision came after a new review of previous investigations -- which he had ordered -- recommended no additional disciplinary steps.” But multiple family members of the survivors are still livid and unsatisfied with that response from Shanahan. Read on, here.

U.S. authorities are repatriating six ISIS-affiliated Americans, including four children — raising the stakes on its European allies to do the same, the Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday. “Kurdish officials declined to discuss the matter on Tuesday, saying the U.S. had told them not to reveal further details,” but a Kurdish spokesman said they were “wives and children of the members of the Daesh organization.”
About those allies: “European governments, meanwhile, are concerned about their ability to secure convictions against citizens who joined Islamic State,” the Journal’s Nazih Osseiran in Beirut and Isabel Coles write. “Such legal proceedings against militants and their family members would require collecting sufficient evidence of the crimes they committed in a war zone. By contrast, the U.S. is dealing with a relatively small number of its citizens who traveled to Syria and Iraq to join the group.”
For what it’s worth, the Uzbeks and Turks have taken back a combined 270 fighters last week alone. A bit more, here.

North Korea’s KN-23 short-range ballistic missile that it tested last month? “It looks a lot like Russia's [Iskander-M], with some significant differences,” the folks at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies reported — supported by imagery analysis — on their website Wednesday.

Let’s not miss North Korea’s escalatory nuclear messaging, because we received another one on Wednesday. Voice of America reported “a North Korean foreign ministry official said that if Washington doesn't change its approach” to nuclear talks with Pyongyang, any progress made since the first Trump-Kim summit in Singapore one year ago will be lost. “There is a limit to our patience,” warned the statement from Pyongyang’s state-run Korean Central News Agency.  
Here’s Jeffrey Lewis again, this time helping contextualize this latest DPRK warning: “To make this explicit: US officials keep describing the North Koreans as silent because there are no working-level talks. But the North Koreans are loudly and publicly stating their position. The problem is that the North Korean position is unwelcome, not that it is hard to hear.”

Not enough U.S. arms-sales news today? We have one more, and it comes with considerable shadiness. That story: “The State Department has forced out a senior official who played a role in crafting a plan that led to billions of dollars going to [Raytheon, which] he formerly represented as a lobbyist,” the Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday.
The gist: “Charles Faulkner, who previously represented Raytheon Co., took part in an unusual Trump administration move to declare an emergency over tensions with Iran to fast-track $8 billion in arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, circumventing normal congressional review.”
The consequences: He resigned in early May, and now “Democratic lawmakers want to know if Mr. Faulkner violated Trump administration ethics rules.”
From here: “The House Foreign Affairs Committee plans a hearing on next Wednesday on the State Department decisions, according to the panel, and Mr. Faulkner’s role is expected to be a focus of the questioning.”

Finally today: A curious story about the intersection of art forgeries and nuclear weapons. It comes to us via the New York Times’ Niraj Chokshi, writing off a study published Monday in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The short read: “For years, scientists have been refining techniques to determine the age of a painting using radiocarbon dating and the lingering effects of the nuclear bomb tests of the mid-20th century. Now, a team of researchers has dated one such artwork using a paint chip the size of a poppy seed.”
The bottom line, after a significant amount of history: “The technique will most likely retain some value, but it will increasingly need to be used in conjunction with other methods of ascertaining a material’s age, experts say.” Read the rest, here.

X
This website uses cookies to enhance user experience and to analyze performance and traffic on our website. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. Learn More / Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Accept Cookies
X
Cookie Preferences Cookie List

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

When you visit our website, we store cookies on your browser to collect information. The information collected might relate to you, your preferences or your device, and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to and to provide a more personalized web experience. However, you can choose not to allow certain types of cookies, which may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer. Click on the different category headings to find out more and change our default settings according to your preference. You cannot opt-out of our First Party Strictly Necessary Cookies as they are deployed in order to ensure the proper functioning of our website (such as prompting the cookie banner and remembering your settings, to log into your account, to redirect you when you log out, etc.). For more information about the First and Third Party Cookies used please follow this link.

Allow All Cookies

Manage Consent Preferences

Strictly Necessary Cookies - Always Active

We do not allow you to opt-out of our certain cookies, as they are necessary to ensure the proper functioning of our website (such as prompting our cookie banner and remembering your privacy choices) and/or to monitor site performance. These cookies are not used in a way that constitutes a “sale” of your data under the CCPA. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not work as intended if you do so. You can usually find these settings in the Options or Preferences menu of your browser. Visit www.allaboutcookies.org to learn more.

Sale of Personal Data, Targeting & Social Media Cookies

Under the California Consumer Privacy Act, you have the right to opt-out of the sale of your personal information to third parties. These cookies collect information for analytics and to personalize your experience with targeted ads. You may exercise your right to opt out of the sale of personal information by using this toggle switch. If you opt out we will not be able to offer you personalised ads and will not hand over your personal information to any third parties. Additionally, you may contact our legal department for further clarification about your rights as a California consumer by using this Exercise My Rights link

If you have enabled privacy controls on your browser (such as a plugin), we have to take that as a valid request to opt-out. Therefore we would not be able to track your activity through the web. This may affect our ability to personalize ads according to your preferences.

Targeting cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.

Social media cookies are set by a range of social media services that we have added to the site to enable you to share our content with your friends and networks. They are capable of tracking your browser across other sites and building up a profile of your interests. This may impact the content and messages you see on other websites you visit. If you do not allow these cookies you may not be able to use or see these sharing tools.

If you want to opt out of all of our lead reports and lists, please submit a privacy request at our Do Not Sell page.

Save Settings
Cookie Preferences Cookie List

Cookie List

A cookie is a small piece of data (text file) that a website – when visited by a user – asks your browser to store on your device in order to remember information about you, such as your language preference or login information. Those cookies are set by us and called first-party cookies. We also use third-party cookies – which are cookies from a domain different than the domain of the website you are visiting – for our advertising and marketing efforts. More specifically, we use cookies and other tracking technologies for the following purposes:

Strictly Necessary Cookies

We do not allow you to opt-out of our certain cookies, as they are necessary to ensure the proper functioning of our website (such as prompting our cookie banner and remembering your privacy choices) and/or to monitor site performance. These cookies are not used in a way that constitutes a “sale” of your data under the CCPA. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not work as intended if you do so. You can usually find these settings in the Options or Preferences menu of your browser. Visit www.allaboutcookies.org to learn more.

Functional Cookies

We do not allow you to opt-out of our certain cookies, as they are necessary to ensure the proper functioning of our website (such as prompting our cookie banner and remembering your privacy choices) and/or to monitor site performance. These cookies are not used in a way that constitutes a “sale” of your data under the CCPA. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not work as intended if you do so. You can usually find these settings in the Options or Preferences menu of your browser. Visit www.allaboutcookies.org to learn more.

Performance Cookies

We do not allow you to opt-out of our certain cookies, as they are necessary to ensure the proper functioning of our website (such as prompting our cookie banner and remembering your privacy choices) and/or to monitor site performance. These cookies are not used in a way that constitutes a “sale” of your data under the CCPA. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not work as intended if you do so. You can usually find these settings in the Options or Preferences menu of your browser. Visit www.allaboutcookies.org to learn more.

Sale of Personal Data

We also use cookies to personalize your experience on our websites, including by determining the most relevant content and advertisements to show you, and to monitor site traffic and performance, so that we may improve our websites and your experience. You may opt out of our use of such cookies (and the associated “sale” of your Personal Information) by using this toggle switch. You will still see some advertising, regardless of your selection. Because we do not track you across different devices, browsers and GEMG properties, your selection will take effect only on this browser, this device and this website.

Social Media Cookies

We also use cookies to personalize your experience on our websites, including by determining the most relevant content and advertisements to show you, and to monitor site traffic and performance, so that we may improve our websites and your experience. You may opt out of our use of such cookies (and the associated “sale” of your Personal Information) by using this toggle switch. You will still see some advertising, regardless of your selection. Because we do not track you across different devices, browsers and GEMG properties, your selection will take effect only on this browser, this device and this website.

Targeting Cookies

We also use cookies to personalize your experience on our websites, including by determining the most relevant content and advertisements to show you, and to monitor site traffic and performance, so that we may improve our websites and your experience. You may opt out of our use of such cookies (and the associated “sale” of your Personal Information) by using this toggle switch. You will still see some advertising, regardless of your selection. Because we do not track you across different devices, browsers and GEMG properties, your selection will take effect only on this browser, this device and this website.