All that's left are tough choices

By: Azhar Azam

Semiconductor, the backbone of high technology used to produce integrated circuits (IC) or chips, for computers and smartphones is China’s biggest single import by value. China, for years, has been trying to steer away from its dependence on the US and other countries through innovation-driven development and a plethora of state-led policy measures.

Hence when the US hawks added the world’s second-largest smartphone maker Huawei to the US entity list and barred it acquiring essential chips from Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TMSC), the technology fired up Chinese hankering to mitigate reliance on foreign suppliers and step up pace toward technological independence .

Preempting formidable challenges to the tech industry, Chinese Communist Party in its fifth plenum placed innovation as a key driver for China’s long-term modernization program to make headway in core technologies, which likely included production of top-of-the-line semiconductors with a focus on science and technology to provide a strategic support for national development.

Years before, innovation had become an integral part of China’s national core strategy. The 14th Five Year Plan (FYP) reaffirmed the commitment to become a global leader in innovation and chalk up success in new industrialization, informatization, urbanization and agricultural transformation – via “dual circulation,” a term coined by President Xi Jinping last spring and pledged to fuel domestic cycle (production and consumption) by 2035.

After Goldman Sachs predicted China can produce 7 nanometer (nm) chips by 2023 and The New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman said Beijing attempts to build an entire microchip supply, ending its dependence on US technology through the latest FYP – Chinese largest chip foundry, SMIC, last month turned a new leaf in country’s chip-making history by getting closer to introduce much advanced N+1 7nm node.

On Friday, the US Department of Commerce sanctioned dozens of Chinese companies including SMIC. The move claimed to limit the company's ability to produce semiconductors at advanced technology levels (10nm or below). But with China nearing the milestone, the US action apparently mourned China’s step-forward for attaining technological self-reliance and SMIC rise despite American blockade.

In the long term, American sanctions could further strengthen Chinese chip-making champion since it reportedly completed the development of process nodes from 28nm to 7nm in a record time and might rush for volume production of leading-edge 7nm nodes ahead of the schedule.

Across those lines, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the aggressive move is that the US thinks China, if not stopped, might catch up America soon in technology and potentially end American global technological dominance.

Once Trump announced to consider imposing exports restrictions on SMIC in September, an industry group in the US with 2,400 worldwide members warned him blacklisting the company would jeopardize the US technological edge, make the delivery of US goods unreliable and hit the US market share across the world in addition to posing detrimental impacts to the US industry, economy and national security.

Noting the US high-tech products such as semiconductors and chip-making equipment had managed to withstand the pandemic and anti-China rhetoric amid US presidential election – senior fellow at Peterson Institute Chad Bown also cautioned the restrictions on major semiconductor manufacturers in Taiwan and South Korea, to use US tools for making anything for Huawei, would threaten the US allies’ national sovereignty and set a dangerous precedence of unilateralism.

In a highly entwined and globalized world, the semiconductor industry is a global affair as the components for a chip could travel more than 25,000 miles and cross borders over 70 times before it is installed into a device or delivered to a customer. The US is using its leverage to disrupt this trend of globalization and global supply chains, which to experts, won’t be practically feasible at least in a foreseeable future.

Trump’s White House is impetuously taxing itself in an effort to cut off technology exports to China. Although unlike Huawei, the new order didn’t add SMIC to the list that would completely prevent SMIC from buying US supplies and technology – the company remains concerned the US export restrictions could be an innate threat.

Just weeks before his departure and in order to hurt China to the maximum extent possible, the outgoing president is not only inflicting aches and twinges to the US exports but also infringing international trade rules by causing harm to free market and fair competition and national interest of the US allies as well as ripping off remnant of US international credibility.

While the President-elect Joe Biden additionally inherits a technology chaos from his predecessor, he is got to make a hard choice – carry on his predecessor’s anti-China legacy to stave off political hogwash in the country or shield semiconductor global supply chains from disruption to regain the trust of US manufacturers and allies on American leadership. Whatever path Biden chooses would define the course of China-US “chip war.”

*This is one of my opinion pieces (unedited) that first appeared in "New Straits Times":

https://www.nst.com.my/opinion/columnists/2020/12/652576/all-thats-left-are-tough-choices

China curbs poverty at home, redoubles efforts to cage monster abroad

By: Azhar Azam

The coronavirus pandemic continues to weigh on the health and life of millions of people across the world and is showing no signs of abating with the lockdown measures dramatically elevating global poverty and inequality in almost every country for the first time in decades, Oxfam said in its whistleblower report "Shelter from the Storm".

A deep analysis of social protection transfers in 126 low and middle income countries between April and September further found that there were highly asymmetrical investments between and mostly within countries, which may be the consequence of "an increase in global inequality and the erosion of social cohesion."

Whereas hundreds of millions are freed from jobs or seeing their income slashed, lack of public financial support for 2.7 billion people experiencing economic devastation threatens to push a large size of global population to poverty that the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) envisioned to end in all its forms everywhere by 2030.

In September 2015, the intergovernmental body set a target to implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all and achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable.

But with people falling into debt, skipping meals and keeping children out of school amid surging global poor headcount and hunger over worldwide inequality between rich and poor nations, the other key targets such as zero hunger and quality education could suffer a strong setback too.

With eight out of ten countries that failed to reach even half of their population to provide state assistance, the grim findings by the non-profit group and consulting firm Development Pathways urge major economies to shelve pursuit for protecting global domination and pool their efforts in reducing universal disparity through strengthened international cooperation.

Showing solidarity with the fraught nations wasn't perhaps so crucial before, because the crisis is overwhelming the women workers in large, especially the ones who are associated with the worst-affected sectors such as garments, services and domestic service and have had their paychecks dropped by 60 percent in the first month of the outbreak.

The international leaders need to work together for building a more equal and sustainable world since the disruption of the COVID-19, compounded with the challenges of conflict and climate, is poised to wedge as many as 150 million people in a vicious circle of extreme poverty by 2021.

Over the years, factors like systemic racism, legacy of colonialism and trade and technological protectionism have created inequalities on the international level and affronted damage to global unity. This trend needs to be challenged through a changed mindset, promotion of cooperation and safeguarding multilateral trading system to bolster the global fight against destitution, particularly in Africa where the phenomenon of "feminization of poverty" is unfolding over intensifying gender inequality.

When it comes to poverty eradication, China is a textbook example. Over the last 40 years or so, it has lifted more than 700 million out of absolute poverty. While the total accounted for about 70 percent of the global poverty alleviation, Chinese success inspires other developing nations to seek Beijing's help in framing a national poverty reduction strategy.

China unveiled its Targeted Poverty Alleviation strategy in 2014. The nationwide campaign used local registration data of over 128,000 villages to identify and provide support to battered areas and played a vital role in pulling 68 million rural residents out of poverty between 2014 and 2019 through five-pronged policy measures including industrial development, social security, education, eco-compensation, and relocation.

A prominent U.S. economist and author Jeffrey Sachs described the eradication of absolute poverty by China as "a great historic accomplishment." Complementing Chinese efforts that even the pandemic couldn't derail, director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University and a senior United Nations adviser said Beijing stopped the virus without stalling its tirade against poverty.

Internationally, China is a staunch defender of upholding the global institutions, promoting multilateralism, ending social inequality, boosting international development and extending financial aid and sharing expertise to the virus-hit countries so that the developing economies may not lag behind due to the devastating economic impacts.

For economic and social development in affected countries, Beijing pledged to provide $2 billion over the next two years other than working from the G20 forum to implement the Debt Service Suspension Initiative for poorest economies. The concept dubbed as "human beings living under the same sky" by a French writer and sinologist Sonia Bressler would allow embattled countries to allocate more funds for the social sector and ease poverty levels.

Experts say China's whirlwind rise – becoming the worlds' second-largest FDI recipient after the U.S. and enabling it to generate employment and improve technological skills of the native workforce besides opportunities for small businesses to supply large factories – can be a source of inspiration for African leaders to catalyze growth and could potentially help to rid the continent of extreme poverty once and for all.

Quite a few developing nations seek to fast-forward the industrialization process for quick employment generation but fall short of realizing their objectives over economic constraints. Under the drawback, they can learn from China that is actively pursuing to modernize its economy through innovation.

Unlike U.S. President Donald Trump who is focused to provide Americans the priority access to the COVID-19 vaccine, Chinese President Xi Jinping months before vowed and remains committed to make China-made immunization available nationally and internationally ensuring accessibility and affordability in the developing nations.

After a painstaking exercise of eight years, China has now lifted all the rural poor out of absolute poverty and delisted all impoverished counties from its poverty list. While the success will indeed narrow the gap of social inequality within the country and increase domestic consumption and imports for the global good – Chinese moves to earmark funds for economic and social development, write off loans and ship low-cost vaccines, once available, to the developing countries would allow them to resume their poverty mitigation initiatives.

*This is one of my opinion pieces that first appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)":

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-12-19/China-curbs-poverty-at-home-redoubles-efforts-to-cage-monster-abroad-Wli5GzRqta/index.html

Use of force against millions of protesting farmers will destroy Indian secularism

By Azhar Azam

Millions of farmers across India are protesting against the Modi government’s new laws that are likely to leave them exposed to Big Farmer corporations. Hundreds of thousands of farmers, predominantly from majority Sikh Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh, have set up camp outside the capital New Delhi and along the highways in Punjab and Haryana.

Farmers are outraged by the Modi government’s farm laws, invoked in September, to change the country’s agriculture sector. Farmers know the sector is in need of reform — thousands of debt-ridden farmers have from suicide — but say the new legislation will ravage their livelihoods, end decades of protection from an unfettered free market and lead into takeover and exploitation by corporate giants such as Adani and Reliance.

About 85% of farmers have less than two hectares of land and about 60% of its population of 1.38-billion depends on farm incomes. Rajshri Jayaraman, an associate economics professor at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy said: “In the absence of a general social security net for people who are already on the edge of the brink of poverty, to then take away part of the social safety net is a really bad idea for people who are already precariously placed.”

Since the protests started the state has proposed amendments to the Acts, but farmers have rejected these, saying they will dig in until the laws are repealed.

In late November, the marchers encountered a heavy-handed police response in Delhi and then again on December 8 amid the nationwide strike — Bharat Bandh (India shutdown) — huge numbers of security forces were deployed across the country.

While the nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders are trying to absurdly represent farmers as “anti-India separatists” or linking protests with the Sikh separatist Khalistan movement, the potential use of force to crush the “mass mobilization” against the government would be met with intense backlash from the global community.

Although support for the farm movement from the public and opposition political parties that dubbed the Bills as “death warrant” to the farmers and more than 450 farmer unions and organisations makes the crackdown on the demonstrators unlikely — but the BJP’s historic bitter feeling toward the minorities doesn’t rule such a cataclysmic move. In the mid-1980s, a rights campaign by the fraught Punjabi Sikhs seeking equality and some economic and religious concessions encountered a brute response from the Indian military, which killed thousands of Sikhs in the Operation Blue Star and anti-Sikh riots after the assassination of prime minister Indra Ghandhi.

Since the farmers are not retreating from their demands and continue to pump up pressure on the government to withdraw the Acts, believing that the regulatory measures were hurting them to benefit only big business tycoons, the crisis can still develop into a bitter clash between protesters and Indian forces.

After a state minister alleged a conspiracy by China and Pakistan to “destabilize” India, a BJP leader and Union minister claimed the farmer movement was kindled by the two Indian adversaries, accusing the same countries for inciting Muslims previously over the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and National Register of Citizens.

The comments echoed divisive Twitter threads of another BJP leader who equated Indian state election with India-Pakistan contest, stating “Pakistan has already entered Shaheen Bagh and small pockets of Pakistan are being created in Delhi” to stir Hindu sentiments against Muslims, peacefully protesting against the religiously prejudiced laws. Insinuation of the demonstrations with nations — with whom India’s bilateral relations have hit the nadir over border dispute and Kashmir issue — to achieve political objectives and rationalize a possible vigorous action, could be dangerous bet that would expose almost 244-million Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain and other Indian minorities to the extremist Hindu outfits.

Agriculture is the primary source of livelihood for almost 58% of the Indian population and the agitators are not representing any specific state or religion despite a lunatic fringe in the BJP administration striving to imply they are. As the movement is gaining a worldwide traction, any hostile move against the protesters won’t be condoned domestically and trans-nationally.

Given the protests are peaceful and growing louder hundreds of thousands of farmers trooping in from across north India, the saffron brigade’s — Hindutva, right-wing Hindu nationalists that are anti-Muslims — claims about foreign assistance are loaded with red herrings and an explicit effort to shift global focus from preventing the protesters to freely practice their basic right of peaceful demonstration.

In a series of damning articles and comments, the global lawmakers, experts and journalists have slated Indian government over its “state-sanctioned” violence against the peaceful protesters through a militarized police force, called protests a reminder to “a polarized and argumentative India” and urged the BJP Sarkar to end the “violent repression” of the farmers.

Truckloads of food have been sent to the protesters that have “laid siege” to Delhi by supporters in India, Canada and the United Kingdom. Their trailers have been transformed into bedrooms, kitchens, medical facilities and laundries have been set up and there’s even a library at one site.

The international embrace of the agitation shows that it is purely a rights movement that is exerting a pull on more than 263-million cultivators and agricultural laborers nationwide, and the BJP government cannot shirk its responsibility to hearing out the legitimate gripes of the deprived minority.

The Modi administration should stop laying trumped-up charges on the farmers. And any idea of quelling the peaceful movement by force would be a deathblow to the secular nature of Indian democracy.

*This is one of my opinion pieces (unedited) that first appeared at "The Mail & Guardian":

https://mg.co.za/opinion/2020-12-17-use-of-force-against-millions-of-protesting-farmers-will-destroy-indian-secularism/

Repression of predominant-Sikh farm movement could stoke fears among Indian minorities

By: Azhar Azam

A nationwide farmer movement has punctuated one of the largest food producing countries in the world with millions of Indian farmers from more than 450 unions and organizations are in a grinding standoff with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led Narendra Modi government, soliciting to repeal the newly invoked farm laws.

On September 20, the Indian parliament passed two scratchy farm Bills to reform the agriculture market in the country. A couple of days later, it enacted amendments in another Act to remove cereals, pulses, oilseeds, edible oils, onion and potatoes from the list of essential commodities to boost private and foreign investment in the agronomy sector.

But legislations, opposed by opposition parties and dubbed as a “death warrant” to the farmers, outraged the vast agrarian community – fearing the relaxed rules around sale, pricing and storage of the farm produce would unprotect them from an unfettered free market. The revision also incurred wrath of the farmers over concerns about large players hoarding the essential items and stoking spike in commodity prices.

The protests threatened to take a violent turn after the agitating farmers, mostly from Indian “grain bowl” states of Haryana and Punjab as well as Uttar Pradesh, swarmed on the outskirts of Indian capital. In Delhi, the marchers encountered a heavy-handed police response in late November and then again amid Tuesday’s nationwide strike – Bharat Bandh (India shutdown) – the deployment of huge security forces posed risks of clampdown on the protesters.

Labeling farmers as "anti-India separatists” or linking protests with the Sikh separatist Khalistan movement insinuated that BJP leaders wanted use of force to take down “the first ever secular mass mobilization,” against the Modi government. But a nascent strategy to curb the campaign in Punjab, where 75% of total 21 million Sikh communities in India reside and hold a majority – faded away after the phenomenon went viral in the country.

Agriculture is the primary source of livelihood for almost 58% of the Indian population and the agitators are not representing any specific state or religion as some in the right-wing Hindu nationalist BJP administration are trying to imply. As more and more farmers are joining the protest every day, the demonstrations are being embraced nationally and internationally.

Unlike the late 1980s Khalistan armed struggle – stemmed from state repression of Sikhs, seeking political autonomy and some economic and religious concessions and leaving thousands of them dead – the ongoing protest is only a demand to protect the farmers’ rights without any political or religious ambitions. This is the reason why the Bharat Bandh was endorsed by at least 20 regional and national political parties.

Since the farmers are not backing down on their demands and continue to build up pressure on the government to withdraw the Acts, believing that the regulatory measures were hurting them to benefit only corporations, the baking crisis still can develop into a bitter clash between protesters and Indian forces.

After a state minister alleged China and Pakistan want to "destabilize” India, a BJP leader and Union minister on Wednesday claimed the farmer movement wasn’t indigenous and Beijing and Islamabad “have a hand” behind protests in India. He also accused that previously, the Muslims were incited over the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and National Register of Citizens.

His remarks echoed controversial twitter threads of another BJP leader who equated state election with India-Pakistan contest and asserted “Pakistan has already entered Shaheen Bagh and small pockets of Pakistan are being created in Delhi” to stir Hindu sentiments against Muslims, peacefully protesting against the religiously discriminated laws.

Making a blind connection between the farmer sit-ins and neighboring countries – with whom India’s relations are at all-time lows over border dispute and Kashmir issue – for gaining political objectives and justifying a potential cleanup, could be a dangerous gamble and might expose almost 244 million Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain and other Indian minorities to the hardcore Hindu elements.

Given the protests are peaceful and getting strengthened with flocks of farmers trooping in from across north India, the saffron brigade’s claims about foreign backing of the movement are replete with red herrings and an effort to ease the mounting international pressure on Delhi to allow the protesters freely practice their basic right of peaceful demonstration.

Several global media outlets, journalists, leaders and lawmakers have slated the Indian government over its “state-sanctioned” violence against the peaceful protesters through a militarized police force, seen protests a reminder to “a polarized and argumentative India” and urged the BJP Sarkar to end the “violent repression” of the farmers.

There can be no excuse for the BJP politicians to distract the world from its handling of the protests and explore any crackdown options. It is purely a rights movement of the Indian farmers that is exerting a pull on more than 263 million nationwide cultivators and agricultural laborers, accounting for about 55% of the total workforce in India.

With the protests now globalized, it is crucial for India to exercise restraint and politely rectify the gripes of the protesters. Any recourse to force must be shunned by the Modi administration through laying trumped-up charges on the farmers as “anti-national” or “anarchists,” which would stoke fears of persecution among minorities in the country.

*This is one of my opinion pieces (unedited) that first appeared at "The German Eye" https://thegermanyeye.com/repression-of-predominant-sikh-farm-movement-could-stoke-fears-among-indian-minorities-3889 and "The Munich Eye" https://themunicheye.com/repression-of-predominant-sikh-farm-movement-could-stoke-fears-among-indian-minorities-3889

Renaissance of 'land for peace' principle could bring peace in the Middle East

By: Azhar Azam

Just a month after Palestine National Council (PNC) – the legislative body of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in exile – recognized Israel to push it for a two-state solution in 1988, the chairman of the two bodies Yasser Arafat drafted a two-page declaration with a group of American Jews to formally accept Israel.

The PLO changed its stance and gave up its prior demand for control over the entire territory and agreed to settle for only 22 percent of the land within the 1967 lines. Palestinians – who had seen their sovereignty shrunk through the Peel Commission (1936-37), the United Nations Partition Plan (1947) and the Arab-Israel War (1948-49) – refused to endorse the move and called it a "historic compromise."

Nevertheless the epoch-making decision, through the second year of Intifada, drew Israel into peace talks with Palestinians in Norway. But PLO support for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War annoyed its Arab allies and allowed Israel to capitalize on Arafat's weak position in 1993 secret negotiations.

While the PLO struggle to end Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip was set aside by Israel in Oslo – the assassination of the Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 by a right-wing Jewish activist delivered a coup de grace to his "land for peace" formula – vowing to withdraw Israeli forces from the occupied Palestinian territory to ensure peace in the region.

Other peace agreements – such as Camp David Summit 2000, Arab Peace Initiative 2002-03, Annapolis Conference 2007 and Kerry peace efforts 2013-14, UNSC resolution 2334 in December 2016 – unanimously expressing Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory as a "flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of two-state solution" and a joint reaffirmation of more than 70 countries and international organizations for a long-lasting and negotiated two-state solution at Paris peace conference in January 2017 couldn't resolve the thorny Israeli-Palestine conflict either.

Firing back at the UN resolution, Israel recalled its ambassadors from New Zealand and Senegal, two of the nations proposed the resolution along with Malaysia and Venezuela, which did not maintain diplomatic ties with Israel. It summoned the U.S. envoy and chided the Obama administration for abstaining and failing to protect Israeli interests in the UN.

Benjamin Netanyahu, during his election bid in 2019, went an extra mile and asserted to annex the Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank and extend Israeli sovereignty "over the Jordanian Valley and northern Dead Sea." His threat to undermine peace was backed by the Trump administration, which abandoned the U.S. position that the Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank were "inconsistent with international law."

Since the Israeli leaders have already been calling for annexation of the entire West Bank, ignoring the rights of 2.5 million Palestinians living there in addition to nearly two million facing siege in Gaza Strip, the U.S. retreat from its longstanding official stand could hammer another nail in the coffin of the two-state solution and sustainable regional peace.

In January 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump unveiled his Vision for peace, prosperity and a brighter future for Israel and Palestinian people through political and economic frameworks. It pledged to secure the possibility of a two-state solution and realize the aspirations of Palestine independence, self-governance and national dignity.

This time, the Palestinian political groups and people rejected the peace plan in chorus as the so-called "deal of the century" authorized Israel to annex around 30 percent of the Palestinian territory in the West Bank, quashed Palestine's entire claim on Jerusalem, made it an "undivided capital" of Israel and prohibited Palestinian refugees from returning to their homes in Israel.

Heaping reproach on the Vision, the UN Special Rapporteur Michael Lynk said the proposal ratified "the creation of a 21st century Bantustan in the Middle East" and "would turn the rules-based international order on its head," entrenching the "tragic subjugation" of the Palestinians and favoring realpolitik, power and conflict management over rights, justice and conflict resolution.

But the "lopsided" plan certainly has achieved one of its key objectives, to normalize relations between Israel and its neighbors. Two major Arab nations, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), have now established diplomatic ties and intense speculation are hanging around Saudi Arabia about following the footsteps of its allies.

Following an alleged meeting between Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, Trump's adviser, son-in-law and architect of the Middle East peace plan Jared Kushner travelled to Qatar and met Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani to moderate Doha-Riyadh rifts and accelerate the normalization process with Israel, keeping an eye to build a regional alliance against Iran.

Any shuttle diplomacy to defuse the warlike situation in the Middle East is a welcome sign for peace and stability in the conflict zone nonetheless it shouldn't give the look of developing an aggressive alliance against Iran. Washington needs to realize that Tehran is an important regional country and no peace initiative could succeed without its involvement.

One of the Saudi worries has been the Doha-backed Muslim Brotherhood, the transnational Sunni political Islamic movement, outlawed by Riyadh and Abu Dhabi over national security concerns. In June 2017, the Saudi-led quartet including Bahrain, Egypt and the UAE severed ties and froze all means of communications with Qatar, accusing it for housing terrorist and sectarian groups including the Brotherhood.

Qatar and Saudi Arabia are trying to mend their relations yet it isn't clear how Doha would pacify Riyadh on the Brotherhood, the nub of the issue between them. It is going to be a daunting task since the clerics from both the sides have had a fierce exchange to describe the other the "deviant group" or a "sycophant" body.

In addition, Doha maintains a close relationship with Tehran and the two sides recently signed a MOU to boost cooperation in the areas of energy, water, gas, communications and information technology. While Iran generally has stable relations with Turkey and the UAE also doesn't want any conflict with either of the two, a realistic progress on peace could only be achieved through engagement with Tehran or at least avoiding to forge any bloc against it that could exacerbate existing tensions and brew new conflicts.

In order to pull off a durable peace prospects in Middle East, the regional countries should stop seeking domination over each other or looking broadening their clout and keep focus on finding the two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict under the UN charter with a positive mindset, which would essentially calm frictions among them.

The "land for peace" exemplified more than a couple decades before the two-state solution had the potential to bring peace in the region and there is every reason to believe that its renaissance can cool off the growing hostility within the Gulf nations again, transforming the fate of the Middle East and Palestinians.

*This is one of my opinion pieces that first appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)":
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-12-08/Renaissance-of-land-for-peace-principle-could-bring-peace-in-Mideast-W3uaCtLTNK/index.html

Accused Australian war criminals must undergo fair trial

By: Azhar Azam

A strong pushback from veterans and political communities and intervention by Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Australian Defense Minister Linda Reynolds have pressed Chief of the Australian Defense Force (ADF) Angus Campbell to retreat from his initial promise to revoke Meritorious Unit Citation for the Special Operations Task Group (SOTG), drawn mainly from the Special Air Service Regiment (SASR), which served in Afghanistan from 2007 to 2013.

In November, Campbell released findings of the heavily redacted Brereton report that numbed nations around the globe. Under Army Reserve Maj. Gen. Justice Paul Brereton, it revealed the ADF members killed 39 Afghan civilians in 23 incidents, including men and boys who were shot in the head or blindfolded and had their throats slit by the Australian elite troops.

The report said there is "no credible information" that the commanders knew or suspected these things were happening around them and they didn't fail to take appropriate steps to prevent or discover them. But an ABC investigation noted some say the senior leadership of the Special Forces knew for years about many allegations of this illicit and shocking conduct being practiced by Australian soldiers in Afghanistan.

A four-year inquiry additionally identified that some members of the SOTG placed "throwdowns" (foreign weapons or equipment) with the bodies of the victims for the purpose of site exploitation photography to depict that the killed person had been carrying arms and was a legitimate target, thereby masking the crime and avoiding any scrutiny.

Labeled as "possibly the most disgraceful episode in Australia's military history" in the report, the incidents seek Australian political and military leadership to admit their guilt, indemnify the human losses and take decisive action to bring the offenders involved in the mass execution of innocent Afghans to justice.

Campbell offered his apology to the Afghan people. He admitted the ADF is rightly held to account for allegations of grave misconduct as there was "credible information" over "unlawful killings," accepting all the findings and pledging to develop a comprehensive plan to action all the 143 recommendations.

But the backing down of Campbell from one of the key recommendations, which is largely a symbolic one, shows there is a joint fort being wielded by the Morrison government and ADF to stash the whistleblower report. If it is so, the appalling attitude would not be condoned by the aggrieved Afghan families and international world.

On December 1, the Guardian published a horrific picture, exposing senior Australian soldiers drinking beer out of the prosthetic leg of a dead Taliban fighter at an unauthorized bar, Fat Lady's Arm, in Afghanistan. Another appeared to describe two soldiers performing a dance with the limb, as if it were a war trophy.

A "warrior culture," which was being stoked by high-ranking Australian officers in Afghanistan, must not be swept under the carpet over national security or any other concerns. It recalled the ancient battles when the aggressive forces used to exterminate civilians without discrimination and build skull towers to rejoice their victory.

Scholars, writers and people across the world are furious at Canberra's shameful and hollow assurances. Andrew Mitrovica – a journalism instructor, writer and media commentator – writing for Al Jazeera, doubted that anyone would be held to account for the massacre of 39 Afghans and blamed Canberra for "state-sponsored terrorism."

"The bitter list of Afghans that Australia's terrorists in battle fatigues murdered reportedly includes boys who had their throats slit, a frightened child who was hiding under a blanket, farmers tending to stock, shackled prisoners and brothers and cousins running away to try to survive, only to be slowly ripped to death by Australian military dogs," he said. He argued the Australian soldiers murdered people not to achieve a "strategic objective," but for a "diseased, intoxicating sense of pleasure."

The row between Morrison and Campbell is a public façade to bury the killings of the Afghan civilians. The so-called Western human rights activists, governments and media houses, which normally go lunatic even over peacemaking initiatives, have also relatively tightened their lips and turned a blind eye on the Australian brutality.

Common Afghans have greatly suffered from unremitting foreign interventions and pushy internal conflicts, fouling up their economy and life. There must be no impunity for the acts that constitute of slaughtering civilians in delusions of grandeur. Any laxity in penalizing the war criminals would be prejudiced to Afghans and peace efforts in Afghanistan.

Instead of taking firm action against the wrongdoers, Canberra is unnecessarily asking Beijing to apologize for the tweet of Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian that rightly condemned the killings and demanded holding the Australian soldiers answerable to the court of law.

Like Ngunnawal people – access to justice, peace, security and prosperity is also the right of the Afghan people. Morrison and the Australian military cannot deprive them from one of their basic entitlements, the accountability of their murderers. Calling Zhao Lijian's thread "repugnant," is only an attempt to deflect global attention from Australian gang activities in Afghanistan.

The incidents of Afghan killings are potentially a blip on the radar and there could be scores of unreported or washed-away incidents of civilian murders. The international community must closely observe the proceedings in Australia to make sure that the accused war criminals undergo a fair trial and Afghanistan gets justice for its people.

*This is one of my opinion pieces that first appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)":
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-12-02/Accused-Australian-war-criminals-must-undergo-fair-trial-VT8cykuaxa/index.html

Economic downturn: Helping to heal rifts in the Middle East?

By: Azhar Azam

The US General Administration Agency (GSA) has acknowledged Joseph Biden is “apparent” winner of the 2020 presidential election. As Donald Trump backs down and the formal transition process begins, president-elect’s access to top security briefings would send shockwaves through the Middle East.

Before the US presidential elections, key members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), established diplomatic ties with Israel. But the gamble, which was quietly endorsed by Saudi Arabia, failed to act as mainspring of Trump’s election campaign and rather dismayed Palestinians as well as compromised Arabs’ moral standing in Muslim world.

Expecting a strong reaction from Biden – who pledged to reassess US ties with Saudi Arabia, demand more accountability over assassination of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi and withdraw support for Yemen war – the defacto Saudi ruler and crown prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) is quickly tuning up the Kingdom’s foreign policy to make it more aligned with the unfolding realities.

After Saudi King Salman bin Abdual Aziz talked to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and agreed to keep all the channels open to strengthen bilateral relations – Kingdom’s foreign minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud reiterated Saudi Arabia is trying to find a way that could facilitate the end of three-year blockade on Qatar, if its security concerns are addressed.

Killing of the Post’s columnist in October 2018 inside the Saudi consulate over the alleged orders of MBS in Istanbul busted Ankara’s relationship with Riyadh. In June 2017, the Saudi-led quartet including Bahrain, Egypt and the UAE severed diplomatic ties and halted air, land and sea traffic with Qatar, accusing it for harboring terrorist organizations.

While Donald Trump was due to arrive in Saudi Arabia to seal $110 billion defense deals and forge a Gulf alliance against Iran – the controversy spawned in the backdrop of the Qatari Emir’s alleged criticism of the US president, calling Iran a “big power” and describing Qatar’s relations with Israel “good” set the stage to ground for Qatari cordon sanitaire.

Trump says a close affinity with him helped MBS to ditch all efforts to make him accountable for the congressional probe over Khashoggi murder. As Biden prepares to swear in, the imminent extinction of immunity is pressing him to build on a flexible regional strategy. The hasty Saudi measures to engage Qatar, settle the spun out disputes with Turkey and soft stance on Israel suggest a changed placatory approach.

Since the quantum leap to establish ties with Israel cannot be believed to be an entirely sovereign decision by the Arab states historically subservient to Saudi Arabia, the bold step has some strategic undertones. The GCC wants to embrace Israel, which invariably maintains an influence in the US domestic politics, to play an intermediary role between them and the coming Biden administration.

Contrary to the wishes of GCC, the Democrat president wants to reinstate the 2015 Iran nuclear deal if Tehran drops its breach of agreement including excess stockpiling of enriching uranium. Arab nations, through an alliance with Israel, would seek to mount pressure on Biden to prevent restoration of the covenant and try tight screws on Tehran.

Iran’s military engagement across regional countries such as Iraq, Syria and Yemen and an everlasting influence in Lebanon, is the prime mover behind GCC drive against Tehran. They credit Iranian aggressive behavior for posing a threat to their hereditary rule and are approaching the Zionist state to curb this ubiquitous challenge.

The Kingdom denied Israeli media reports MBS met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Mossad chief Yossi Cohen in the presence of Mike Pompeo. But the US Secretary’s arrival – after last month raising the US-brokered agreement, Abraham Accords about normalizing the diplomatic ties with Israel, to Saudi foreign minister – described Saudia still look toward America to counter Iran.

A high frequency of internal revolutions and ideological conflicts continues to push the Middle East in brinkmanship. It is very important for rival countries to break this infinite loop of dominating each other through proxy wars and decode a reconciliation process in the middle of virus-hit global economic crisis.

The International Monetary Fund has warned the region is facing unprecedented nature of the current challenges. It forecasts the compound issues together with elevated fiscal and external vulnerabilities before the coronavirus could slash GDP outlook of the countries in the region by 12% in the next five years and it might take them more than a decade to return to the pre-crisis trend.

It’s a watershed moment for the Persian Gulf. The nations in the region are heavily oil-reliant and the aftershocks of Covid-19 have severely impacted their GDP. By opening new fronts or intensifying existing conflicts, they would only slow down their economic recovery and delay the transition from “rentier states.”

About 70% of the Kingdom’s Vision 2030 goals are tied with data and artificial intelligence (AI) agenda. During the Global AI Summit in Riyadh last month, Saudi Arabia signed agreements with Huawei and Alibaba Cloud to train Saudi AI engineers and erect world-class smart cities.

The partnership with Chinese tech giants would help Riyadh to rank itself among top-15 countries in AI within next 10 years and intelligently manage responsive city services through collaboration in the area of safety and security, mobility, urban planning, energy, education and health.

Like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE have also been taking voluminous measures to diversify their economies and head for a technology-driven economy. Through a new regional political and economic contract and scaling back intervention in each other’s territory, the Gulf countries can still work together and prevent inflicting further wounds to the decrepit economies.

Although any sort of convention or treaty won’t ease off the decades-old rifts among regional neighbors in the blink of an eye, however, it could be a step forward to achieve respect for sovereignty of all the states and will potentially lower the harrowing economic burden engulfing governments and millions of people.

*This is one of my opinion pieces (unedited) that first appeared in "News24":
https://www.news24.com/news24/Columnists/GuestColumn/opinion-economic-downturn-helping-to-heal-rifts-in-the-middle-east-20201202

Domestic issues require Biden to stay focused

By: Azhar Azam

Since the September 11 terrorist attacks, foreign affairs and national security have loomed large in the U.S. presidential elections. The year 2020 marked the first year over the past two decades when the domestic concerns in the country ousted foreign policy and took the driver's seat in the campaign to run the world's biggest economy.

In a speech on November 7 at his hometown Wilmington-Delaware, the U.S. President-elect Joe Biden denominated his victory as Americans' mandate for putting the accent on the same internal challenges such as the coronavirus, economy, climate change, and systemic racism and promised to unite the blue and red states.

Biden's overriding priority upon assuming the office will indeed be to contain the rampant infection rate and revive collapsing Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which although leaped 7.4 percent from the spring lockdown, was still 4 percent below its previous peak and continues to stave off the jobs of millions of American workers.

Realizing no economic strategy could work unless the disease is defeated, the near-term president intends to use all constitutional powers, including the wartime legislation, Defense Production Act (DPA), to turn the ride on the pandemic. Unlike Donald Trump, he is prepared to listen to public experts and seeks to increase testing capacity, improve the ability to trace contacts, and surge equipment and supplies manufacturing before reopening the economy.

The COVID-19 doesn't distinguish between American and non-American. It has adversely affected the health and life of almost all rich and poor countries indiscriminately and stroked devastating shocks to both mature and immature economies across the world, urging all the global governments to act wisely and shield their people.

Along these lines, it might just be the right move to bring the economy back on track, buoyed up by the vaccine development and continued fiscal stimulus. But as the change of leadership can't beget a meaningful change in 2021 growth and it remains to be seen how bipartisan consensus is evolved in 2022 and 2023, the Biden administration would be ensnared in fixing the domestic issues for the next few years.

Climate change is the other major issue Biden says poses an existential threat to the U.S. environment, health, communities, national security, and economic well-being. His biodiversity approach vies with that of Trump, who downplays the scientific recommendations to strengthen the air pollution standards for soot (or PM2.5).

Former vice president's avowal to rejoin the Paris Agreement, assurance to achieve 100 percent clean energy economy and net-zero emissions by 2050 where stirred voters and took a significant step toward protecting the U.S. Wests from wildfires, his transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy could create millions of new jobs, only if he sticks to his promise.

In 2017, China invested three times more than the U.S. in clean energy. Biden wants to reclaim this principal advantage, which gave Beijing an edge on the technologies of tomorrow, generating pay-well jobs. If followed fairly, the environment-friendly and human-centered race between the two largest greenhouse gas emitters and leading economies would accelerate the pace toward a greener world and sustainable prosperity.

As the U.S. is lagging behind China and Europe in rail safety and speed, Biden's plan to provide Americans the cleanest, safest and fastest rail system could redraw the government's attention on the development of a nationwide infrastructure that is dangerously overstretched and require 2 trillion U.S. dollars by 2025 to fill the funding gap.

Yet Biden needs to redress his misconception that China, through its massive Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), is financing billions of dollars of dirty fossil fuel projects across Asia and beyond. With Beijing made a commitment to attain zero-carbon neutrality before 2060 and start cutting its emissions within the next 10 years, the American Enterprise Institute's data shows the non-fossil fuel investments in the first six months of 2020 had already dominated the overall BRI energy investments.

China is strongly committed to fighting global warming. Chinese investments and construction of more than 80 hydropower projects across the six continents, while implementing green development guidelines and setting high environmental protection standards, underscore that it is arraying all possible means including enforcing regulatory framework and taking voluntary initiatives to preserve the biodiversity in the BRI host countries.

Imran Khan – the Prime Minister of Pakistan, an important BRI partner and a leading recipient of the energy investments from China – in June warmly welcomed the construction of 1,124MW Kohala hydropower project of 2.4 billion U.S. dollars by a Chinese company. The staunch advocate of climate change said that "the country's biggest-ever foreign investment" would help Islamabad to focus on green and clean power generation and reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

Biden's bold statements during the campaign to move the U.S. away from oil and gas though enraged the strong fracking industry – believing the U.S. actually required hydrocarbon production for decades – but lent him a sweeping majority in the election. The crushing win must not be washed away as he is reportedly mulling over to pick controversial hires for the key posts, prompting protests from the public and climate activists.

The U.S. is facing unprecedented domestic challenges hardly seen before. As the virus pegs health and life, slower economic recovery is threatening millions of workforce, the hot temperature has torched more than 4.1 million acres in California, and racism continues to strengthen its roots – the deafening crisis entreat Biden to keep an emphasis on these core internal issues and fulfill his promise to make America respected again in the world and keep Americans united at home. 

 *This is one of my opinion pieces that first appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)":
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-11-22/Domestic-issues-require-Biden-to-stay-focused-VD5zfe6vrG/index.html

Indo-Pacific ties will test Biden

By: Azhar Azam

Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga and South Korean President Moon Jae-in on Thursday phoned the US President-elect Joe Biden and discussed issues including strengthening bilateral ties, tackling the coronavirus pandemic, climate change and regional security.

Extending his commitment to Seoul’s call for bolstering relationship, denuclearization and peace in the Korean peninsula, Biden affirmed that Seoul was a “lynchpin of the security and prosperity of the Indo-Pacific region” and he would closely cooperate to resolve the North Korea nuclear issue.

Both Tokyo and Seoul, of late, have been trying to balance ties between Beijing and Washington. Although they rank their relations with the US very high, the two countries seek to harness the advantages from quick Chinese recovery, which initially got its economic growth stalled due to the Covid-19 outbreak but rebounded strongly.

Last week, the Japanese foreign ministry told Newsweek that China is the world's second largest economy with which Japan’s “relationship is one of the most important bilateral relationships for Japan" and vowed to thin out the bilateral issues in high-level meetings and visits.

Ever since Yoshihide Suga became the new prime minister of Japan in September, it was expected that he would keep his focus on economic reforms in the country and likely modulate posing Australia-India-Japan-US strategic grouping, the Quad, as a cohesive multinational military front against China.

While in a his speech to the Japanese parliament Suga abjured to describe “free and open Indo-Pacific” a strategy or vision to preclude giving it a China-containment look, his relatively a moderate pitch in Vietnam about creating “an Indo-Pacific NATO” against Beijing is being seen a balanced regional approach by the experts.

Notwithstanding Japan warned it isn’t going to pull out from decades-old territorial claims over the Pinnacle Islands in the East China Sea, still the response “Japan continues to deal with the situation in a calm and resolute manner” somewhat poured cold water on the American ambitious China-targeted plans in the backdrop of virus-hit Japanese economy.

As Beijing and Tokyo look to resume business travel between the two intertwined economies by mid-November and Japan’s export steadies including rising shipments to China for the third consecutive month in September – the improving economic indicators could beseech Suga to put off differences at some other time and keep his emphasis on accelerating trade with China to fast-track the country’s economic recovery.

The Republic of Korea (ROK) also struck a gallant tone, stating that the resumption of the historical bilateral exchanges in 1992 (with China) would pave the way “for forging friendly and cooperative relations for the future.”

Insinuating the outcome of the bilateral consultations between Beijing and Seoul and President Moon Jae-in visit to China in December 2017 leading into the normalization of the bilateral ties – the ROK foreign ministry said "Relations between the ROK and China continue to develop in a stable way with active high-level exchanges."

It sent a powerful message to the US that the ROK seeks to refresh its relationship with China. The statement carried more weight as Seoul continues to iron out differences with Beijing on the deployment of THAAD or any other US-led missile defense systems to ease off Chinese suspicions.

ROK conciliatory moves to China have strategic overtones for the US. As Seoul has been threatened by Washington over withdrawal of the US troops from the Korean peninsula vis-à-vis differences on the cost sharing agreement – the progressive change would weaken Washington’s campaign to check Beijing’s growing influence.

Seoul’s proclivity to Beijing has been on the rise for some time. ROK ambassador to the US Lee Soo-hyuck recently said "Just because Korea chose the US 70 years ago does not mean it has to choose the US for the next 70 years, too," noting that Seoul was recognizing the importance of its economic relationship with Beijing.

Again, it is the economic interests that turns out to be the main perpetrator in ransacking the primeval ROK-US alliance and Trump’s imposing instinct has incremented its pace. This paradigm shift, if invaded into the other American partners, could blow the final whistle on the global leadership bout, with end-result favoring China, beforehand.

In the past few months, the Trump administration has stroked a colossal damage to the US international credibility through its pointless policies. The president’s brazen and often-derogatory attitude has consistently pressed the historic American allies to rethink their ties with the US much earlier they would have thought.

With Tokyo maintaining the best relationship with China, ROK Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha refusing to shoulder the “structured alliance” and ASEAN alongside Australia, China, New Zealand, Japan and ROK gearing up to sign the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) – another daunting task would shortly test ability of the coming Biden administration, restore America’s trust across the Indo-Pacific.

*This is one of my opinion pieces (unedited) that first appeared in "New Straits Times":
https://www.nst.com.my/opinion/columnists/2020/11/642363/indo-pacific-ties-will-test-biden

Africa needs a balanced mix of military and economic support to thwart challenges

By: Azhar Azam

Africa has witnessed a geometric growth in population over the past five decades, increasing its headcount from 227 million in 1960 to more than one billion in 2018, half of whom will be below the age of 25 years by 2050. The continent's share in global population is projected to get off from 14 percent in 2018 to 23 percent in 2050.

Notwithstanding reporting relatively low cases of coronavirus, the world's largest free trade area and home to six of the world's fastest growing economies is set to register its first recession in a quarter-century. The expected decline of 3.3 percent in Africa's economic activity will likely cost at least $115 billion in output losses and push up to 40 million people into extreme poverty.

This fall will continue to take a huge toll on African economies and lives given the region accounts for only 3 percent of the global GDP. By better managing the population growth and enhancing integration into the global economy, Africa can still expand its middle class and raise total spending capacity to unwind the thorny predicament.

However, intensifying armed conflicts and insurgent attacks from terrorist outfits such as Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda, affiliates of Islamic State and separatist Tuaregs and organized crime pose serious threats to peace and stability. The devastating surge in radical spells could hold back Africa to truly tap its full economic potential.

Between January to August, Africa experienced 1,168 terrorist attacks at an accelerating pace of 18 percent compared to the same period of 2019. Whereas the extremists have grown their ability to launch and sustain military offensives, there is a need to disrupt their financial supply chain that helps them to extort money through illicit international networks, piracy activities, human trafficking and arms trade, etc.

The key goal to curb the resurfacing violent extremism can be achieved by strengthening the counter-terrorism initiatives like the African Union (AU) Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) and the Multinational Joint Task Force (MNJTF) against Boko Haram.

It is nevertheless crucial that any security assistance and military deployment in Africa should be implemented under an AU and a UN peacekeeping mission framework. As peace in the region is becoming a global challenge, it can only be ensured through international backing to prop up Africa's capability to fight the bloody strife.

More efficient governance, restoration of development aid and fixing climate change, which resulted in reduced arable land, increased local conflicts, can additionally ease off the continent's impasse and allow it to keep its focus on combating terrorism.

The other important thing is that Africa must not be used as a theater for regional influence to secure national security interests. Unilateral foreign interventions and mounting air strikes in the Sahel and Horn of Africa have killed a number of innocent civilians, triggering a backlash from the local population apart from pushing them to the terrorist groups for income and protection.

Aggravation of the peace situation in Africa is further exacerbated by collapsing economic numbers emanated from the COVID-19 pandemic. Since desertification, unemployment, lack of basic facilities and underdevelopment would make the conditions more vulnerable, the region can find itself in dire straits without resolving these grassroots problems.

Twenty years ago, China figured out Africa's riddle and established the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) to bring peace in the region through development and cooperation. The bilateral relation was further invigorated via infrastructure building, investment and lending under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

In 2019, the trade between China and Africa increased 20-fold to $208.7 billion with Chinese foreign direct investment (FDI) posting a 100-fold surge at $49.1 billion since entering into the FOCAC. During this period, Beijing built 6,000 km each of roads and rail networks, nearly 20 ports and more than 80 major power plants, and dozens of medical and sport facilities as well as schools in almost all African countries.

Other than these efforts, Beijing is encouraging Chinese tech and investment companies and business individuals to ramp up the two-way technological and investment cooperation. It is also supporting Africa to modernize its agriculture and industrialization drive and has pledged to work with the international community in Africa's integration into the global industrial and supply chains.

On one side, the steps to jack up trade and tweak infrastructure would help to address Africa's critical structural inequalities including poverty; on the other, the agricultural, economic and industrialization measures will protect Africa from overpowering impacts of climate change, uplift its GDP and contribute to peace and stability by blocking youth bulges from joining terrorist organizations.

A balanced composition of military and economic resources therefore can deracinate Africa's deep-seated ethnic and religious divide. While the continent's counter-terrorism operations would gain a boost from a holistic international approach, African development and integration into the global economy will be handy to mitigate the risks of the imminent economic crisis, adolescence drift toward extremism, food insecurity and internal migration.

*This is one of my opinion pieces that first appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)":
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-11-15/Africa-needs-military-and-economic-support-to-thwart-challenges-VqKjWtCUpO/index.html

Indo-Pacific is drifting away from the US

By: Azhar Azam

In a push to further balance Tokyo’s ties with Beijing, the Japanese foreign ministry last week told Newsweek that China is the world's second largest economy with which its “relationship is one of the most important bilateral relationships for Japan" and vowed to thin out the bilateral issues in high-level meetings and visits.

The foreign ministry of the Republic of Korea (ROK) also struck a gallant tone about its bonds with China. Recalling its relations with Beijing spanning over thousands of years, it said resumption of the historical bilateral exchanges in 1992 would pave the way “for forging friendly and cooperative relations for the future.”

Surrounded by a neurotic and uptight regional environment heading for an escalation among the Indo-Pacific nations, the statements signaled Tokyo and Seoul were chasing away Washington’s push to stand up to Beijing and looking at unwinding the tense situation.

Ever since Yoshihide Suga became the new prime minister of Japan in September, it was expected that he would keep his focus on economic reforms in the country and likely modulate posing Australia-India-Japan-US strategic grouping, the Quad, as a cohesive multinational military front against China.

While in a his speech to the Japanese parliament Suga abjured to describe “free and open Indo-Pacific” a strategy or vision to preclude giving it a China-containment look, his relatively a moderate pitch in Vietnam about creating “an Indo-Pacific NATO” against Beijing is being seen a balanced regional approach by the experts.

Although Japan warned it isn’t going to pull out from decades-old territorial claims over the Pinnacle Islands in the East China Sea, still the response “Japan continues to deal with the situation in a calm and resolute manner” somewhat poured cold water on the American ambitious China-targeted plans in the backdrop of virus-hit Japanese economy.

As Beijing and Tokyo look to resume business travel between the two intertwined economies by mid-November and Japan’s export steadies including rising shipments to China for the third consecutive month in September – the improving economic indicators could beseech Suga to put off differences at some other time and keep his emphasis on accelerating trade with China to fast-track the country’s economic recovery.

Similarly insinuating the outcome of the bilateral consultations between Beijing and Seoul and President Moon Jae-in visit to China in December 2017 leading into the normalization of the bilateral ties – the ROK foreign ministry said "Relations between the ROK and China continue to develop in a stable way with active high-level exchanges."

It sent a powerful message to the US that the ROK seeks to refresh its relationship with China. The statement carried more weight as Seoul continues to iron out differences with Beijing on the deployment of THAAD or any other US-led missile defense systems to ease off Chinese suspicions.

ROK conciliatory moves to China have strategic overtones for the US. As Seoul is threatened by Washington over withdrawal of the US troops from the Korean peninsula vis-à-vis differences on the cost sharing agreement – the progressive change would weaken Washington’s campaign to check Beijing’s growing influence.

Seoul’s proclivity to Beijing is on the rise. ROK ambassador to the US Lee Soo-hyuck recently said "Just because Korea chose the US 70 years ago does not mean it has to choose the US for the next 70 years, too," noting that Seoul was recognizing the importance of its economic relationship with Beijing.

Again, it is the economic interests that turns out to be the main perpetrator in ransacking the primeval ROK-US alliance and Trump’s imposing instinct has incremented its pace. This paradigm shift, if invaded into the other American partners, could blow the final whistle on the global leadership bout, with end-result favoring China, beforehand.

In the past few months, the Trump administration has stroked a colossal damage to the US international credibility through its pointless policies. The president’s brazen and often-derogatory attitude has consistently pressed the historic American allies to rethink their ties with the US much earlier they would have thought.

With Tokyo maintaining the best relationship with China, ROK Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha refusing to shoulder the “structured alliance” and ASEAN alongside Australia, China, New Zealand, Japan and ROK gearing up to sign the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) – another daunting task would shortly test ability of the coming Biden administration, restore America’s trust across the Indo-Pacific.

*This is one of my opinion pieces (unedited) that first appeared in "News24":
https://www.news24.com/news24/Analysis/analysis-indo-pacific-is-drifting-away-from-the-us-20201114

Will Biden’s strategy in South Asia be any different than Trump’s?

By: Azhar Azam

Over the years, the regional conflicts have enormously rolled a pitch for the US to overly practice a cryptic or spooky diplomacy – manipulate territorial disputes and other flare-ups to nurture American defense industry, advance national foreign policy objectives and shift the balance of power in its favor.

After mincing Soviet Union under the auspices of Afghan Mujahideen and Pakistan intelligence, the United States piggybacked on a victory and claimed the status of matchless global superpower in a war that barely involved its military footprint in Afghanistan.

Washington is once more on toes to rewrite history by sparking off a new rivalry against Beijing, which it labels as a US strategic competitor that could erode its power projection and the longtime US dominance of the world. In order to make its effort a success, the US again needed Pakistan, this time to inject life in its anti-China campaign.

Unsurprisingly, Islamabad defied joining Washington’s newfangled crusade against its ironclad ally, Beijing. Naturally, the US then had to rely on India to oil the wheels of its Sinophobia. This American South Asia strategy, despite the change of administrations in the White House, would likely continue with slight fine-tuning under the President-elect Joe Biden.

It would be the same approach that the US Secretary of Mike Pompeo disseminated in India during his recent trip, in a bid to pluck out China’s growing tentacles in South Asia with Indian support while barging in on the “China threat” as well as trying to play on the Beijing-New Delhi Himalayan border standoff.

Although, the US would have doubts on Indian ability to undercut the dragon but in the absence of any other option in the sac, Washington will be throwing its full diplomatic and military support behind India vis-à-vis bilateral political arrangements and defense contracts.

The US interests, therefore, in India are largely commercial and its new defense pact – Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA) on Geospatial Cooperation – with India is only targeted to wring regional disputes for American advantage, notwithstanding the degree of grave risks the treaty on sharing satellite and map data could pose to peace and stability in the “nuclear deltoid,” comprising three regional atomic powers.

BECA has been pending for more than 15 years as leftists in the past coalition government were strongly opposed to maintaining close ties with the US. Indian security forces too had fears “on protection of classified information and access to classified laboratories in India.” Like its descendant, the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) previously prompted anxieties about turning India into an American military base.

Even Indian experts dub the Modi government’s “mindlessly suicidal extreme step” of signing the defense agreement could be a costly bargain and opine India has potentially mortgaged the digitized capability of its air, ground and naval forces to the US as its “kill-chains (sensors-to-shooter networks)" would be under American control.

Remarks by a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute Tanvi Madan – “Arguably without Doklam and Ladakh crisis, India would not have got to yes on COMCASA (Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement) or reportedly BECA – unequivocally ratify that the US is sharply using its “military diplomacy” to redeem China-India row for its offensive territorial goals.

No matter how effective BECA will be in strengthening the Indian-American strategic and defense cooperation, one definitive conclusion can be drawn from the agreement. While trying to outlast in bordering nodes with Beijing, New Delhi has exposed a whole lot bigger national sovereignty to Washington.

After deliberations with India on forging a consensus response to jointly “thwart (China) threats”,” Pompeo had reached in Sri Lanka and Maldives to iron the two Indian Ocean nations on cutting their economic, infrastructure and investment ties with China.

In Colombo, his unrestrained criticism of Beijing and its mega Belt and Road Initiative was given a cold shoulder by Sri Lankan President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. Rejecting Pompeo's perspective that China was attempting to trap the nation into debt, Rajapaksa pointed out Beijing had played a key role in developing the country's infrastructure since the end of the separatist war in May 2009. America’s “debt trap” idea was additionally rebuffed by a Sri Lankan diplomat who said that 90% of the country’s debt was, in fact, owned by western and other international multilateral institutions.

Pompeo announced to open an embassy in Male. This move doesn’t intend to bolster bilateral relations; it is an attempt to counterbalance China’s presence in Maldives. In so doing, the Secretary publicly revealed his mala-fide intent to cramp Beijing-Male ties through a forthright intervention in internal affairs of the Island nation.

China has invested billions of dollars in Sri Lanka and Maldives through BRI to build seaport, airport, port city, highways and power stations, which would help the two developing nations to improve their economy, boost trade and generate employment. In comparison, Pompeo landed in the two countries with empty promises and pressing demands.

Washington should reassess its “alpha-dogging” toward the sovereign nations, which is sinking its trust in South Asia. Rather than seeking to chop off countries from China and flock them into an Indian orbit, the US needs to demonstrate the same eagerness to resolve the Kashmir dispute, a nuclear flashpoint between India and Pakistan, as it has been showing to end its Afghan stalemate.

But since Biden would follow the footsteps of Trump in the region and continue to irk Pakistan by downplaying its contributions against war on terror while pressing Sri Lanka and Maldives to ostracize the Chinese investments without offering any economic substitute – bulges of South Asian nations are likely to keep themselves at a distance from the new US administration as well, what will be an outright dismissal of American orthodox regional approach.

*This is one of my opinion pieces (unedited) that first appeared in "Global Village Space":

https://www.globalvillagespace.com/will-bidens-strategy-in-south-asia-be-any-different-than-trumps/