China’s Afghan Game Plan

The game of Weiqi
The game of Weiqi. Photo: fabiocosta0305/flickr.

MADRID – In his latest book, On China, Henry Kissinger uses the traditional intellectual games favored by China and the West – weiqi and chess – as a way to reveal their differing attitudes toward international power politics. Chess is about total victory, a Clausewitzian battle for the “center of gravity” and the eventual elimination of the enemy, whereas weiqi is a quest for relative advantage through a strategy of encirclement that avoids direct conflict.

This cultural contrast is a useful guide to the way that China manages its current competition with the West. China’s Afghan policy is a case in point, but it also is a formidable challenge to the weiqi way. As the United States prepares to withdraw its troops from the country, China must deal with an uncertain post-war scenario.

Categories
CSS News

Security, Climate and Money

The MAS ETH SPCM is offered in cooperation with leading academic partner institutions (Photo: ETH Zurich)

 

Week 2 of the Center for Security Studies’ Master of Advanced Studies in Security Policy and Crisis Management (MAS SPCM) lecture series moved from its focus on terrorism  to consider money laundering, climate change and their impact upon the changing security landscape.

Money laundering and terrorism

The CSS’s Michel Hess begins by explaining links between money laundering and the financing of terrorist activities:


Categories
CSS News

The Experts Come to Zurich

 MAS ETH SPCM
The MAS ETH SPCM is offered in cooperation with leading academic partner institutions (Photo: ETH Zurich)

ETH Zurich recently hosted Block III of the Center for Security Studies’ (CSS) Master of Advanced Studies program in Security Policy and Crisis Management (SPCM). Between April 9 and 18, experts and scholars from around Europe gathered in Zurich to discuss how a host of “New Risks” are shaping security policies and responses. The ISN took the opportunity to speak to some of the lecturers to gauge their opinion on how these “New Risks” will impact upon the study of security in the not-too-distant future.

The Study of Terrorism

As terrorism studies continue to grow, Professor Peter Neumann of King’s College London gives his perspective on the future of terrorism research:


Japan’s Response to New US Defense Strategy: “Welcome, but…”

Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta addresses U.S. and Japanese troops stationed at Yokota Air Base, Japan, Oct. 24, 2011. (Photo: secdef/Flickr)

The Japanese government welcomes the recently released US defense strategy because it rebalances the strategic focus toward the Asia-Pacific region. But the other focus of this new strategy — the so-called anti-access, area denial (A2/AD) capabilities of China which, the United States fears, could jeopardize its forward presence and freedom of action in the Western Pacific — does not get as much attention from Japan.

The new defense strategic guidance, “Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense,” has quickly gained currency in policy discussions in Japan after it was rolled out Jan. 5. Defense Minister Tanaka Naoki has said in the Diet that Tokyo welcomed it. He explained, for example, Jan. 31: “I understand that it indicates the United States attaches more importance to the Asia-Pacific region and enhances its regional presence. I believe it will be a significant contribution to the peace and security in this region.”

What Did We Learn From Jamming? (Part 2)

Security Jam: Brainstorming Global Security

This is the second part of the ISN report on Security Jam 2012 presenting the most interesting ideas discussed in last four forums. You can find the first part here.

Facing the Cyber-Challenge

Cyberspace has permeated nearly all aspects of modern life and the security concerns that arise as a result have been the topic of the forum. It was no surprise that this forum had the most threads – 84 in total.

As Jammers pointed out, ‘cyberspace is so much to so many’ and there is general agreement that much needs to be done to achieve and maintain cyber safety.  Since we need to start from somewhere, however, the question remains:  Who should take the lead? The UN, EU, NATO, industry, NGOs or nations?  As one question arises, others follow:  At what level does a cyber-attack become so serious that we could feel justified in retaliating with cyber or other weapons, or in trying to hunt down the aggressor and subject him to some form of punishment or make him pay compensation for the harm which was done?