Friday News Roundup — March 8, 2024
This week Super Tuesday delivered the presidential race that a majority of Americans never wanted, a rare race between an aging president and an aging former president, both with historic disapproval ratings. Already the general election has kicked off between 81-year-old Joe Biden, the oldest president in U.S. history whose approval rating hovers around 40 percent despite an improving economy and cooling inflation, and soon to be 78-year-old former President Donald Trump, who has an unfavorable approval rating of more than 50 percent and a court docket that includes four indictments and 91 felony charges. Trump has also convinced two thirds of Republican voters of his falsehood that the 2020 presidential election was stolen, which led a violent mob to sack the U.S. Capitol resulting in multiple deaths on January 6, 2021. Little wonder that many election experts are already predicting this year’s presidential race will be the longest, least civil and most divisive in modern American history.
Biden gave an early preview in his State of the Union speech last night, invoking the threat posed by election denialism at home and Russian aggression abroad by recalling Franklin Roosevelt’s 1941 warning to Congress that the nation confronted a moment “unprecedented in the history of the union.”
“What makes our moment rare is that freedom and democracy are under attack both at home and overseas at the same time. Overseas, Putin of Russia is on the march, invading Ukraine and sowing chaos throughout Europe and beyond,” said Biden, calling on Congress to finally pass a Ukraine aid bill bottled up in the House for many months. “I say to this Congress: We have to stand up to Putin. Send me a bipartisan national security bill. History is watching. If the United States walks away, it will put Ukraine at risk. Europe is at risk. The free world will be at risk, emboldening others that wish to do us harm.”
Of the lies of a stolen 2020 election that led to the January 6, 2021 ransacking of the Capitol, Biden called them the “gravest threat to U.S. democracy since the Civil War.” “We must be honest. The threat to democracy must be defended. My predecessor and some of you here seek to bury the truth about January 6. I will not do that,” said Biden, who pointedly referred to “my predecessor thirteen times in his speech. “This is a moment to speak the truth and bury the lies. Here’s the simple truth: You can’t love your country only when you win.”
On his social media site after the address, Trump weighed in with his own critique. “That may be the Angriest, Least Compassionate, and Worst State of the Union Speech ever made. It was an Embarrassment to our Country.”
Eight months to go before the American public get their chance to weigh in on a presidential race with little precedent.
With his staunch support for Israel despite its scorched-earth campaign against Hamas terrorists in Gaza dragging down his poll numbers in key swing states such as Michigan, Biden did make news in the State of the Union address by announcing that he would order the U.S. military to build a temporary port in Gaza to allow more desperately needed aid to enter the enclave. This comes after the U.S. military recently joined with neighboring countries in air-dropping food into Gaza, where U.N. officials said this week that more than half a million people are on the doorstep of famine. It represents just the latest attempt by the Biden administration to put light between its position arguing for a ceasefire in the conflict and a return of Israeli hostages, and the hardline positions of Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu, who has called for a complete destruction of Hamas after its attack on October 7, 2023, whatever the costs.
In other news from Washington, D.C., the House of Representatives this week continued to govern by brinksmanship, finally passing spending bills that narrowly avoided another government shutdown. As has proved the case in other recent showdowns, House speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., had to rely on a majority of Democrats to pass the 339–85 bipartisan vote, drawing the ire of his hard-right flank in the Republican Freedom Caucus. Yet another trip to the brink will occur on March 22, the deadline for passing the remaining, and more controversial, spending bills required to keep the lights on and elevators running throughout the federal government.
In more welcome news, after waiting nearly two years following its request to join, Sweden became NATO’s newest member this week, greatly strengthening the alliance’s defenses in the Baltic Sea area. The move comes after Finland officially joined the alliance last April. Both traditionally neutral nations decided to join the alliance of more than 30 countries after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, making clear that Russian dictator Vladimir Putin’s unprovoked war of aggression in the heart of Europe has had the opposite of its intended strategic effect — encouraging further NATO expansion.
“America is a founding member of NATO, the military alliance of democratic nations created after World War II to prevent war and keep the peace,” Biden noted last night, publicly welcoming Sweden and Finland to “the strongest military alliance the world has ever seen.”
Stopgap spending threatening 2025 defense budgets
By Ethan Brown
The U.S. defense enterprise has endured and evolved under myriad conflicts, contractions, and rapid growths as it defends our way of life at home and abroad, but one thing it has never done is fund its programs under a continuing resolution. Last week/month, congress managed to pass such a short-term deal to prevent a government shut-down, but this continuing resolution represents the fourth-such measure used by congress since September, back when former House Speaker Kevin Mccarthy was still running things in the lower chamber. Simply, the United States is now halfway through Fiscal Year 2024 and the federal government still doesn’t have a spending bill, nor does the Defense enterprise have certainty of its operational budget, ability to continue procurements, and the whole of government is staring down one of the dirtiest words in fiscal lexicon: sequestration.
The potential for lawmakers to fail at implementing to long-term spending bills puts the DoD in an uncomfortable place; the lack of long-term spending plans prevents the Air Force, Navy and Space Force from procuring modernization projects under expansive technology programs. The reason: these funds do not ‘carry-over’, like when NFL teams begin their league year with free-agency (my beloved New England Patriots, ostensibly, have over $100 million in cap space, here’s hoping they actually spend some of it). Rather, fund-lines for DoD programs are beholden to their budgetary templates as briefed to congressional leaders the fiscal year prior (when service leaders are laying out spending plans to their congressional bosses). Simply, the DoD won’t run out of money this year, but it has already spent the funds on those programs and has no means to re-allocate available funds to bolster advancements on procurements, new contracts, revisions and adaptations to equipment needs, and indeed would have to curtail some of its operational funds.
Notably, President Biden has the power to keep personnel compensation (the defense enterprises single-largest expense) off the table in the event of sequestration, should it come to that, but those major programs will be suspended for the fiscal year under the continuing resolution. A similar issue arose in 2013, and 2018–2019 during government shutdowns, where legislation passed which ensured service-members still received their paychecks (except the Coast Guard in 2018, which was a unique set of circumstances).
So the issue on a continuing resolution means that, while the DoD won’t be able to continue funding new programs or modernization efforts (think nuclear submarines averaging $2 billion apiece, or multi-year munitions procurements hovering around $1.4–1.9 billion), it can still pay uniform-wearing personnel, but the impact of sequestration will dig even deeper into operational budgets; US European, Central, and Southern Commands are struggling with operational shortfalls, and are expected to run out of operational funding pools by mid-summer, barring congressional approval to re-allocate aligned funds from last years fiscal plans, according to Undersecretary for the Army Gabe Cabrillo. The takeaway here is that oversight on military spending is hamstrung to those budget requests the year prior, so even though money may be available elsewhere which is not aligned against volatile short-term allocations (such a tech startups or new program initiatives), the service secretaries are unable to move that money without congressional approval. This inflexible nature of military budgets and spending reinforce why bipartisan budgeting is so critical to our national security: the force cannot move its own money to short-fund its needs unless it can bring these issues to the floor of bickering congressional chambers.
Further complicating the issue of military funding are a multitude of other fiscal initiatives being tied to national security, with pros and cons to each justification. Example: the most recent Ukraine/Taiwan/Israel aid package under congressional discourse (one requested by the White House) carries $95 billion in assets, but those are not merely security aid to those three states: artillery shells, medical supplies, etc. Included in the request is line-funding are industrial-base program initiatives for bolstering submarine support and infrastructure across the Indo-Pacific theater; while not explicitly tied to Taiwan, those industrial base endeavors are critical for US pacific security. But the bill — though passing in the Senate by a 67–32 vote — will face a much tougher test in the House with Republicans standing firm on immigration policies and thus holding the bill in limbo. Ditto the bill’s provisions to fund CENTCOM initiatives to restock munitions as it continues to grapple with Iranian-backed extremists who are at least tangentially-affiliated with the Israel-Hamas conflict.
Where this leaves the DoD is precarious: a continuing resolution to the defense budget means that the defense enterprise will necessarily sequestrate a great many non-personnel funding programs (the 1% cuts across the board as mandated in the 2011 Budget Control Act and its later revisions) and keep its operating budget flat, subject to FY2024 numbers which are presently shorted. One could numbly view this political grandstanding as incredibly clever politicking during a pivotal election year, as the United States faces a repeat of the 2020 presidential election cycle. But that might be giving partisanism a little too much credit. The simply reality is that the methods for military funding has been a labyrinthine and beleaguered process for some time, and make a challenging year even more impactful as competitors and potential future adversaries — such as Beijing who just announced a 7.2% increase to Chinese military spending — are spinning up the same industrial bolstering as the United States is. The difference is, those competitors don’t have to haggle over partisan issues as we do in this democratic process. National defense and military expenditure shouldn’t be a polarizing or partisan issue, nor should congressional grandstanding impact funding of national defense, but it continues to do so and exists as a significant detriment to our international deterrence.
Ethan Brown is a Senior Fellow at CSPC and author of the “Visual Friendlies, Tally Target” trilogy of books on air power in the Global War on Terror.
Japan’s Security Clearance Bill: A Reality Check
By Hidetoshi Azuma
The Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida submitted the highly-anticipated Security Clearance Bill (SCB) to the Diet for approval on February 27. The legislation, officially known as the Protection and Use of Critical Economic Security Information Bill (PUCESI), aims to boost Japan’s economic security policy by addressing the lingering issue of security clearance. Indeed, Japan has long drawn criticisms from its allies and partners as the only Group of Seven (G7) member to lack a unified security clearance system. Therefore, the latest bill reflects Tokyo’s growing focus on the information security dimension of its economic security policy, a critical element for ensuring its successful implementation. While this is undoubtedly a welcome development, a fundamental rethink of Japan’s information security is still in dire need.
The SCB seeks to complement the 2013 State Secrecy Act (SSA). The SSA streamlined Tokyo’s efforts to boost its information security toward a unified security clearance system by designating certain government information, such as defense, as state secrecies. In other words, it essentially created a classification system designating state secrecies corresponding to the TOP SECRET and SECRET classifications in the US. While this dramatically enhanced the US-Japan alliance, especially in defense cooperation, since 2013, the evolving security environment increasingly blurred the distinction between public and private amidst today’s simmering global geotechnology competition. Tokyo’s initial solution was the 2022 Economic Security Promotion Act (ESPA). The ESPA unveiled a secret patent system but left the issue of security clearance unaddressed due to the intense opposition from the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP)’s coalition party, the Komeito Party. Against this backdrop, Kishida organized a dedicated study group headed by the Economic Security Minister Sanae Takaichi in early 2023 to introduce a security clearance bill in one year. The upshot was the SCB which aims to widen the scope of classification to include what would be a Japanese equivalent of the American CONFIDENTIAL designation.
The SCB is therefore designed to protect “critical economic security information” defined as: 1) measures to protect critical economic infrastructure from external actions plans or research related thereto; 2) information on vulnerabilities of critical economic infrastructure, innovative technologies related to critical economic infrastructure, and any other important information regarding critical economic infrastructure related to security; 3) information from foreign governments or international organizations regarding the measures in 1); 4) collection and organization of information listed in 2) and 3) or the ability to do so. Leaks of critical economic security information will incur imprisonment for up to 5 years or a fine of up to 5 million yen in tandem with imprisonment for up to 5 years. Overall, while the SCB emulates the SSA in its approach to information security, the new bill is considerably wider in scope than its 2013 predecessor, reflecting the hybrid nature of today’s global geotechnology competition.
Such a framework has long been in demand driven especially by the private sector. Japanese companies have been struggling to catch up with, let alone lead, today’s growing global geotechnology competition. Indeed, one of the key obstacles to the Japanese private sector’s international competitiveness has been the absence of a unified security clearance system dealing with sensitive information affecting economic security. This has prevented numerous Japanese companies from partnering even with the US in areas with civil-military dual-use potential, such as cybersecurity. In other words, the private sector has long been hostage to the government’s policy inaction on security clearance driven largely by power struggle in Tokyo at the expense of economic competitiveness. Therefore, Kishida’s latest legislative move was a much-needed boost for the dwindling Japanese private sector.
Yet, the SCB will unlikely be a comprehensive solution to Japan’s security clearance problem due to the country’s dubious approach to information security itself. First, the SCB would be doomed from the beginning absent robust cybersecurity. Japan’s cybersecurity is virtually nonexistent, and neither is political will to remedy it. For example, the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs have been under persistent state-sponsored cyber attacks by China as recently as 2020 according to the Washington Post, but Tokyo has done virtually nothing to improve its cybersecurity despite repeated warnings by Washington. In fact, Tokyo even went as far as to reject Washington’s friendly offer of assistance by denying the very evidence of Chinese cyberattacks presented by the National Security Agency (NSA). Given Tokyo’s lackluster approach to cybersecurity, one can safely assume that the entire Japanese government servers have been compromised by hostile powers and actors. In other words, the SCB would scarcely address Japan’s information security crisis. Worse, Kishida and other officials have no political will to rectify such a reality.
Second, the SCB does not address the issue of insider threats. This is because Japan does not have an equivalent of the US Espionage Act of 1917. For example, the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare (MHLW) has a policy of refraining from asking about its personnel’s background and other personal matters, such as religious affiliations. Japan is widely known as a spy haven among intelligence professionals, and the MHLW’s attitude to human resources only underscores Tokyo’s criminal negligence in counter-espionage. Worse, the MHLW‘s quixotism is not an exception, and a new security clearance system to be introduced by the SCB is set to leave background checks optional. Moreover, the term “insider threat” has not even entered Tokyo’s lexicon. Indeed, T
okyo’s understanding of espionage entirely revolves around violations of law rather than treacherous, yet legal acts benefiting hostile powers or actors as defined by the Espionage Act of 1917. In other words, the SCB offers no relief from the perennial concerns over Japan’s deplorable information security by its allies and partners.
Ultimately, the US-drafted Japanese Constitution of 1947 may be to blame. After all, General Douglas MacArthur envisioned Japan as a ”Switzerland of Asia” and had his New Deal-liberal colleagues draft a pacifist constitution which sought to remove any war potential from the defeated power as outlined in its Article 9. Perhaps, even MacAthur failed to foresee a totally emasculated Japan unwilling to stand squarely on its feet in the face of Asia’s rapidly devolving security environment in 2024. Yet, Washington’s subsequent efforts to guide Japan’s security normalization has unmistakably borne fruit in the form of gradual, yet steady departure from pacifism through legal changes. Indeed, Tokyo’s economic security policy is fundamentally a product of Washington’s policy for Japan under the Trump and Biden administrations. Likewise, the SCB is Tokyo’s response to Washington’s persistent complaints about its abysmal information security in recent years. It marks a clear victory for Washington’s Japan policy, and the present imperative is to widen the scope of dialogue on security clearance to include other critical dimensions of information security, especially cybersecurity and counter-espionage.
Hidetoshi Azuma is a Senior Fellow at CSPC.
Ukraine’s Fate Hangs in Balance as Western Aid Falters
By Greyson Hunziker
On February 17th, Russia took control of the city of Avdiivka in eastern Ukraine, the first major Russian victory in months of fighting after a stalemate in the fall of 2023. Ukraine is suffering from weak defenses, dwindling ammunition, and insufficient personnel, and it needs assistance more than ever. Aid from allies, however, is proving difficult to obtain.
At the war’s outset, Russia advanced rapidly from the North, East, and South in a lightning campaign designed to capture the entire country. Within two days of the full-scale invasion on February 24, 2022, a special commando unit was already advancing to the suburbs of the capital, Kyiv. Simultaneously, Russian forces advanced from Crimea and the breakaway Donetsk region in the South and moved on Kharkiv in the northeast. By March 2nd, Russia had surrounded the southern port city of Mariupol, which sits on the shores of the Sea of Azov. While Russian forces continued the assault on Kyiv and gained territory in the North, they also established a foothold in the South.
Ukraine proved far more resilient, however, than Moscow had anticipated. The attack on Kyiv had failed by the first of April, and Russian forces retreated from the North. After months of back-and-forth territory exchanges, Ukraine regained significant territory between Kharkiv and the Donbas from September to early October. Although there has been continued intense fighting and incredible loss of life, the battle lines along the eastern side of the Donbas have largely held until recently.
In January of 2024, Russia launched an offensive that saw some successes. The Russian strategy has been to inch forward despite taking heavy losses. Moscow has also increasingly relied on its air force to advance, including in Avdiivka, by employing glide bombs that can fly a significant distance from their launch point. Using these bombs keeps Russian aircraft safely outside the range of Ukrainian antiaircraft missiles. Recently, Moscow has shown a willingness to accept a more significant loss of aircraft in exchange for territorial gains. This Russian willingness to trade blood for territory has also proven true of infantry. A major fighting with the Ukrainian National Guard in Avdiivka noted, “I would say the motto of their attacks is, ‘We have more people than you have ammunition, bullets, rockets and shells.’”
Russian forces are also advancing because Ukrainian defenses are lacking. While Russia spent dearly in terms of funds, time, and personnel to build defenses to protect its stronghold, Ukraine only developed fortification plans three months ago. Additionally, Ukraine lacks sufficient engineers and equipment to build fortifications that can compete with the Russians. Ukraine’s severe manpower shortage exists across the board, and its soldiers are already rationing ammunition.
With Russian forces now slowly and steadily advancing, U.S. military leaders have argued that Ukraine should focus only on territory and battles with high strategic value. They have argued, for instance, that Avdiivka has less strategic value than what Ukraine expended in trying to defend it.
While there is disagreement over Ukrainian strategy, there is agreement on one thing: Ukraine needs more Western aid, especially U.S. military aid, very soon. Although Russia may find it difficult to sustain such heavy losses in the long term, Ukraine remains outgunned and outmanned today. It has already been over two months since the U.S. sent Ukraine military supplies. The Ukrainian defense minister says half of Western military aid fails to arrive on time, making it difficult for Kyiv to plan adequately. Western allies continue to say they will stand by Ukraine, but their promises of aid have not always been realized.
Politics continue to get in the way of timely Ukrainian aid. After Hungary blocked it for months, the European Union finally approved a $54 billion aid package on February 1st. In the U.S. Congress, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., blocked a bipartisan foreign aid bill passed by the Senate after former president Donald Trump criticized it. To date, there has been little political price to pay for Republican reticence in continuing to support Ukraine, with 4 in 10 Americans saying in a recent poll that the United States should take a less active role in the world.
The harsh reality remains that without substantial U.S. support, Ukraine is likely to lose its war against Russian aggression, with dire consequences for both Ukrainians and the entire West. Where would an emboldened Russia strike next? How would countries like China and Iran respond, knowing that the United States stands willing to abandon its allies? If Washington does not act fast to help Ukraine fend off Russian aggression, it could spell the end for the post-World War II international order that the United States built over many decades with tremendous amounts of blood and national treasure.
Greyson is a student intern at CSPC
NEWS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED
By Kurt Johnston
Iran Election Turnout Slumps as Hardliners Prevail
For the second consecutive cycle, Iran’s parliamentary elections saw record-low turnout. As many Iranians protested the removal of reform-minded candidates, those who voted kept hardline MPs in power — a potential signal of growing division between the state and its constituents. National turnout fell to 41 percent (about 25 million ballots), including only 24 percent in Tehran.
Last Sunday’s contests were the first parliamentary elections since 2022, when the death of Mahsa Amini — accused of not wearing a hijab — in police custody sparked deadly, month-long protests. After the disqualification of several opposition candidates, reformist groups in Iran called for an election boycott. However, others have speculated that economic factors, such as Iran’s 38 percent inflation and plummeting currency value, also contributed to “disillusionment.” The Iranian regime therefore maintained its status quo, claiming its electoral success as a victory for the Iranian people. Hardline representatives also claimed a majority in the Assembly of Experts, a deliberating body that could choose Iran’s next Supreme Leader if Ayatollah Ali Khamenei dies before new elections in 2032.
Anti-LGBT+ Law Puts Ghana’s IMF and World Bank Funding at Risk
A restrictive anti-LGBTQ+ bill was put in jeopardy this week after Ghana’s finance ministry claimed the law could lead to severe financial losses. The Financial Times reported that the World Bank alone could retract $3.8 billion in investments planned over the next six years. A further $3 billion loan, agreed to with the IMF in February, could also “derail” without World Bank support. Even before the passage of the law, Ghana’s economic woes have been notable — the West African country defaulted in 2022 and has been unable to contain its 23.5 percent annual inflation rate.
The bill, titled the “Promotion of Proper Human Sexual Rights and Ghanaian Family Values Bill,” is supported across Ghana’s political spectrum. Not only does the legislation increase the jail time for “engaging in gay sex” from three to five years, but it also criminalizes being gay (three years in prison) and advocating for LGBTQ+ rights (five years in prison). Ghanaian President Nana Akufo-Addo has delayed assent to the bill, instead waiting for arguments to be deliberated by Ghana’s Supreme Court. Once the legal challenge ends, Akufo-Addo will have seven days to sign the bill, or fourteen days to explain why he has rejected it. The finance ministry suggested that, if the bill is signed, Ghana would be forced to turn away from the European Union and towards “Arab countries and China” for financial investment. Western critics of the legislation, particularly those within the World Bank and IMF, have been accused of “human rights imperialism.” The bill — and Ghana’s economic future — will be decided in the coming weeks.
Kurt Johnston is a student intern at CSPC.
