South China Sea is the real global flashpoint

By: Azhar Azam

This article first appeared in Foreign Policy News

http://foreignpolicynews.org/2019/05/27/south-china-sea-is-the-real-global-flashpoint/ and Daily Times https://dailytimes.com.pk/407302/south-china-sea-is-the-real-global-flashpoint/

So many times over the past few years, the U.S. federal administration, establishment, and media have collectively fussed about the national security threats from Iran but all of them eventually have fizzled out only after a short-lived bedlam.

The ongoing hype should also wane soon as the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier strike group has reached in the Persian Gulf. And now the U.S. will quickly focus back on its real interest that lies in South China Sea and not in Iran or Arabian Sea.

Indications are clear. Last week, Senator Marco Rubio and Senator Ben Cardin yoked to reintroduce a bipartisan legislation – South China Sea (SCS) and East China Sea (ECS) Sanctions Act – which proposes to impose sanctions on Chinese individuals and entities that are engaged in maritime and construction activities in the regions.

China claims 90% of the sea and airspace in South China Sea while Taiwan, the Philippines, and Vietnam are the other major claimants in the region. Japan and South Korea contest with China for the control over East China Sea.

For the United States, SCS is the region of vital interest because of its political, trade, and strategic importance. It insists SCS is an international waterway that gives all countries the freedom to navigate. Therefore, it has been mindful of Beijing’s island-building and militarization affairs in the region.

These days, some anomalous events are taking place in SCS. After sending two warships close to Spratly Islands and concluding military drills with India, Japan, and the Philippines – the U.S. just recently sailed a destroyer near the Scarborough Shoal. Chinese foreign ministry strongly hit back at the U.S. “provocative action” that violates its “national sovereignty”.

Experts covet that Scarborough Shoal is potentially a powder keg in the strategic waterway, through which China could create a large “strategic triangle” comprising Woody Island in the Paracel Islands to the northwest and its Spratly islet outposts to the south. It was captured by China after a long standoff with the Philippines in 2012.

So, Washington is distinctly trying to increase pressure on Beijing by frequently conducting freedom of navigation operations (FONOPs). But it also carefully circumventing a direct confrontation with China and instead is pushing its allies – Australia and Indonesia – to step up naval patrols in the area to counter Beijing’s growing strength.

Curtly for the U.S., Canberra does not have any claims in SCS and also it has high economic stakes in Beijing. It therefore is unlikely to antagonize China and that too at time when it is seeking to ramp-up its LNG exports to China amidst escalating Sino-US trade tensions. Although Australian naval forces have been sailing through SCS but that are looking more to gladden Washington than to challenge China’s dominance in the area.

China and Indonesia have disputes on Natuna Sea but both the countries have managed to play down the territorial differences and cooperate economically. Additionally, Jakarta is also looking to close the trade gap with China and in an era of economic struggle, it is highly implausible that it would litter ties with Beijing. Empirically, Indonesia seems to be contending with China’s opponents in South China Sea.

India could be another American partner to contain Chinese influence in SCS. Earlier this month, U.S. chief of naval operations Admiral John Richardson visited New Delhi, ostensibly to forge an alliance to prevent China’s preeminence in SCS. As always, Indian experts pungently backed Richardson’s views about China’s naval push as a concern to both India and the United States.

India neither has any claims in South China Sea but it has been balking to accept on the Pakistani-arm of Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and has long rivalry with Beijing. The problem with New Delhi is that it wants to mend its relations with Beijing but at the same time, it invariably pursues any idea that could bite China.

That is why every time when there is an American official in New Delhi, ‘every Tom, Dick, and Harry’ talks about smarting China through partnering and sustaining a propelling relationship with the United States.

United States is also relying on the Philippines and Vietnam to spark a conflict with China in SCS. Both of them are major claimants in the SCS are critical of Beijing’s activities in the area. But SCS brawl is yet to enervate the bilateral relations of the either of them with Beijing, instead the Philippines and Vietnam maintain good ties with China.

Last week, commander of U.S. Pacific Air Forces Gen Charles Brown visited Manila to meet the top military officials including the chief of general staff Gen Benjamin Madrigal and discussed the prospects of increased multilateral training between the two sides. Gen Brown spearheads U.S. jet patrols in SCS. Meanwhile, the coastguard ships of the Philippines and the U.S also conducted joint naval drills in the region.

By all means, war with Iran could be the dream of the likes of John Bolton nonetheless energy-rich South China Sea will inevitably be the real global flashpoint that would attract the conflict among several states including China and the United States.

Scorching criticism on Ilhan Omar is irrational

By: Azhar Azam

Of course, nobody could ever forget 9/11 terrorist attacks that killed 2,753 people in the United States. Not a soul should either ignore the enormous death toll of 480,000-507,000 in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, in the aftermath of the U.S.-led war on terror.

The statisticians can count this eye-watering death toll but what they can’t measure is the magnitude of the incalculable agony, viciously shattered emotions and interminable miseries of millions of orphans and widows after losing their beloved siblings in the act and counteract of terrorism.

So, freshman Ilhan Omar is technically true when she says “some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties” though incomplete. There were (and still are) many people the world over that have lost their right to live, leaving behind many more who would continue to struggle for the rest of their lives.

Any innocent whether killed in the United States, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan or anywhere else is tremendously condemnable and grossly punishable but any politicking over a dead body deserves the same force of criticism and unequivocal social reaction.

Unfortunately, this is the President of the United States of America Donald Trump whose ‘Islamophobia fever” remains invariably high. It is more disgusting that his tweet “WE WILL NEVER FORGET!” with a video excerpt of Omar’s speech alongside 9/11 visuals seems to incite violence and causes Omar’s life in danger.

Trump’s tweet and retweet “how is this woman walking the halls of Congress. How.” was flashed in the backdrop of the Omar’s repeated assertions about Israeli influence in the U.S. politics. The Congresswoman continues to face backlash from righties after her indictment “to push allegiance for a foreign county (Israel)” and suggesting American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) for “paying American politicians to be pro-Israel”.

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 Israel for its inimical treatment with Palestinians are lobbed forthwith into the anti-Semitic basket and is vigorously roasted 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.

It is very inopportune on the part of the so-called matured democratic country like the United States to influence its mainstream media in order to serve the interests of a foreign nation. The U.S. has been critical of China’s state controlled media but these kinds of acts tell how much U.S. media is under the government’s influence. Designating Omar’s freedom of express with anti-Semitism trope is yet another example of the U.S. skepticism towards country’s intellectuals and Congressmen.

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 political pitch. 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.

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

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 cloaking any comments in the perspective of anti-Semitism.

It is important 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.

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. Omar also strongly backs two-nation solution for Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

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 called “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.

Why US is in a better position to negotiate with Taliban?

By: Azhar Azam

Once an old Afghan described the mythical creation of Afghanistan “When Allah had made the rest of the world, He saw that there was a lot of rubbish left over, bits and pieces and things that did not fit anywhere else. He collected them all together and threw them down on to the earth. That was Afghanistan”.

Due to concerted tribal disputes, internal instability, and ethnic divisions, Afghanistan has perpetually been prone to international aggressions that tracked it as a “gold mine” for seeking a greater influence in region to oversee access to the most populated and the biggest market in the its surroundings.

But any military effort to dominate Afghan land has time and again coined more complex war hotspots in the Islamic Republic. Additionally, it has never been the desire of any of the interlopers to resolve differences amongst the various Afghan armed factions, particularly with the Afghan Taliban.

For the first time in the endless devastated Afghan history, the United States is making some serious and sincere efforts for prevalence of peace and to settle the rows between Kabul administration and Taliban, in place of dogging a plan to embed a puppet regime in Kabul.

It is also for the first time that instead of arraigning Pakistan for the blazing situation in Afghanistan, Washington is seeking its cooperation for a sustainable peace in the battle-ravaged country.

Likeably, Islamabad has responded profusely to the United States’ Afghanistan peace plan and has helped to bring Taliban on the negotiation table. Through influential political and religious figures, Pakistan has exerted pressure on Taliban to engage in constructive negotiations with the United States.

As a result, the US-initiated and Pakistan-facilitated peace dialogue – that secretly started last July in Doha with the groundbreaking talks with Taliban – is stepping up, albeit frivolous disruptions. In addition, the willingness of the Taliban to participate in the dialogue is giving peace a bright chance to linger in Afghanistan.

The 10-month peace dialogue is already tracing some indications of success as in the first quarter of 2019; the civilian casualties in Afghanistan fell lowest in six years. Although UN mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) noted that the harsh winter conditions during the first three months of the year may have contributed to the reduction in civilian casualties but it overlooked the fact that such conditions were prevailing in the prior years too.

Until now, Taliban are demanding the timeframe of foreign troops’ withdrawal from Afghanistan, while the United States is seeking Taliban’s commitment that Afghan soil will not be used to harm other countries as well as announcement of nationwide ceasefire by them.

Although the peace dialogue is outwardly wedged into ‘tit for tat’ demands but Washington is relatively in a good position as compared to Taliban. This is because in case of any potential peace agreement between the two sides, Taliban will not only accept U.S. presence in Afghanistan for at least another 12 to 18 months but they will also announce a truce.

Taliban are very much aware that they will be at disadvantage once the peace agreement is signed as their armed resistance would virtually be frozen so they are trying to bargain as much as possible before they would become part of any political settlement in Afghanistan.

On the other hand, Kabul administration seems to be quite concerned about their possible exclusion from the peace talks with Taliban by the United States and other regional and international players. Nevertheless, the United States understands that any peace solution without the inclusion of all Afghan groups will be detrimental for the country; therefore it is not stopping to push for an intra-Afghan dialogue.

But U.S. initiative of intra-Afghan dialogue is facing a grave challenge in the form of Taliban’s consistent denial to talk with the Kabul administration, accusing it to be the “puppet” of the United States.

According to Taliban, Afghan government is responsible for a making a “security agreement from the outset to prolong foreign occupation” and permitting the “occupying enemy (American army) to carry out various kinds of criminal acts in our country (Afghanistan)”.

Taliban say should the Kabul administration desire to talk with them then it has to first abolish the security agreement. Afghan national unity government is highly unlikely to accept this demand as it would not only further weaken its declining control on the country but also would expose it to intimidating Taliban forces.

It is owing to this compelling Kabul administration’s limitation that Taliban are reluctant to mull over its role in peace process and prefer to talk directly with the U.S. that will eventually decide over the future of security agreement and withdrawal of troops.

Diplomatically, the United States can gain a lot by calling off the pact. Once the treaty with Kabul administration is annulled, Taliban will be under increased international pressure to hold ceasefire and quickly move towards political settlement in Afghanistan.

In addition, there is a growing sense in Taliban as well that it is just about the right time to end the mayhem in Afghanistan. They also discern if they miss an opportunity now, they will not only elude the hopes of many Afghans but also the support of their sympathizers such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and UAE.

By any means, it is not just the United States that is under pressure to resolve the complex Afghanistan puzzle – in fact by showing a little resilience, it can shift all the diplomatic burdens on Taliban.

US Disseminates False Information about PLA Dominance

By: Azhar Azam

This article was first appeared in CGTN https://news.cgtn.com/news/3d3d514f3449544e34457a6333566d54/index.html

U.S. bitterness towards China is progressively sharpening. Every other month, it releases a Beijing-targeted report about growing threats from China, its trade or human rights practices, or any other issue that could blight Chinese national integrity.

So is the case with the latest U.S. Department of Defense (DOD)'s report to Congress that “exhumes” a Chinese military-political axis between the People's Liberation Army (PLA) and the Communist Party of China (CPC).

The report whispered that on the military front, the PLA is focusing on the development of psychological, public opinion and legal warfare to conduct influence operations against the media, cultural, business, academic and policy communities of the U.S. and other countries.

And on the political side, the CPC is conditioning the world to accept China's narrative on the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its territorial and maritime claims in the South China Sea, consequently to ensure CPC rule and secure China's status as a great power particularly in the Indo-Pacific (Asia-Pacific) region.

Interestingly, the reproval came from a state that has a long history of these kinds of hybrid maneuvers such as propaganda campaigns, disseminating false information to gain public opinion, and improvising domestic and internal laws to “coerce” the support of United Nations and other foreign countries.

Afghanistan and Iraq are the two foremost examples of how the White House-Pentagon conjointly used media to spread disinformation and exploited international laws to influence national and global public opinion and forced them to believe that Kabul was harboring terrorists and Baghdad had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).

Nearly two decades later, the U.S. realized that its intelligence information about Iraqi WMDs was based on unreliable documents while it also realized the importance of Afghan Taliban in Afghan politics and attaining sustainable peace in the country.

The U.S. is now going after China but it knows very well that the PLA is terribly stronger than those of Afghan and Iraqi militaries, and also that China can't be isolated as the economic survival of even some of the developed economies are tied to it.

So, the only solution to weaken Beijing is through creating resentment against China in its friendly countries and also by trying to make PLA controversial across the world. The U.S., however, needs the support of the media (both print and television) to “manufacture” public opinion and the support of Congress to legislate in a way that discourages any trade and cooperation with China.

But unfortunately to the U.S., the institutions it is relying on to besmirch Beijing are already losing the trust of the American people. Congress, which is supposed to be a highly dignified public office, as a matter of fact, is the least-trusted institution in the country, followed by television news and newspapers.

Although in its report, DOD is very concerned about PLA's influence on media, the claims of U.S. media to be free and vibrant were fizzled out after CNN commentator Marc Lamont Hill was fired by the cable news network within 24 hours of his pro-Palestinian speech at the United Nations.

Similarly, Trump has been accusing China of meddling in the U.S. midterm elections with the aim of damaging him politically and the use of American media to influence foreign opinion. But he ignores the facts that several publications and broadcasters such as Voice of America (VOA) are supported by his country.

Ironically in 2018, the Broadcasting Board of Governors that oversees VOA and other TV and radio networks in Middle East and Cuba requested 685.1 million U.S. dollars from Congress for what it described as countering Russian misinformation, enhancing programming for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea audiences, and meeting U.S. strategic objectives against China and other countries “that do not share American values (and) are attempting to make further inroads."

The commentaries and opinions of most of the U.S. media outlets are determined to prove that China first politically tempts the foreign countries towards its BRI, and once they are caught in a “debt trap, it uses military to control their strategic assets and expand its influence."

Realistically any country, with hundreds of billions of dollars in mega infrastructure projects such as BRI, needs a robust and intelligent military to protect its national investments. In China's case, the onus of protecting BRI sits on the PLA and any concept of Chinese increased militarization should be measured in this contextual and not necessarily with methodical skepticism.

Also, if PLA is striving for global Chinese domination by building military bases, how could the DOD get away from the U.S. martial presence worldwide that comprises about 4,800 defense sites in more than 160 countries in all the seven continents of the world? It is due to the binding U.S. regulation that countries like Japan cannot maintain their own military and have to rely on paid protection of the U.S.

Obviously, the U.S. envisages that PLA is growing into a formidable military force that could pose a real threat to its global military domination and most importantly, will be capable of securing Chinese national interests overseas.

Belt and Road isn’t “to enslave” or “to engrave”

By: Azhar Azam

This is one of my pieces that originally appeared in CGTN with little editorial changes https://news.cgtn.com/news/3d3d414d31497a4d34457a6333566d54/index.html

In Beijing, the Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation (BRFIC) is loping in the presence of some 37 world leaders and 5,000 representatives from 150 countries and 90 international organizations. The United States, however, circumvented to send its delegation in the second biennial summit.

U.S. has been warning the countries to be wary of Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) through which China is spending billions of dollars in infrastructure loans and economic development to net the recipient countries into a debt trap, to take control their strategic assets, and to grow its global footprint.

While criticizing the innovative concept of regional connectivity and shared economic growth, the United States completely ignored that it is the U.S. that has, for decades, maintained its military bases in a number of foreign countries to increase its global influence and oversee the strategic assets of its allies in guise of protecting their sovereignty. In comparison, China has only one base in Djibouti.

Then how anybody can forget that the United States killed an enormous 480,000 – 507,000 people in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan in its global war on terror (GWOT) in the aftermath of September 9 terrorist attacks. On the other hand, how many times Chinese air force tested its lethal weapons on the innocent civilians anywhere in the world?

Seeing through the ogles of the United States, Belt and Road apparently seems a Chinese hegemonic plan to seek greater influence but in reality, the initiative has gained the trust of as many as 126 countries and 29 international organizations. This unique combination of land-based and oceangoing project, in its initial phase, has already produced nearly 300,000 jobs in the BRI countries.

Surely, China is pursuing an economic plan what the United States considers “to enslave nations” but nobody should either ignore that even if it so, it is much better than the U.S. catalyst “to engrave people” in the façade of defending Americans and American land.

Paraphrasing, the United States owes China more than anyone else in the world but it never fell into the Chinese debt trap. This is certainly because of its robust and resilient economy but also because China never intended to web the United States into its debt trap.

Additionally, had BRI been a debt trap, Italy would have declined to link itself with the “controversial” initiative and also France would have not shown its willingness to cooperate with China in the programs under Belt and Road.

Economic growth and the poverty alleviation is the dream of any country but it cannot bear fruit unless and until the national regimes make some joint and collaborated efforts with the help of its people. This is what China is trying to make the BRI countries realize.

In fact, the rising clamor of “debt trap” is largely propagated by the U.S.-influenced western media to undermine China-led global economic growth whereas the truth remains that neither of the BRI countries has ever officially complained Beijing for its “predatory economics” or “controlling its strategic assets”.

Pakistan is the one of the leading examples to snub the US misgivings. There is no doubt that Islamabad is scrambled into a terrific economic crisis and plummeting foreign exchange reserves. But it is mainly due to its internal economic and political turmoil so it would be pretty unfair to lay the burden of country’s economic vulnerability on Belt and Road or China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).

Therefore, Prime Minister Imran Khan once again annulled the long spread out rumors that CPEC has caught Pakistan into Chinese debt trap. In the ongoing Belt and Road conference, Khan further fervidly assured his “staunch support” for Xi’s idée fixe.

He was supporting the initiative, knowing that China or CPEC was responsible for raising only $6 billion in external debt of Pakistan, which is just over 6% of the country’s total external debt and liabilities (as of December).

The 2019 Belt and Road Forum (BRF) also features 12 heads of states or government officials from European Union including the economic highfliers like Germany and United Kingdom apart from Austria, Italy, France, and Russia. The trend shows the expanding acceptance of Belt and Road across Europe despite reservations. Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, and special prime ministerial envoy from Japan are also present in the economic gala.

In a diplomatic win for China, Malaysian Prime Minister Dr. Mahatir Mohammad also vouched his support for Belt and Road. “I am fully in support of the Belt and Road initiative. I am sure my country, Malaysia, will benefit from the project.” Mohammad has been a stalwart critic of BRI over inflated costs and national sovereignty.

As President Xi Jinping modestly invited everyone to join the BRI stating “The Belt and Road is not an exclusive club” and emphasized “the concept of openness, greenness, and cleanness” – there is no reason why the United States should oppose the initiative or stoke panic in the BRI countries.

The U.S. defiance to BRI would also be grim when China has already promised to meet much of the U.S. demands to abolish state subsidies, improve intellectual property protection, and keep its yuan stable to a reasonable value.