Pakistan needs to be mindful of US trap

By: Azhar Azam

*This is one of my opinion pieces (unedited) that first appeared in "CGTN":
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-07-28/Pakistan-needs-to-be-mindful-of-U-S-trap-IHuHJlYa9q/index.html

On Friday, the US Department of Defense (DOD) endorsed and notified Congress about a possible Foreign Military Sale (FMS) to Pakistan for Technical Security Team (TST) in continued support of F-16 program for an estimated cost of $125 million.

“This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security of the United States by protecting U.S. technology through the continued presence of U.S. personnel that provide 24/7 end-use monitoring”, DOD’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) news release said.

It is not the first time, the US has shown its intent to supply military support to Pakistan. In February 2016 too, it had approved the sale of fourteen F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan, the sale of which was also said to contribute “to US foreign policy objectives and national security goals by helping to improve the security of a strategic partner in South Asia.” Nevertheless, the intended sale was later blocked by the US Congress.

The newer US unprecedented move is widely seen in the backdrop of Khan-Trump meeting in Washington last week, where the US president hailed Pakistan efforts in bringing Afghan Taliban on the negotiation table and facilitating Afghan peace process.

As US bulls to mend its ties with its former cold war ally, Pakistan needs to be very mindful and extremely chary of a possible US trap. Unfortunately, the bilateral relations between the two sides cart a bad taste and a huge trust deficit.

In 1980s, Washington contrived Islamabad as a decoy to rout Soviet Union from Afghanistan. Once the US achieved its strategic objectives, it deserted Pakistan and imposed economic and military sanctions on the Islamic Republic in early 1990s over possession of nuclear explosive devices.

It was obviously an implacable US action, which could have propelled Pakistan’s defense in tatters because of its greater reliance on US military equipment and F-16 fighter jets, in particular. At this critical time, had China not come to spine Pakistan defense, the damage to its national sovereignty could have been irreversible.

In the aftermath of 9/11, the US once again pressed Pakistan to support its global war on terror by seeking its help to topple Taliban government in Afghanistan. As soon as the US was done, it abandoned Pakistan anew and shifted its interests towards India to check China’s growing influence in the region.

When it comes to China – Pakistan, indeed, has always been the most unlikely ally to become a part of any Washington veiled plan that could have bruised its “sweater than honey” friend due to its closet and deepest rapport with Beijing.

Same year Pakistan was denied the delivery of F-16s, the US rebirthed its “pivot to Asia” strategy that declared India a Major Defense Partner (MDP) and signed Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) with it in a bid to counter China’s growing military might.

Now the US so-called foreign policy objectives urge it to pullout from Afghanistan and also it needs to punish India over purchase of S-400 missile defense system from Russia. So the Trump administration is relying yet again on Islamabad to end the impasse in Afghan war and the potential New Delhi’s re-inclination to the Kremlin.

Although both issues underwrite Pakistan’s national interests but pragmatically, US would never push India into a situation that could impede its wider regional goal to restrict Chinese economic and military outgrowth.

Hence, the top US top diplomat for South and Central Asia Affairs (SCA) Alice G. Wells quickly walked away from Trump’s prior assertion about having obtained Modi’s request for mediation between India and Pakistan over Kashmir dispute.

“While Kashmir is a bilateral issue for both parties to discuss, the Trump administration welcomes Pakistan and India sitting down and the United States stands ready to assist,” She said in a tweet from State Department’s twitter handle on July 22.

US retreat within hours of Trump’s proclamation shows it lacks the willingness and seriousness about the resolution of Kashmir issue that has time and again shoved the two South Asian countries on the brink of nuclear war. In addition, the US reckless and erratic stance on longstanding Kashmir issue could stretch out the bilateral Pak-US trust that has just begun to reclaim after an extended breakdown.

Kashmir is a regional flashpoint that has consistently battered the Indo-Pak relations since their independence from British Empire. As long as India and Pakistan continue to engage in a row over Kashmir, the US would have a greater opportunity to increase its influence in the region.

Peace in Afghanistan is firmly knotted with US regional ambitions as it would allow it to crop up more focus on “Great Power Competition” or bluntly, China, which is the nub of US foreign policy. While peaceful resolution of Kashmir issues would inversely affect US influence in the region, it would fancy that India and Pakistan linger to fight on the demographic ticking bomb.

Reconverge in Afghanistan?

By: Azhar Azam

*This is one of my opinion pieces (unedited) that first appeared in "The Nation":
https://nation.com.pk/29-Jul-2019/reconverge-in-afghanistan

Imran Khan and Donald Trump are sometimes satirically likened for their identical personal and political traits about roasting their opponents by their flashy but engrossing public oratories. But it is true that the two unpredictable leaders have literally disrupted the orthodox politics in their respective countries. They also share similar thoughts on sidestepping their militaries to engage in overseas conflicts.

The two compatible characters fascinate each other so the two idiosyncratic talents could be able to fabricate a close rapprochement after they met in summit-level showdown in White House on Monday. Given their unique nature, either of the two is abundant in inventive diplomatic gadgets that could help them to take bold steps in order to repair and ratchet up bilateral relations between Pakistan and the United States.

Khan would be a Trump’s recipe to win 2020 US presidential elections. This is because the pullback of the US troops from Afghanistan was one of the Trump’s key promises with the Americans. Khan, at the same time, has been trying to persuade the world not to treat Afghan Taliban as social ‘pariahs’ while championing for peace negotiations with them – an initiative the US finally picked to ease down conflicts in Afghanistan. That is why Afghanistan unequivocally topped the agenda in Khan-Trump break through meeting.

The unpremeditated and grilling leaders repulsed the past Twitter stand-off in which Trump’s castigated Islamabad over Osma bin Laden despite ‘billions of dollars in aid’ and Khan lashed back at Trump’s ‘tirade against Pakistan’ that sought to make Pakistan a ‘scapegoat’ for the US ‘failures’ in Afghanistan. In its place, the ‘media predators’ showed a cohesive front and complimented each other in their televised talks.

While Khan and Trump would be easing down tensions politically, the Afghan solution would actually be framed out in the Pentagon where the military and intelligence leaderships of Pakistan and US would engage in extensive discussions on a potential peace agreement with Taliban. That would be in fact the talks that would outline the future roadmap for a stable and peaceful Afghanistan.

The intense military talks would result in yet another close cooperation between American Central Investigation Agency (CIA) and Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to once again jointly work on Afghanistan. The prior intelligence cooperation between the two powerful covert organizations dates back to more than 30 years ago when they profoundly liaised to push back former Soviet Union from Afghanistan. It was the effective CIA-ISI intelligence teamwork that helped the US to fix its Sputnik-era foe once for all and Pakistan to protect its national sovereignty from rotten Russian security threats.

In an interview with Fox News earlier this month, Trump avowed if the US troops were to leave entirely “I would leave very strong intelligence there (Afghanistan). His annotations explicitly hint at the convergence of CIA and ISI afresh. The intelligence cooperation is also on the cards as Trump’s nominee for Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark A. Milley recently asserted “Pakistan is a key partner in achieving US interests in South Asia” and that “we need to maintain a military-to-military ties based on our shared interests.”

The relations between the two spy agencies soured in 2011 after Islamabad outwardly refused to expand its military operations to North Waziristan and the affairs went in a trough following US killing of bin Laden in Pakistan. However lately, the bilateral connections are set to reestablish as Trump administration and the Pentagon are quite relieved with Pakistan’s ‘positive contributions’ for Afghan peace process.

But due to extended snap-off in the Pak-US relations and suspension of US security assistance, Islamabad has winged towards Beijing and Moscow to meet its economic and security needs. For Washington and the Department of Defense (DOD), perhaps it won’t be doable task to regain its cold war ally especially over US erstwhile pigheaded and distant behavior of abandoning Pakistan after achieving its regional objectives. If China and other allies were not there to rescue Pakistan defense, the damage to Pakistan’s national sovereignty could have been irreversible.

Then there is the demographic time bomb – Kashmir – that has several times pushed India and Pakistan on the brink of a nuclear war. Trump asserted to have obtained Modi’s request for mediation over Kashmir dispute but Indian external affairs spokesperson was terribly quick to decline his claim. “No such request has been made by PM (Narendra Modi) to US President,” he said in a tweet. Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi trashed the foreign ministry edict and urged Modi to surface the truth.

Kashmir is the regional flashpoint that has consistently battered the Indo-Pak relations since their independence from British Empire. Pakistan stresses to resolve Kashmir conflict through international mediation or arbitration and in accordance with UN resolution on Kashmir, a call that India denies. If US could help the longstanding row, it would surely allow Pakistan to better focus on peace in Afghanistan, the nub of US national security interests abroad.

Peace in Afghanistan goes in Pakistan’s national interest so it is ardent to support and facilitate US-Taliban talks and the intra-Afghan dialogue. But the US and international community must also recognize Islamabad’s contributions in global war on terror (GWOT) that has cost it over 70,000 human casualties and more than $150 billion in economic losses.

Trump-Khan meeting: The US needs to focus on Afghan peace

By: Azhar Azam

*This is one of my opinion pieces that first appeared in CGTN:

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-07-21/Trump-Khan-meeting-The-U-S-needs-to-focus-on-Afghan-peace-Ivbrhtm9j2/index.html

Peace in Afghanistan will dominate the agenda in the breakthrough Khan-Trump summit-level talks next week as Imran Khan makes his maiden trip to the US since becoming the prime minister of Pakistan.

The former cricketer-turned-politician gained applause for Pakistan, following its constructive facilitation efforts to the US-Taliban peace talks for Afghan peace process. Islamabad also tiled the contingency of an inclusive intra-Afghan dialogue after it outwardly persuaded Taliban to hold direct negotiations with Afghan officials.

It was Islamabad’s veiled contributions to peace that for the first time ever, Kabul is firmly stepping towards peace and stability. Last week, China-Russia-US alliance on Afghanistan also welcomed Pakistan as fourth-party to join the trilateral consultations, trusting that the Afghan-contiguous country can play a vital role in rekindling peace in Afghanistan.

As Khan and Trump are expected to wipe out the stains from the roughed Pakistan-US bilateral relations, they would also discuss about a possible ceasefire by Taliban that would preclude a durable peace in Afghanistan. However, there is potentially another issue, which could be conferred in the meet – China’s containment in Afghanistan.

Along with Moscow and Washington, Beijing is a key deal broker for an “Afghan-led, Afghan-owned” peace process that is acceptable to both Afghan government and Taliban. This as well as Chinese unique ability to maintain good relations with the two leading Afghan stakeholders, makes it a gallant partner for the contenders vying for influence.

Days before Afghan peace talks with the US and intra-Afghan dialogue in Doha, a Taliban delegation led by Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar visited Beijing to promote peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan.

China is coming up with an economic solution to ragged Afghanistan. Through its signature Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and preferential trade tariffs, Beijing is offering Kabul an opportunity to overwhelm its economic and infrastructure downslide.

It has formally invited Afghan government to join its BRI and through Afghanistan-China-Pakistan trilateral foreign ministers’ dialogue, it is also fostering political, reconciliation, development, infrastructure, connectivity, and security cooperation with President Ashraf Ghani’s regime.

Taliban hides a shrewd political acumen. They discern that in case of their inclusion in Afghan government, they would essentially in need of the political and economic support from Beijing and Islamabad so they have not shown any qualms on burgeoning Chinese ties with Kabul administration.

China, therefore, would buckle down that Taliban and Kabul administration prevail over the disputes and join its connectivity and infrastructure drive, which bids to transform Afghanistan from a landlocked land to a land-linked territory.

For the US that has spent about hundreds of billions of US dollars to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and to train the Afghan National Army (ANA) – it would not at all be endurable that China reaps the post-peace economic and strategic benefits. So, Trump would build a case to Khan about plausible Chinese advancement in Afghanistan even if the US subscribes to withdraw its troops.

But mulling over the promising, flourishing, and persisting Sino-Pak relations and Chinese recurrent diplomatic and economic support to Pakistan, Prime Minister Khan would be in a position not to deliver anything substantial to the US on China.

Khan is different from his predecessors. He has been a staunch supporter of Beijing’s BRI and its economic policies about poverty alleviation and corruption campaign. Khan has also been advocating peace negotiations with Afghan Taliban at a time when they were thought to be the ‘pariahs’.

In addition, Pakistani prime minister would believe if US-Taliban talks and intra-Afghan dialogue transpire into a long-lasting peace and stability in Afghanistan, the turmoil in the country would shift from military-related to economic-oriented. This would be situation where China’s role could be decisive in ushering Afghan economy.

While all the assailants bade to conquer Afghanistan and not the Afghan hearts; the military strategy pushed the conditions in the battle-weary Afghanistan to further deteriorate. Khan has time and again shown his concerns about the unprofessed interests of the interlopers that have unvaryingly obliterated the Afghan land and region – eliciting tensions around the world.

Despite Afghan government’s antipathies and the frictions in Afghanistan-Pakistan bilateral ties, the people of two countries are bound in historical links and deep relations. Therefore, peace in Afghanistan is the ultimate priority of Pakistani premier.

Islamabad is Kabul’s natural choice when it comes to trade cooperation. Should Beijing seek any support from Islamabad for ratcheted-up economic cooperation for Kabul – the campaigner of smooth and sustainable relations with the neighboring countries would cordially welcome and would avert any idea to derail Chinese peace and economic initiatives in Afghanistan. Instead, he would welcome increased Beijing’s salubrious participation in Afghan national development because it goes with the interests of Islamabad.

Khan-Trump talks would be more constructive and more consequential if bilateral discussions are constricted to peace in Afghanistan and in stitching fractured relations with Pakistan. The US of course can work with China and Pakistan to make the Afghan conditions conducive to peace which is after all, is its core objective.

US punitive actions push Turkey towards East

By: Azhar Azam

*This is one of my opinion pieces that first appeared in CGTN:
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-07-19/U-S-punitive-actions-push-Turkey-towards-East-IrSkCCTsoo/index.html

The United States is “unwinding” Turkey from the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program after it abortive efforts to prevent Ankara from buying Russian S-400 air defense missile system, the White House and Pentagon announced on Wednesday.

Turkish foreign ministry powerfully retorted to the US retributive action, calling “the unilateral step is incompatible with the spirit of alliance and does not rely on any legitimate justification”. Ankara further warned the US to patch the mistake that will cause irreparable wounds in the bilateral strategic relations.

Over the past, Trump administration has been using some flattering tactics in order to avert Turkey from acquiring Russian S-400 system. In December, the US lured Ankara by announcing to withdraw all US troops from Syria. Just recently, US envoy for Syrian engagement also talked about the establishment of a “free of YPG (People’s Protection Units)” buffer zone along the Syrian-Turkish border, dubbing Turkish concerns “legitimate”.

While trying to captivate its NATO partner, the bamboozled US government has backed its Kurdish ally as well by asserting that it would stand by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and would not want anyone to mishandle its coalition partner, fighting against Islamic State (DAESH).

Clearly, Washington is seeking to align both SDF and Turkey simultaneously in order to counter Islamic State and it is also exploiting the Kurd-Turkish conflict to achieve its wider strategic objectives in the region.

In its broader regional strategy, the US was making sure that the Kurdish militant forces continue to remain deterrent to alleged Turkish ambitions to expand its regional influence at the same time; the US exerted all efforts that Ankara does not unequivocally go into the clique of American adversaries.

The US would never give Turkey a free hand to crush the Kurdish forces, which it has invested upon both economically and militarily for such a long period. And since it tried to retain its NATO ally too, it charted a two-fold strategy to supporting Syrian Kurds and press-ganging Ankara to acquiesce to Washington.

But, the US would now reinforce its support for SDF outwardly to punish Turkey after Ankara began to receive S-400 system from Moscow.

More wired US support for SDF would be aggravating for Turkey, which considers PKK-linked YPG the backbone of Kurd armed resistance that is seeking a greater autonomy or completely independent Kurd state in Syria and latter could strive for such an autonomous territory in Turkey.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan twigged the American secretive script ingeniously and baptized the US plan as an effort to overthrow his regime by arming the Kurdish militias in Syria. “Do you know what the only target of these in Turkey? Their only concern is ‘How we can topple the AK Party (Justice and Development Party) from power?’, but they won’t be able to”, Erdoğan said in his speech on June 12.

As in January Trump had cautioned to devastate Turkey economically, the US has actually begun to stroke not only the Turkish exports but also its national defense. After blocking the sale of 100 F-35 jets to Turkey, the US has also denied delivering the US-UK jointly produced CTS800 engines that it needs to meet the Pakistan’s export order of 30 T129 TAK gunship helicopters for $1.5 billion. The diplomatic spat between the two countries could further escalate if Ankara’s neighbor and rival Greece acquires F-35 to gain a military edge over Turkey.

The consistent US infuriating actions towards Turkey are pushing it further closer to Moscow, Tehran, and Beijing. In his article on July 2 for Chinese mouthpiece Global Times during his state visit, Erdogan anticipated the US sanctions and showed his intent to shift towards East by strongly supporting BRI and improving strategic relations with China.

Ankara, Beijing, and Tehran maintain deep ties with Moscow too whereas European Union isn’t cheery either about Trump’s trade war and the US unilateral retraction from Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or Iran nuclear deal. Therefore, Turkey and European Union might re-converge, functioning as a diplomatic wall in a potential US-Iran standoff.

Plight of Rohingya People and the war forward

By: Azhar Azam

*The edited version of this article first appeared in "The Nation":
https://nation.com.pk/15-Jul-2019/plight-of-rohingyas-and-the-way-forward

In an interview with the Associated Press (AP), a Rohingya Muslim woman described the searing episode of her rape and the killing of her husband by the armed forces of Myanmar (formerly Burma), known as Tatmadaw, at a night of June 2017.

She said that the Burmese soldiers entered in her home, bound her husband with ropes, slit his threat, ripped the scarf from her head, tied it around her mouth, and raped her. After they were finished, they dragged her body outside and set her bamboo house ablaze.

This is just one of the horrific atrocities Rohingya Muslims went through. Otherwise, myriads of Rohingya men, women, and children experienced the historic persecution and ethnic cleansing such as mass killings, sexual violence, and widespread arson.

How It All Started

On 25-August-2017, in retaliation to the killings of Rohingya Muslims and rapes of their women by Myanmar security forces – hundreds of Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) members armed with machetes, swords, and other weapons attacked the Burmese police camps and military bases, killing at least 10 policemen and an army soldier.

In an interview with Dhaka Tribune, an ARSA commander Abdus Shakoor defended his attack with 200-natives (out of various attacks by several groups) on Myanmar border police posts and a military base on August 25.“To save our people, to save our mothers and sisters, to take back our rights, we took up sticks, and axes, and knives and rose up against oppressors.”

Brutal Crackdown on Rohingya Muslims by Myanmar Security Forces

Myanmar security forces’ crackdown on Rohingya Muslims was brutal. According to a Conference Paper by Ontario International Development Agency (OIDA), only in August 2017 Burmese army burned about 300 Rohingya villages, killed 25,000 Rohingya Muslims, raped 28,000 Rohingya Muslim women and adolescents, and thrown 35,000 people into the fire.

In September 2018, a shocking report by UN fact finding mission found that Myanmar military committed large scale gang rapes and other forms of sexual violence against Rohingya women in Rakhine (Arakan) state of Myanmar.

Constituted by Human Rights Council, the report further stated that the rapes were often perpetrated by Tatmadaw soldiers in public spaces and in front of the families and the communities to maximize humiliation and trauma.

Women and girls were systematically abducted, detained, and raped in military and police compounds. The victims were brutally tortured with knives and sticks before and during rape and marked by deep bites.

Human Right Council said that a campaign of hate and dehumanization of the Rohingya Muslims was underway for months and escalated after 8-June-2012, led by Rakhine Nationalities Development Party (RNDP), various Rakhine organizations, and radical Buddhist monk organizations, and several official and influential figures.

It was spread through anti-Rohingya or anti-Muslim publications, public statements, rallies, and boycotts of Muslims shops. The Rohingya Muslims were labeled ‘illegal immigrants’, ‘terrorists’, and portrayed as an existential threat that might ‘swallow other races’ with their ‘incontrollable birth rates’. In November 2012, the RNDP cited Hitler and argued that ‘inhuman acts’ were sometimes necessary to ‘maintain a race’.

Since August 2017, Myanmar military forces soldiers and Buddhist militants have been intensively involved in the detestable humanitarian crimes against the Rohingya Muslims that resulted in immense exodus of more than 730,000 Rohingya to the neighboring Bangladesh district of Cox Bazar.

Myanmar History

Burma, renamed Myanmar in 1989, was under British colonial rule during 1824-1942 before Japan invaded; pushing British out of the territory. British evacuation provoked Burmese nationalists to attack Muslims communities in then-Burma.

In 1945, Britain liberated Burma from Japan with the help of Burmese nationalists and latter created independent Union of Burma in 1948; defying promise to give autonomy to Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine (Arakan), living in the land since 8th century.

Rohingya Persecution Background

Tensions soared between the newly established Burma and Rohingya Muslims; most of whom wanted Arakan inclusion in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). Jinnah however regretted due to lesser Muslims’ proportionate to Burmese population and opined that Rohingya Muslims should strive for their rights within Burma.

In 1978, General Ne Win conducted a large scale military operation Nagamin (also known as Operation King Dragon) in northern Arakan that targeted and killed Rohingya Muslims. The operation forced 250,000 people to migrate Bangladesh – one million Rohingya Muslims had fled Myanmar to various countries.

Enacted in 1982, Burma Citizenship Law no longer recognizes Rohingya as citizens of Burma – ensuing 800,000 Rohingya Muslims (1.1 million, according to some reports) stateless. Since then, Muslims in the region are the victims of dreaded exploitations by Burmese army including forced labor, rape, and religious torment.

Rohingya Muslims cannot travel without authorization, are prohibited to work outside their villages, and even cannot marry without permission. They are also effectively barred to vote in General Elections so have no political representation in the state’s parliament to raise voice for harboring and protecting their basic rights.

They are the most persecuted community in the world that has been crammed between Myanmar (Formerly Burma) and Bangladesh (Formerly East Pakistan). Neither of the countries is willing to take them as citizen; leaving almost a million people at the disposal of high hills, tough weather, and miserable food and health conditions.

UN Report Rebuked its Own “Systemic Failure”

On May 29, a reproachful 36-page report by former Guatemalan foreign minister and UN ambassador Gert Rosenthal rebuked the conduct of its own global organization (US) for its “obviously dysfunctional performance” in Myanmar over the past decade.

“The overall responsibility was of a collective nature, in other words it can be truly characterized as a systemic failure of the United Nations,” the report said.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres accepted the “candid, forthright, and useful report” about UN “systemic failure” in Rohingya crisis and assured to implement Rosenthal’s recommendations in order to improve the performance of the United Nations system.

The Way Forward

In a latest development, the prosecutor of International Criminal Court (ICC) Fatou Bensouda has requested court’s judges to order an investigation on the persecution, deportation, and other inhuman acts of the Rohingya people by Myanmar security forces.

The ICC prosecutor’s request to initiate an investigation on the plight of Rohingya Muslims and Rosenthal’s recommendations provide another opportunity to the international community, the UN itself, UN Security Council, and other regional organizations such as ASEAN and European Union to use diplomatic, humanitarian, and other means to enforce Myanmar in meeting its responsibility to protect its people from genocide and war crimes.

Security Council should slap sanctions including travel bans, assets freeze, and arms embargoes on Myanmar as well as should pursue the case in the International Criminal Court (ICC) so that the perpetrators of killings and rapes of Rohingya people could be made accountable.

US-Turkish row isn’t all about S-400

By: Azhar Azam

*The edited version of this article first appeared in "Daily Times":
https://dailytimes.com.pk/430110/the-us-turkish-row-isnt-all-about-s-400/

Turkey and the United States are still in discussions for setting up a free zone along the Turkish-Syrian border, the US Special Representative for Syria Engagement and the Special Envoy for the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIL James Jeffery reiterated his erstwhile statement in Cairo and in an interview to a Turkish daily Hürriyet last month.

Ambassador Jeffery has been talking with Turkey about establishing a “free of YPG (People’s Protection Units)” buffer zone in northeastern Syria. The Kurdish-led YPG is the major military faction of SDF that Ankara considers an offshoot of the outlawed and terrorist-declared Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK) in Turkey. SDF now controls larger area of northern Syria – known as Rojawa – which Turkey fears of becoming a “terrorist corridor” for Kurds to destabilize Turkey.

The United States believes that Turkish security concerns are legitimate, given the SDF’s “traditional and political ties” with PKK but asserts that it would stand by the SDF and would not want anyone to mishandle its coalition partners against ISIS. In addition, Washington does not support Kurdish independence from Syria either and envisions their future as part of “a democratic, peaceful government” in Damascus.

Clearly, Washington is trying to align both SDF and Turkey simultaneously in order to counter ISIS and it is also exploiting the Kurd-Turkish conflict to achieve its wider strategic objectives in the region. Another key US national goal is to prevent Ankara from buying S-400 missile defense system from Moscow.

In its broader regional strategy, the United States is making sure that the Kurdish militant forces continue to remain deterrent to alleged Turkish ambitions to expand its regional influence at the same time; the US is exerting all efforts that Ankara does not unequivocally go into the clique of American adversaries.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is twigging the American secretive script ingeniously and dubs the plan as US effort to overthrow his regime by arming the Kurdish militias in Syria. “Do you know what the only target of these in Turkey? Their only concern is ‘How we can topple the AK Party (Justice and Development Party) from power?’, but they won’t be able to”, Erdoğan said in his speech on June 12.

A Turkish security official, who chose to remain anonymous, told Bloomberg that Ankara wants the United States to push the YPG fighters 30-40 kilometers away from its southern border, take back heavy weapons from Syrian Kurds, and place the safe zone under Turkish control.

While speaking at the Middle East Institute last week, the former ambassador to Turkey James Jeffery said that the United States, Turkey, and the SDF had “a general agreement in principle on the pullback (of the Kurdish forces) and on the safe zone” but termed return of US-provide weapons from SDF a sticking point to clinch the deal.

In December too, following a marathon telephonic conversation between President Tayyip Erdoğan and the US President Donald Trump, the Syrian Kurds were traumatized by the Trump’s surprise announcement of complete US troop withdrawal from Syria and handing over their future to Ankara.

But propitiously for Syrian Kurds, Turkish consistent denials to desert the S-400 missile defense systems purchase from Russia strained the Turkish-US bilateral relations and forced Trump to backtrack from his prior decision of entire US troop retraction.

Latter in January, livid Trump had warned to devastate Turkey economically if they hit Kurd. Washington has also been flapping to impose sanctions on Ankara through Countering America’s Adversaries through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) and blocking the delivery of F-35 aircraft to pile up pressure in Ankara over withdrawal of S-400 indenture.

However the concurrent Turkish ministerial visits had somewhat defrosted the escalating diplomatic spat between the two NTO allies as DOD spokesperson Charles Summers dubbed Turkey a “valuable NATO ally” and “a longtime ally”. But the most critical note of his off-camera briefing was that the United States is “in active discussions with them (Turkish officials) to get beyond the issue of the S-400”.

Summers comments were distinctly an indication of that the diplomatic row between Turkey and the United States isn’t all about S-400. Including Kurdish issue on Turkish border, there are several other clashes that impede the bilateral relations between the two to burgeon.

Although Turkey stopped buying Iranian oil after US sanctions waiver ended on May 1 but the countries sustain close bilateral relations. So, Ankara surely would not welcome any US military aggression on Tehran and would respond strongly, at least diplomatically.

Both Tehran and Ankara has deep ties with Moscow too whereas European Union isn’t jovial either about Trump’s trade war and the US unilateral retraction from Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or Iran nuclear deal. Therefore, Turkey and European Union might re-converge, functioning as a diplomatic wall in a potential US-Iran standoff.

Palpably, the United States would never Turkey a free hand exterminate the Kurdish forces, which it has invested upon both economically and militarily for such a long period but it cannot afford to lose its NATO ally too. Hence, it would chart a twofold strategy to supporting Syrian Kurds and press-ganging Ankara to acquiesce to Washington.

BLA Terrorists, Kashmir dispute and British principles

By: Azhar Azam

*The edited version of this article first appeared in Pakistan today with the title "Trouble in Hong Kong"
https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2019/07/12/trouble-in-hong-kong/

The diplomatic feud between China and the UK spiraled after hundreds of young protestors stormed into the office of Hong Kong Legislative Council, wrecked the statutory headquarters and marred its walls with graffiti. The violent demonstrators also hoisted the former colonial flag, British Union Jack.

In his swindling statement, the UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt obliquely reproved the dissidents and at the same time, assured “unwavering UK support” for the Hongkongers. Earlier, Hunt rebuffed to rule out sanctions on China and expelling its diplomats. The Tory leadership contender also urged China to honor “one country, two systems” agreement, narrating UK “principles” that precede its “commercial interests”.

Execrably, the UK’s proclamation about standing with the “principles” has a vile history. In fact, its “commercial interests” have supplanted its moral positions on numerous instances. Fearing the US tariff blows, the arrest and intended extradition of the whistleblower WikiLeaks publisher, Julian Assange, manifestly exposes UK’s ability to stick by the values.

It was the “commercial interests” of the UK that exhilarated it to leave flee the sub-continent in 1947 without resolving the core Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan. Resultantly, the two South Asian nations have so far fought four battles as well as continue to go through skirmishes on borders and incessantly remain on the verge of atomic war. That is why; Kashmir is dubbed as the nuclear flashpoint between the two countries.

Had Britain conformed to its professed moral standards, it would have not ignored the bawling whines of the millions of Kashmiri men, women, and children – who are everyday tortured, raped, and killed by Indian oppressive forces. But as soon as the British “commercial interests” are tied with India, it is happy to concede the “principles”.

UK has frequently shored up its support for the radical elements that pose significant threats to the national interests of Pakistan. It harbors and provides asylums to the terrorists involved in killing, ransom, and other activities in Pakistan’s most populated city of Karachi and to those who have been engaged in emasculating country’s fate-changer infrastructure project, China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and the Gwadar port in Balochistan.

Pakistan listed Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) as a terrorist organization in April 2006, after the Baloch separatist group conducted terrorist attacks on Pakistan armed forces. Although, Britain also proscribed BLA in July 2006 but it is still housing Hyrbyair Marri, one of the most wanted terrorists in Pakistan. Under the leadership of Marri, the terrorist group has assumed the responsibility of copious terrorist attacks in Pakistan.

As the United States’ Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has now designated BLA as Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs) and has also added it to Specially Designation Nationals (SDN) list, it is about the time for Britain to scratch the political asylum of Marri and handover the terrorist back to Islamabad. This would not only bridge the Pakistan-UK trust deficit in the area of terrorism but will also pragmatically rationalize British claim about standing for “principles”.

Unfortunately as of now, UK is not showing any seriousness about ceasing its soil for overseeing terrorist activities in other countries and impairing their interests. In the ongoing Cricket World Cup (CWC), the UK allowed anti-Pakistan group’s supporters to raise banners that blemish the integrity and sovereignty of Islamabad. Pakistan again has conveyed its strong concerns with the UK over the use of sports for such propaganda campaigns.

Britain is even diffident to back its own politicians too. It is a national embarrassment for the UK and its people that a President of foreign country pans its London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, calling him a “disaster” and instead of patronizing his native administrator, the foreign secretary of UK “150 percent” supported Trump’s attack.

A country that cannot flash solidarity with its compatriots from external oratory assaults, perhaps would not comprehend Pakistani version. Delving into the past, the UK-ruled or Britain-administrated British Empire reigned enormous regions. It mugged and ransacked the wealth and resources of a number of poor nations to burgeon the Kingdom.

Eventually, British prestige started to decline after the second world war and in 1997, the transfer of Hong Kong to China, marked “the last nail in the coffin” of British “Vampire” that enslaved and caused deaths of millions across many parts of the world.

The UK should learn from the past and must play an emphatic role in resolving Kashmir issue as well as ought to prevent its land from becoming safe havens for the listed terrorists that destabilize peace and sovereignty of its partner nations.

It would only then, foreign secretary Hunt could be entitled to assert “If you are asking me about the trade-off between our trading relations and our principles, in the end this is a country that has always defended the values we believe in”.

Patience is key to resolve Afghan dispute

By: Azhar Azam

*This is one of my opinion pieces that first appeared in CGTN:
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-07-10/Patience-is-key-to-resolve-Afghan-dispute-Idr5tliNCE/index.html

Despite Trump administration's desperate efforts to decode a peace deal with the Taliban before the Afghan presidential election in September and dispose of the war-torn country, the U.S. is caught up in the landlocked South-Central Asian country.

Nevertheless, Afghan peace process wigwagged some breakthrough as the Taliban met their domestic rivals in a co-organized dialogue by Germany and Qatar.

Although the armed group is apathetic to hold direct talks with Kabul administration, considering it "puppet regime" of the U.S., still it was a prodigious success for the U.S. that would pave the way for an inclusive intra-Afghan dialogue.

Both the U.S. Special Representative on Afghanistan Reconciliation Zalmay Khalilzad and Taliban spokesperson Suhail Shaheen were elated by the progress on ending the 18-year impasse in Afghanistan. Khalilzad also appreciated Pakistan for facilitating the peace talks between the U.S. and Taliban, conceding Washington relations with Islamabad has changed "little-by-little in a positive direction".

The negotiations were previously wedged over Taliban's precondition to provide a timeline for U.S. troop withdrawal and the U.S. urging the armed group to give assurance that Afghanistan soil will not be used to harm other countries, announcing a countrywide ceasefire, and commit an intra-Afghan dialogue.

The remarks by the respective representatives hint that the U.S. could decide to pull out from Afghanistan in a year or so and that the Taliban would agree on a truce as well as on engagement with President Ashraf Ghani's government.

Intra-Afghan dialogue is also on the cards as the Pakistani Prime Minister is soon expected to meet a Taliban delegation in Islamabad. Days before the eighth round of peace negotiations, Pakistan hosted Afghan government officials at a scenic hill station near Islamabad.

Even though the Taliban did not participate in the talks, it would be conducive to bridge the differences between the armed group and Kabul administration. Last month, President Ghani also visited Pakistan where he thought to have requested Pakistan cooperation on intra-Afghan dialogue.

The prospect of any potential peace agreement will rely on U.S. troop withdrawal only after which the Taliban would be put under international diplomatic pressure to hold direct talks with the Afghan government.

But even the U.S.' vision of intra-Afghan dialogue materializes, the subsequent stage would perhaps be the most challenging phase of the Afghan peace process.

This is because Afghanistan incorporates strenuous tribal disputes, deep ethnic divisions, and differentiated armed factions, so any covenant with some of them could instead fashion more complex war hotspots in the country.

Afghanistan has also been a land of insecurity and mayhem as none of the interlopers, due to their vague interests, never intended to resolve the differences between several Afghan clusters. Consequently, the situation in the battle-weary country has only degenerated and has additionally detrimentally impacted the region and the world.

While the U.S. is ostensibly making some serious efforts to engage all the stakeholders and settle the prolonging Afghanistan issue, yet it shouldn't expect that all the long-battling armed groups would snub their interests to Washington's aspirations. It would indeed chomp maybe years for the U.S. to clean-out their cavernous antipathies and to tolerate each other's ascendancy.

Then there has to be a widespread rebuilding process in Afghanistan that could cost possibly around the same what the U.S. has spent in its Afghan-specific former Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and the ongoing Operation Freedom's Sentinel (OFS).

As these Overseas Contingency Operations (OCOs) have unplugged about 1 trillion U.S dollars from the U.S. economy, the rehabilitation could be as much as the same, if not more.

In addition, the intra-Afghan dialogue is expected to fabricate enormous rows among Afghan all stakeholders such as how to govern the country, which system should be followed, how the resources will be distributed, what will be the pooled foreign policy, and who would have greater influence over Afghan military.

So, patience is the key to an Afghan peace dialogue. The U.S. must not haste or get dismayed over the much-anticipated differences and must ensure that all the partakers carry on engagements. Only frequent interactions could help in calming down tensions among all sides.

On the other hand, the Taliban has ramped up militant attacks in Afghanistan at speed, the U.S. would have wished for the Afghan peace process. Taliban surely are using the attacks as a bargaining chip to dominate the peace talks. The U.S. needs to finalize a draft agreement with the Taliban as a minimum so that casualties could be shirked immediately.

The Afghan peace process is going to be a tough and lengthy task that could ingest hectic efforts and years to yield. So, if the U.S. is vying for sustainable peace and stability in Afghanistan, it would have to unbar the peace process with time constraints and must strive for more and more intra-Afghan engagements.

Optimistically, all Afghanistan segments would someday realize how to overcome disputes and synchronize their efforts for a peaceful and stable Afghanistan.

Why Trump should look to decode a trade deal with Xi?

By: Azhar Azam

*This is one of my opinion pieces that first appeared in The Express Tribune:
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2005446/6-us-china-trade-war-g-20-summit/

Shortly after meeting with President Xi Jingping at G-20 summit in Osaka, President Trump announced that China and the United States would resume the suspended trade talks. As a goodwill gesture, he locked the new tariffs on Chinese goods for an indefinite period and also pledged to allow the US companies to sell technology and components to Huawei.

Earlier at Camp David, the keyboard warrior argued that tariffs have been “very helpful” in making trade deals. The US president was inferring Japan, with which he expects the trade gap to be “straightened up rapidly” and Mexico that conceded to stem the flow of migrants from crossing into the United States to shirk Trump’s tariff shots.

Trump ignited and latter escalated trade battle with China, hoping Beijing to crouch down to his demands for structural changes in Chinese trade and tariff practices but his chastising measures to clip the trade deficit with People’s Republic were raised economic woes for the United States too.

But Beijing’s trade retaliatory actions, in a comeback to Washington’s tariffs on Chinese goods, grimly tweaked the US rural economy. It is for the first time since 2013, the income of the American farmers has plunged by a half and there are increasing number of farm bankruptcies in the states of Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.

China is one of the major buyers of the US soybeans and other agriculture products. As a result of elongating tiff, the soybean prices in the US have descended to the lowest point in a decade. The financial experts arraign Trump’s tariff strategy for the “pretty significant pullback” in the US agriculture goods exports.

Huawei addition to the US Entity List, barring domestic companies to sell or export technology and components to world-leading Chinese telecom and smartphone manufacturer, also pitched trepidation in the cliques of US vendors who scaled back orders and drained the stocks, spelling out the trade war.

Broadcom Inc., a California-based chipmaker has rundown its annual revenue forecast by $2 billion for the fiscal year 2019, citing Huawei ban. At the time of announcing the second quarter results, company CEO and President Hock Tan said “We currently see a broad-based slowdown in the demand environment, which we believe is driven by continued geopolitical uncertainties, as well as the effects of export restrictions on one of our largest customers (Huawei).”

Tan also told analysts “With respect to semiconductors it is clear that the US-China trade conflict, including the Huawei export ban, is creating economic and political uncertainty and reducing visibility for global (manufacturing) customers”.

American manufacturers are apprehensive of Chinese “Unreliable Entities” list to boot, the inclusion to which would irrefutably decline their exports to China. If the precarious trade frictions prevail, it would surely wheeze the US manufacturing jobs, the crux of Trump’s tariffs campaign at China.

Although the employment situation in the United States remained unchanged at 3.6% in May, however US Department of Labor and Statistics (BIS) said that the number of unemployed persons (less than 5 weeks) jumped by 243,000 to 2.1 million in May – that’s more than 13% in a month. The count also included 1.3 million long-term unemployed persons (those jobless for 27 weeks or more).

Bilateral tariffs are fabricating handful of downbeat impacts on the economy of China and the United States. They are diametrically increasing the import and export prices – thereby ramming businesses to flourish, employments to expand, and investments to grow consequently shrinking GDP of the two countries.

In a report on costs of tariffs on the US Information and Communication Technology (ICT) industry, Rhodium Group estimated that the US GDP could suffer cumulative losses of as much as $1 trillion in the next 10 years across all tariff escalation scenarios.

The group’s other key findings revealed that the decoupling ICT trade with China did not bring much of the ICT manufacturing jobs back to the United States while the rest of the world greatly benefited from diverted trade and investment.

If US agriculture exports continue to dwindle, technology companies are constrained to chop their revenue forecasts, GDP is clattering to contract, and most importantly American farmers are writhing and manufacturing jobs are disinclined to return – what Trump has been brawling for?

His trade war rhetoric may be a political gamble to win the US presidential elections yet again but in a highly practical and competitive global market, these kinds of electoral stunts could recoil the economy and national interests of the United States.

In the given circumstances, it is about the right time when Trump should look to decode a trade deal with Xi before the conventional trade war breaks into a full-blown technological fray between China and the United States.

US DOD should not act as a rogue organization

By: Azhar Azam

*This is one of my opinion pieces that first appeared in CGTN:
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2019-07-04/U-S-DOD-should-not-act-as-a-rogue-organization-I23wPCjAbu/index.html

Donald Trump is well-known for suddenly changing his gears. During his inaugural term as the U.S. President, he battered a number of U.S. allies and rivals over terrorism, trade, nuclear and other issues before abruptly dropping the heat to break a deal with them.

He frequently accused China of "unfair" trade practices and "stealing" U.S. manufacturing jobs, reprimanded Pakistan for providing "safe havens" to Afghan Taliban, and upbraided the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) for nuclear tests. But as of now, he has a trade truce with Beijing, applauded Islamabad for its support to resolve Afghanistan dispute and agreed to resume stalled nuclear talks with Pyongyang.

Trump's newer approach is likable. He seems to have learned from his interaction with a number of heads of states and understands their point of views. The change in his foreign policy may also have a backdrop link with the launch of his reelection bid for a second consecutive presidential term.

But the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) perhaps does not agree with Trump, at least, not on China. In a 171-pagewhite paper, the Pentagon's chief of staff and independent strategists noted a "broad consensus" that Russia, through an alliance with China, aims to reclaim its influence over Soviet nations to retrieve its worldwide recognition as a "great power" and gain economic, military and political sway over foreign countries.

Although the paper delineates military and strategic experts' thoughts on "Russian Strategic Intentions" and its use of "propaganda and disinformation" campaigns in Western countries, the outcomes are more China-oriented.

One of the white paper contributors retired Brigadier General Rob Spalding III opined that the U.S. should bilaterally engage Russia to peel them away from China's orbit. "The U.S. can work with Russia in ways that improve the U.S.-Russia relationship without detracting from European efforts to balance and deter," he said.

Wary of Sino-Russian collaboration, Jason Werchan encouraged the U.S. "to effectively foster distrust and unease" between Beijing and Moscow. The report also supported then Acting Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan's focus on "China, China, China" and presented Beijing as "the greatest threat to U.S. interests and national security."

Pentagon-backed defense analysts reminded the Trump administration about the "more advanced and powerful" China whose rapprochement with Russia seeks to end the U.S. hegemony across the world. The report also advised providing information about "Chinese predatory lending" to European countries so that they could avoid "China's debt diplomacy."

The group of strategists came up with a terrible suggestion to hinge on Russia to deter China. This is quite laughable because China and Russia sustain unrivaled relations, and Xi's last month visit to the Kremlin has truly bolstered their comprehensive strategic partnership. As the Sino-Russia relationship touches new heights, the idea to sow seeds of distrust between the two is merely an eccentric proposition.

It is odd the DOD is orchestrating a program to discuss and advise its federal regime on how to weaken the political and economic interests of its adversaries, which exceedingly supersedes its jurisdiction.

The DOD must recall that it is a defense organization of the U.S. and not a conventional media outlet that can discharge its responsibilities by issuing "disclaimers." It should not try to circumvent the rules and behave like a rogue organization that works beyond the control of the national government.

It would be interesting to see how the Western media responds to the report, which for many years has been trying to uphold that the People's Liberation Army (PLA) is not China's national army but a military wing of the founding and ruling Communist Party of China that ensures the Party's rule over China.

For highbrow defense and military analysts and officials in Washington, the increased operational effectiveness and preparedness of the PLA as a military organization is something more grievous for U.S. national interests and global preeminence.

Unlike the Pentagon that pursues international military outreach to protect American allies and its national interests, the PLA does not have any global ambitions. For the PLA, China's interests rest in its national sovereignty, security and territorial integrity.

China thoroughly realizes that in today's world, economy and defense are symbiotic, and it cannot be lethargic on either of two crucial issues of national interest. Thus it has to be vigilant on both fronts simultaneously under rapidly-changing geopolitical circumstances.

With these comparative facts, it is obvious that the DOD is trying to make inroads with a political and economic façade that could eventually undermine the legitimacy of the Trump administration.

Western clap in Hong Kong has strategic implications

By: Azhar Azam

Anyone that bears threat to the national interests of the United States is liable to be detained, extradited, prosecuted, and imprisoned or executed. Its enormous economic and military strength allows it to impose more than 100 foreign countries with which it maintains bilateral extradition treaties.

According to analysts, the United States has managed between 350 and 600 international extraditions in the past 12 years or so. As an alternative to extradition, under extraordinary rendition it has brought a number of suspected terrorists and other criminals from other countries back the U.S. or to the third countries for detention, interrogation, or prosecution.

Using its burly influential clout, the United States constraints the oldest democracy in the world – the United Kingdom – to arrest and extradite the whistleblower publisher of WikiLeaks Julian Assanage over leaked secret American documents and horrific videos including U.S. troops opening fire on Iraqi civilians.

Additionally, Washington bullies Canada to detain Meng Wanzhou, the daughter and chief financial officer of Chinese telecom giant Huawei, in order to limit Beijing’s ability to fight in trade war with the United States. But it rejects to extradite U.S.-based Fethullah Gullen, the suspect for Turkish 2016 coup attempt, to Anakara in spite of frequent requests and demands of its NATO ally, Turkey.

The United States is unbolting new front against China by covertly intervening and flaring the protests in Hong Kong to trigger unrest in the Chinese Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) despite that the autonomous government has shelved the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 and has issued a public apology.

Chief executive of HKSAR Carrie Lam had introduced certain revisions in the Bill after a Hongkonger Chang Tong-kai, who allegedly killed his girlfriend in Taiwan during holidaying, fled the state and returned to Hong Kong. In the absence of an extradition treaty, the self-ruled island snubbed the requests of the Taiwanese officials to hand over the accused to them.

The amendments was intended to confiscate these loopholes and to allow the transfer of such fugitives, involved in heinous crimes such as rape and murder, to the countries that do not maintain a formal extradition treaty with Hong Kong including the mainland China, Macau, and Taiwan.

Although it was purely a legislation that strives to bring those criminals to justice who take advantage of the non-availability of the extradition treaty among these countries but the United States takes it as an opportunity to hurt China.

The convener of a campaign “Safeguard HK, Support the Surrender of Fugitive Offenders Legislation” told Global Times that the group’ website has been attacked several times because it supports the Bill and the investigations showed that most of the cyber-attacks came from the United States.

Earlier, Chinese State Councilor and Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi also traced a western “black hand” and warned overseas forces not to meddle in Hong Kong. In the first public comments by China, Wang further said that the legislation “completely suited the interests of the Hong Kong people”.

It is widely believed that the United States are using the protests as a bargaining chip to negotiate the trade talks with China before the upcoming Xi-Trump meeting at G-20 summit. In an interview with TIME, even though the keyboard warrior Donald Trump spurned to support rallies but called the demonstrations “very effective”.

The Western or American clap in the Hong Kong protests has a strategic background. Due to its decisive strategic location, developed infrastructure, effective international communication network – Hong Kong plays a vital role in the trade between China and the rest of world.

In June 2017, a top military brass of People’s Liberation Army (PLA) had spotted light on the strategic importance of Hong Kong. “The PLA’s garrison in Hong Kong is not only a military garrison; more importantly, a political garrison”, said commander Yuan Yubai and political commissar Wei Liang of the South Theatre Command in a co-authored article.

“[The garrison] has changed from being a symbolic presence to a show of force, from image building to combat capability development,” the article added.

According to the China Customs, Hong Kong was the second-largest exports destination for the People’s Republic in 2018 – accounting for $302.1 billion or over 12 percent of total Chinese exports, behind the haughty Sino economic rival, the United States (478.4 billion U.S. dollars).

Most of the Chinese goods exported to Hong Kong are re-exported to other countries. In 2018, the value of goods exported through Hong Kong from and to China was valued at $467.6 billion – 89.1 percent of Hong Kong’s total re-exports trade value.

Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area (GBA) is another reason for the U.S. to play enigmatic role in Hong Kong protests. GBA is Xi’s mater plan to create an IT-driven economic powerhouse that experts say would rival San Francisco’s Silicon Valley and the bay areas of New York and Tokyo.

In October 2017, Chinese President Xi Jinping inaugurated the world’s longest cross-sea bridge that connects Hong Kong and Macao with Guangdong. The 55-km bridge took at least 15 years in making and was completed at the cost of $18.3 billion.

Hong Kong International Airport was the busiest and the largest air cargo center in 2018, handling more than 5 million metric tons of cargo for the year. According to Heritage’s 2019 of Economic Freedom, Hong Kong was the freest economy of the world in 2019 as well for 25 consecutive years.

Located ideally in relation to the Pacific Rim and China, Hong Kong houses a substantial number of foreigners including Americans. As of December 2017, more than 22,000 U.S. nationals were living the HKSAR with an estimated arrival of 1.2 million U.S. visitors.

Hong Kong is an important entrepôt for merchandise trade between China and the United States. In 2017, about 8% or $36 billion of China’s exports to the U.S. and around 6% or $9 billion of Mainland’s imports from the U.S., were routed through Hong Kong.

The critical importance of Hong Kong in the Chinese long term economic growth sustainment and increasing PLA’s influence provide U.S. adequate grounds to intervene and inflate the crisis in Hong Kong.