Many Americans back Ilhan Omar’s stance about Israel influence in US politics

By: Azhar Azam

For decades, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains a constricted subject in the American politics over the sensitivity of the issue. In United States, any voice that pans Jewish state for its inimical treatment with Palestinians are hurled into the anti-Semitic basket and is vigorously criticized and socially marginalized.

In November, Temple University professor Marc Lamont Hill was fired by CNN within the 24 hours of his gripping pro-Palestinian speech at the United Nations, in which he slated Israel government and its laws that deny Palestinians access to full citizenship rights simply because they are not Jewish.

Freshman Democrat Ilhan Omar is the newest victim of the U.S. lawmakers’ backlash after her allegation about Israeli political influence in the country “to push allegiance for a foreign county” and suggesting American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) for “paying American politicians to be pro-Israel”. Omar also strongly backs two-nation solution for Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In a well grown-up democratic culture like the United States, it is therefore no less than startling to carp Rep. Omar for just elaborating a realty that already subsists in the country and enunciating of the prevailing facts with anti-Semitism trope is even shocking.

There is no paradigm in the world over that a sovereign state has allowed a foreign prime minister to openly decry its legislator and tolerate an organization – with a mission to ensure a safe, strong, and secure Jewish state – to intermingle with its top government officials.

Although Omar immediately came under “heavy shelling” both from the Republicans and the Democrats following her remarks but as a matter of fact, her staunch stance on AIPAC’s influence in the American politics is supported by some concrete evidence.

AIPAC is the biggest and the most powerful outfit in the Israel Lobby, when it comes to the U.S politicking. Every year, it spends significant amount on hiring the professional lobbyists who know how to convince Congressmen to vote for the interests of the Israel. There are some other Jewish groups too such as Israeli-American Coalition for Action, J Street, and Zionist Organization of America but none of them can match the clout of AIPAC.

It has such a prodigious sway on the U.S. top politicians that even the leading presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, addressed in its 2016 annual conference. It recently concluded summit featured Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Speaker House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi, former ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley and other leading U.S. legislators.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also spoke in the event and spent most of his time in thumping Omar. “Again the Jews are said to have too much influence, too much power, too much money.” He asked “to respond to those who hate the Jews is not to bow down to them. It’s to stand up to them.”

“So I have a message to all the anti-Semites out there...whether they voice their hatred in political parties in…the United States. The Jewish people do not bow down. We stand up, we fight, and we win.” “Take it from this Benjamin, it’s not about the Benjamins.” He was referring to Omar’s tweet of calling AIPAC his baby.

Normally, Congress should have shown an act of solidarity with Omar over an overseas head of state’s bitterness towards Representative of Minnesota but perhaps not in the case of Israel at least. The Congress Woman herself had to clap back at Netanyahu. "We are not even 6 months out from the Pittsburgh massacre. We are not even 2 weeks out from the Christchurch massacre. Yet the topic Netanyahu chose to focus on was…me.”

Instead, Omar was called on by the Chairman of the U.S. House of Foreign Affairs Committee and was pressed to apologize for “a vile, anti-Semitic slur”, which shows that how long AIPAC and the other Jewish lobbies can go on to force House Representatives to follow the Israeli lines and can restrict American lawmakers to end the debate by disguising any comments in the perspective of anti-Semitism.

Peter Beinart, a professor at the City University of New York as well as a contributor to The Atlantic and a CNN political commentator, however, deeply supported Omar. He quoted Omar, AIPAC wields power from because it supporters give politicians money, which is true but incomplete: AIPAC also wields power because of a strong cultural, ideological, and religious affinity for Israel, particularly for right.

It is worthwhile to recall that Omar is not the only American who laments over Israeli tyranny on Palestinians and criticizes US presidents’ profound silence on Israeli acrid actions. They are increasing number of Americans who patronizes her policy positions on Israeli influence in the U.S. politics.

The University of Maryland’s Critical Issues Poll conducted in October 2018 found that 38% of the all adult surveyed Americans (including 55% Democrats and 19% Republicans) believed that Israeli government has ‘too much influence’ on American politics and policies.

The study further told that younger Americans (aged 18-34 years) – 44% – were more convinced that Israeli government has ‘too much influence’ on American politics and policies, as compared to 35+ years Americans’ considerations of 36%.

When asked about Trump administration role in mediating Israeli-Palestine conflict, 62% of all Americans (including 67% youths) suggested that it should ‘lean toward neither side’; an increase of 3% from 2017 poll that realized 59% Americans had the same view.

Americans were almost tied once quizzed about a “two-state solution” or “one-state solution” – a majority of 36% supported a two-state solution against 35% of the all Americans who opined for one-state solution. In addition, 40% Americans suggested to either impose some economic sanctions through the UN or unilaterally or take more serious action against Israel on its illegal settlements after 1967.

The recent Gallup survey exhumed that Americans’ partiality towards Israel has declined for the first time since 2005 to 59% – whereas sympathies for Palestinians have grown to 21%. The remaining 20% Americans were either unsure or neutral. Sympathies towards Israel were downed largely because of Republicans’ declining pro-Israeli posture that fell from 87% in 2018 to 76% in 2019.

All these corroborations tell that Ilhan Omar is only baptized as “anti-Semitic” for sharing the thoughts and opinions of many Americans about predominating Israeli influence in the U.S politics and don’t forget, she rode to Congress with the support like-minded Americans that vindicate her candid stance on Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

China isn’t pursuing global influence but regional connectivity and mutual economic growth

By: Azhar Azam

The shorter version of this piece first appeared in Global Times with the title "US has to review aggressive stance as China triumphs" in Global Times on 16-April-2019.

After dismal exports in February that showed an enormous decline of 38.6 percent – China’s economy strongly hit back, posting a sensational growth rate of 47.0 percent in exports for March. Total trade contracted by 1.5% to USD 1.03 trillion for Q1-2019 largely because of 4.8 percent drop in imports.

This may perhaps be the most awaited and the most worrisome China Customs’ quarterly release for Trump administration since it waged trade war on Beijing and is now hoping for a productive outcome from the ongoing trade negotiations. But unfortunately for the United States, Trump’s tariff “mallets” seem to have made no damage to the world’s second largest economy.

Although the bilateral trade between China and the U.S. withered by 15.4 percent but disturbingly for Trump, the United States was the bigger loser. From January to March, Chinese imports from U.S witnessed a roller-coaster plunge of 31.8 percent up against only 8.5% drop in exports to America.

The data lends a significant blow to Trump’s long-standing campaign to confine China by impeding its fast-clocking economic growth through slapping tariffs on Chinese goods. He has frequently used his twitter mania to lambast Beijing for stealing American jobs, theft of intellectual property, and forced technology transfer.

It’s about time for U.S to review its aggressive stance at China, which is not only bleakly affecting the bilateral trade between the two countries and causing the global economic growth to slow down but most importantly, is sandwiching more than 1.6 billion people of both countries amid tariff and counter-tariff row. Additionally, if such a spat between the two largest economies of the world continues, the upshots will be no less than appalling for all the countries and the people across the regions.

Washington needs to understand that with the world’ largest population at its disposal, Beijing needs a consistent economic growth and a viable international trade environment, not to challenge the United States, but to gyrate its domestic industry and boost global trade to remain stable.

It is not a Chinese ambition to control the world or increase its global influence. As a matter of fact, it is obliged to expand its global economic footprint to pull out some 30.5 million people (more than the population of Texas), who are living below the poverty line of only $1.90/day.

Trump administration should realize that Beijing’s economic policies, to lifting the living standards of its people and their well-being, are no different to any other country of the world. And if its initiative such as Belt and Road is offering increased connectivity and mutual economic growth, Washington should instead join the so-called greater economic plan rather than eliciting unprovoked controversies.

Whether it is China, the United States or any other country of the world – there are some elements with hawkish attitude, which exist in every society and fuel war-game tactics or push state heads for hostile actions towards other nations. Such a behavior could jeopardize the entire global trade system and can also lead to worldwide turmoil and instability.

In her recent paper for Asia Society Policy Institute (APSI), former U.S. trade negotiator Wendy Cutler extolled the US approach “in brining China to the negotiating table” and advised President Donald Trump to lead a joint coordinated trade drive against China with the help of European Union (EU) and Japan as well as those of Australia, Canada, Mexico, and South Korea.

While advocating for strengthened trade actions, she said that the US unilateral actions of increased tariffs or investment restrictions can be weaker than anticipated because other countries can often fill the vacuum.

Citing the imports of all these countries about half of Chinese exports, Cutler exhorted that “If some or all of these countries were to collectively urge for reform, they would have a much stronger bargaining position than the United States alone, and China would be hard pressed to ignore them”.

Where Cutler’s impel for a collective and synchronized effort against China, with the help of the U.S. allies, is a grudging acknowledgment of Chinese upper-hand over the U.S., it also traces the actuality that the Chinese economy is such outsized and diversified that it could not be encumbered just by Trump’s unilateral tariff batters.

Her punitive opinion on China even overlaps Washington’s Beijing-focused strategic gambits to pulsate the growing Chinese military and economic influence. Outlined in the Pentagon’s prodigious defense budget, the United States’ strategy clearly invoked to resolutely patronize Trump’s tariff campaign to ditch Chinese interests in the regions where Beijing is gaining traction.

There are many pragmatic slants that would easily castoff the emboldened arguments of Cutler or like-minded contentious experts – conceding that as a sovereign state, China should be free to make policies that best suit its economy and people. Moreover, these kinds of actions could question the reliability of the U.S. foreign policy, which on one side impose sanctions on China for everything from military to trade but on other side, give waivers to India – whether it is S-400 from Russia, oil from Iran, or U.S. intellectual property law violations.

The United States also demands China to reform and open-up its economy. In order to facilitate the U.S., European Union (EU), and other countries – Beijing has already taken a series of initiatives to reform and open-up its economy for providing level-playing field, high-quality development, expanded market access, and stepping up the protection of intellectual property rights.

Trump’s trade war on China is appearing to be politically driven. As he accentuates that the ongoing negotiations will lead a trade deal with Beijing, Riley Walters wrote in The Heritage Foundation that “the U.S.-China talks aren’t technically a trade deal at all”. “It’s really just an executive agreement between the two sides, with commitments to reform on the Chinese side.”

Walters’ rationalization sounds weighty in the framework of the EU-China Summit Joint Statement that broadly endorsed Beijing’s efforts to reform and opening-up. “The EU and China commit to build their economic relationship on openness, nondiscrimination, and fair competitions, ensuring a level playing field, transparency, and based on mutual benefits.”

A setback to Trump’s years-long aversion for China, both the sides also reaffirmed their support for implementation of Iran nuclear deal, known as JCPOA, and agreed to work with other parties on a peaceful and democratic way out of the crisis in Venezuela.

Following one of the U.S. closet allies to settle differences with China, it would be much encouraging if the United States could its hostile conviction towards Beijing and learn from it age-old ally, European Union, as how to resolve trade disputes through dialogue.

Maybe, Trump could realize the case and maybe he won’t, preferring to going into the next presidential elections with the same China-oriented rhetoric. Reviewing the vast chronicle of Trump’s history, he probably will opt for the latter one.

Islamabad Glues Beijing-Riyadh Ties

By: Azhar Azam

On March 28, Secretary Perry of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued thirty-seven Part 810 authorizations to the U.S. companies, including seven to Saudi Arabia, allowing them to export unclassified civilian nuclear technology to 16 countries.

The DOE statement profoundly contested Deputy Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette’s remarks in February, which opined that the U.S. would not help Saudi Arabia to develop nuclear technology, unless it guarantees the use of technology for civilian purposes.

Brouillette’s rhetoric was blatantly responded by former Saudi intelligence chief and senior Saudi diplomat Prince Turki Al Faisal who voiced that Saudi Arabia has more options for civil nuclear technology other than the United States.

Ex-ambassador to the U.S. and the U.K. said that the energy market is open. ‘We have France. We have Russia. We have China. We have our friends in Pakistan and in other places as well, so if they want to remove themselves from that market, well, that's up to them.’

The kind of the U.S. about-turn on civil nuclear technology transfer and assistance to Riyadh is very much surprising to the quite a few in Washington and the world over that didn’t expect the abrupt announcement.

Links to this rushed authorization may be traced back to a topical high-level Chinese military delegation visit to Saudi Arabia in the end of March. Led by Defense Minister Wei Fenghe, the mission received a red carpet reception in Riyadh.

During its trip to the Kingdom, the Chinese military commission had some productive interaction with Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MbS) and King Salman, where the two sides agreed to strengthen bilateral economic and military cooperation.

Ostensibly, the United States proclaimed this chaotic Part 810 authorization in a bid to restrain Riyadh from relocating itself into the Chinese camp as well as to try and regain the declining trust of its key partner in Middle East.

Riyadh declines to become an atomic power. In an interview with a U.S. television on 15-March-2018, MbS said that his country isn’t interested in acquiring nuclear bomb but if Tehran develops such a weapon, Riyadh will follow the suit as soon as possible.

Saudi Arabia however is pursuing civil nuclear technology to meet the country’s energy and water needs. The Kingdom’s nuclear research center, King Abdullah City for Atomic and Renewable Energy (KACARE), is an integral part of Saudi Vision 2030 that aims to create an energy mix in which atomic energy plays a major role.

Riyadh is also tailing an indigenous defense program. Its state-owned defense organization, Saudi Arabia Defense Industries (SAMI), goals to localize more than 50% of the Kingdom’s military spending and visions to be among the top-25 military industry companies by 2030.

The defense experts in Washington widely believe that Saudi Arabia is tracking its homegrown defense program with the help of China and Pakistan – inferring a Saudi swing towards the East over a potential divergence from the United States.

Earlier this year, an anonymous former Pentagon official told CNBC that Saudi’ secret Strategic Rocket Forces (SRF), which avoids missing with American advisors, likely ‘operates with Chinese input’. ‘Given that, Pakistan has close ties with both China and the Kingdom and has numerous advisors working with Saudi security agencies, I won’t be surprised if there were Pakistani assistance as well’, he added.

Although Riyadh has historically been a strong U.S. defense ally but some recent diplomatic spats have reprimanded the Kingdom to quickly find new partners for its defense needs, particularly after Trump onslaught at Saudi King Salman who would not last in power ‘for two weeks’ without the backing of the U.S. military.

‘King - we’re protecting you - you might not be there for two weeks without us - you have to pay for your military.’

Previously in a post-cold war era, the susceptible U.S. behavior ‘gifted’ Pakistan to China and yet again, Washington’s whiplash policies are giving away the largest Middle East economy to Beijing – a move China won’t mind at all.

Pakistan carts robust economic and strategic relations with both China and Saudi Arabia and all of three nations have a chronicle of being battered by fitful Washington – so together they could expand economic and military cooperation to evolve into much stronger alliance in the region.

As Islamabad has deep-rooted ties with some of the other Gulf nations as well, it could serve as an economic and military trade bridge between China and Middle East. Pakistan can escort Riyadh’s ambitious defense program through its decades-long experiences of erecting the defense industry after the country was abandoned by the U.S.

In addition, Saudi Arabia is in the process of diversifying its economy and wants to learn from incredible and consistent Chinese economic growth experiences over the years so that it can reform and widen its economic base.

In his official visit to China on February 21-22, Crown Prince MbS gave several accolades to Beijing including pacifying byline ‘over such a long period of exchanges with China, we have never experienced any problems with China’.

While signing $28 billion of MOUs, MbS reassured his support for China’s Belt and Road initiative (BRI). The MOUs include setting-up $10 billion refining and petrochemical complex in Chinese city of Panjin, which would help Saudi Arabia to emerge as the largest crude oil supplier to China.

Riyadh support for BRI is crucial for Beijing since a substantial volume of Chinese trade will pass through Saudi-adjacent Red Sea, on its way to Europe. The economic cooperation will also strengthen bilateral trade that rose 26.3% to $63.3 billion in 2018; largely favoring Saudi Arabia that’s exports to China increased 44.5% to $45.9 billion for the year.

As long as, the United States gestures to appear distant to Saudi Arabia, Riyadh is quickly responding by lining-up new partners, most importantly China as well as strengthening relationship with stalwart ally, Pakistan.