How China is fighting and winning against air pollution?

By: Azhar Azam

*This is one of my opinion pieces (unedited) that first appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)":
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-02-28/How-China-is-fighting-and-winning-against-air-pollution--OrDECvlEYg/index.html

With half of the global population having no access to the clean fuels and technologies and the engines in the cars and production in factories continue to pump up dirty emissions – the very air we breathe is growing dangerously polluted. Nine out of 10 people in the hotter and densely populated world therefore inhale contaminated oxygen that roughly kills 7 million of them every year.

As an eye-widening one-third of the mortalities by stroke, lung cancer and heart disease stem from air pollution – an equivalent effect to that of Tobacco and much higher than impacts of eating too much salt – the phenomenon is emerging as the most pressing environmental health risk .

In its latest 2019 World Air Quality Report, the Swiss environmental technology company IQ Air AirVisual marshaled global PM2.5 data to highlight the state of particulate pollution and estimated that 92% of the world population was exposed to toxic air in 2019, highlighting welfare losses of about $5 trillion in financial terms due to premature deaths caused by air pollution.

The research further determined that all the 30 most polluted cities were located in Greater Asia with 27 in South Asia and 21 in India only. Indian metropolises, on average, outstripped WHO target for annual PM2.5 exposure by 500%. Ghaziabad, a Delhi suburb, topped the list of cities with worst air quality in the world. Pakistan, at five, joined India to dominate the most polluted cities in 2019 globally.

In the face of dire and grim regional ecological statistics, the improvement in the air quality of several Chinese cities was an inspirational sign for other nations. Beijing, by halving its annual PM2.5 level and dropping itself out of global 200, set the momentum for other Chinese cities that also slashed their particulate matter (PM) standard by 21% in last two years.

Though India too lowered its national air effluence but it was largely because of its economic slowdown after its growth fell sharply to 4.8% in 2019. In comparison, China’s success of bettering the air quality was commemorated with generally a stable GDP and industrial growth of 6.1% and 5.7% respectively amid rising trade tensions with the US and facing certain economic headwinds.

Admiring China’s commitment and response on tackling the air pollution, Yann Boquillod director of IQAir’s quality monitoring said “In Beijing, it’s a priority – in China, when they say something, they do it – they put the resources in” and urged the people in India to put pressure on their government.

Beijing isn’t the only Chinese city that shrank its air pollution in recent times – Chengdu, Guangzhou and Shanghai are some of the others that have impressively abridged the PM2.5 concentrations by about 50% between 2015 and 2019. So, the trend to strive for healthier environment is developing across the country.

The Mainland China has been so unswerving in the ambition to rally its air quality that during the trade war with the US, it didn’t put a stop to its war against environment toxic waste and uninterruptedly kept the focus on shifting smog-producing industries away from its metropolitan cities.

China’s achievements against air pollution is ratified by another independent research organization, Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA), which eulogized country’s pollution-handling measures in its Beijing and Shanghai priority regions and its “dramatic progress” on reducing national average PM2.5 and SO2 levels.

Winter actions plans played a key role in Chinese triumph against air pollution. Through its 2017-18 major campaign, China not only reduced small-scale coal burning in factories and households and replaced them with natural gas and electricity but it also curtailed heavily the production of iron and steel, coke, cement, and non-ferrous metals that enabled it bring down the PM2.5 levels by 25% in just one year.

In 2020 too, China remains committed to box the environmental pollution. While most cities reported improvement in air quality – this year, the density of PM2.5, causing smog, would be dropped by 15% in 337 prefecture-level cities as compared to 2015 that will lift the ratio of days with good quality air to 80%.

Ahead of Beijing Winter Olympics 2022, China is well on track to stage the event and deliver “spectacular” games with a “green, inclusive, open and corrupt-free approach.” The ongoing domestic posers are not holding it back to host the sports gala in a couple of years. Earlier this month, Beijing’s Mayor Office reaffirmed that the Chinese capital would ensure to complete the venues and supporting infrastructure on schedule.

Where the newest data showed Chinese significant progress in combatting air pollution, it would additionally strengthen China’s march toward forming a moderately prosperous society in all respects by 2020. Beijing’s efforts to build a health-conscious and eco-friendly culture in the country would also embolden other regional countries to frame and implement pro-environment policies.

Remembering that China, along with Japan and the United States, has world’s largest governmental monitoring networks that publish real-time air quality data continuously and it puts environment sustainability right at the center of its agenda – the international world needs to follow a humanistic and social approach and should cooperate with each other to mutually contend with the challenge of air pollution.

Middle East Plan: The Blunder Of The Century

By: Azhar Azam

*This is one of my opinion pieces (unedited) that first appeared at "One World":
http://oneworld.press/?module=articles&action=view&id=1307

Donald Trump’s Middle East plan – contending to bring peace, prosperity and a brighter future for the Israeli and Palestinian people; prop up a safer and affluent region and end the stalemate in the two-state talks to realize the aspirations of Palestine independence – is dead within a week of its disclosure though the author Jared Kushner disagrees.

Son-in-law and the senior advisor to the US President insisted that the Palestinians should accept the proposal and fulfill the idealistic preconditions, which would allow Israel to annex around 30% of the Palestinian territory of the West Bank, rescind Palestine’s entire claim on Jerusalem and the right to return the refugees.

Kushner – who struggled to respond on the bizarre plan provisions such as free press, free elections, guarantees of religious freedoms and an independent judiciary and financial institutions in four years that no Arab country has ever achieved in the history – dull defense was the blank acknowledgment that the Vision was deeply flawed and has reached at the dead end.

In fact, the “lopsided” concept tempted Palestinian rejection even before its revelation as it drew only the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and the opposition leader Benny Gantz, omitting the Palestinian leaders outright. The subsequent dismissal by Palestine and the Arab League was nonetheless the seal of denunciation.

Once unveiled, the “deal of the century” fumed Palestine which sought them to settle at a telescoped West Bank that would be connected with Gaza through a tunnel and required former to surrender their resources and sovereignty to the latter as well as accepting East Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel and the forbidden settlements in West Bank and East Jerusalem.

By addressing the security concerns of Israel and providing them a demilitarized Palestinian state in the vicinity, the blueprint of Trump’s map avowed to take first step toward forming a foundation for historic peace in the region. But as the Vision authorized Israel to continue building in Judea and Samaria, he lobbed the peace away by more miles.

Trump argued that he was pushing hard to revive the stalled two-state negotiations for a peaceful and prosperous region but his quest of seeking too much comprises from the Palestinians somewhat conceded the neutrality of the United States as a reliable mediator and more critically, firmly locked the door of direct talks between Israel and Palestine.

Washington’s Potemkin plan, if implemented, would violate international law that prohibits any annexation of the territories and could lead to apartheid crimes of enforced racial discrimination. It turned the rules-based global order on its head and undermined the right of self-determination of permitting all nations to freely choose their statehood without any foreign intervention.

US unilateral action pulled the landmark Washington-abstained United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution to bits that was unanimously adopted in December 2016 by 14-0 votes, labeled Israeli settlement activities a “flagrant violation of international law” and demanded to cease those doings in the occupied territories to salvage the two-state solution based on 1967 lines.

The divisive map additionally desecrated the joint declaration of over 70 countries and international organizations including the Quartet, the five permanent members of UNSC, Arab and European partners, G20 countries and others at Paris peace conference on 15-July-2017 that reaffirmed their support for a long-lasting and negotiated two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Slamming the plan that endorses the creation of a 21st century “Bantustan in the Middle East,” the UN Special Rapporteur Michael Lynk dubbed the Vision only “a one and a half state solution” which will entrench occupation and favored realpolitik, power and conflict management over rights, justice and conflict resolution.

More than two years after the UNSC resolution and global agreement to serve a negotiated two-state solution to meet the legitimize aspirations of both the sides, Palestinians’ right to statehood and sovereignty and satisfy Israel’s security needs – Trump’s economic assistance of $50 billion is a recycle of the former US President Barrack Obama’s peace plan that pledged $4 billion “to transform the fortunes of a future Palestinian state.”

The economic trap was previously revealed in June 2019 when Kushner claimed, if executed, would create a million jobs in the West Bank and Gaza, reduce Palestinian poverty by half and double their GDP. But the Arab observers and Palestinian leadership jointly had poured scorn on the Trump administration’s Palestine’s witch-hunt.

History reiterates that the US has never been a candid and impartial peace broker for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and has habitually strived to buy the Palestine’s freedom of movement, airspace, territorial waters and sovereignty in return for taxing restrictions, economic aid and investment.

Unless the US mends its behavior into a responsible and unprejudiced peace arbitrator and prevents itself to take combustible actions like moving its embassy to Jerusalem, all its proposed peace plans would tailspin abruptly just as “Peace to Prosperity.” Washington’s realignment with the global world is the only way to correct its foreign policy blunders.

Foreign intervention must stop for a durable ceasefire in Libya

By: Azhar Azam

*This is one of my opinion pieces (unedited) that first appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)":
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-02-25/Foreign-intervention-must-stop-for-a-durable-ceasefire-in-Libya-On09Mq71LO/index.html

Nine years into the Libyan Revolution and NATO-led invasion of Libya, the oil-rich North African state is yet to observer peace and stability in the land as the UN-recognized Government of National Accord (GNA) and the rival Libyan National Army (LNA) continue to vie for their blanket control in the war-riven country.

Though the civil resistance and popular wave of 2011 in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) somehow brought transfer of powers in Egypt and Tunisia, the uprising against Colonel Muammar Gaddafi roiled the adjacent Libya into a civil war over foreign military intervention to cherish their regional strategic objectives.

Amid the Arab Spring about a decade ago, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), in a sweeping resolution tightened the sanctions on Libya including no-fly zone, asset freeze and arms embargo and authorized the use of force in the North African country in response to Gaddafi’s “crimes against humanity” in the aftermath of his crackdown on protestors.

Soon after passing of the UNSC resolution – the US, the UK and France attacked the pro-Gaddafi forces to assist the armed revolt in the Mediterranean state that eventually ended the more than four-decade interminable rule and life of the dictator in the hands of National Transition Council (NTC).

The toppling and killing of Qaddafi in the same year did not make any difference to the ordinary Libyans as the muscular-enforced political change in the country created a sheer vacuum in Libya and it became prone to increased violence and chaos. Consequently, Libyan crisis has whirled it into a thorny proxy war with the international backing of each of the contending sides for their ideological and economic interests.

Civilians are bearing the brunt of appalling crimes and have been bogged down in the middle of influence war between the mostly Tripoli-confined Fayez al-Sarraj’s GNA and Tobruk-based American citizen Khalifa Haftar-led LNA. The chronic armed conflicts in most parts of the country since the assassination of Gaddafi has displaced more than 300,000 civilians and killed thousands of people.

While the global foes Russia and the US are at odds in Libya too with the former supporting the GNA and the latter LNA – over Libya’s proximity to its shores, the European Union (EU) is also struggling to find a unified approach to the Libyan catastrophe over its wider concerns that France was providing military support to the warlord Haftar.

The predominant infiltration of Muslim Brotherhood in Qatar and Turkey-backed GNA is milling Egypt, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates (UAE) to aid Haftar to spurn the “political Islam”. In 2014, Abu Dhabi and Riyadh declared the transactional group a terrorist organization that briefly held power in Egypt during 2012 before being pulled down and swept up in a security crackdown.

After initial reluctance, the US President Donald Trump in a telephonic conversation with the CIA asset and former Libyan army General Haftar recognized his “significant role in fighting terrorism and securing Libya’s oil reserves” in May 2019. American reemergence in the Libyan conflict risked war with global implications and further mass migration to Europe.

The Berlin Conference on Libya last month, to forge a ceasefire agreement between the two main warring parties, also conceded that the instability, foreign interference, weapon proliferation and economy of predation bowled threats to international peace and security. But since the two vying sides were irreconcilable and have effectually split the state into east and west zones, not much optimism can be laid on the effort either.

Regional divergence is another challenge for an enforceable truce in Libya. After Turkey signed two agreements with GNA in November, a mutual defense treaty and a maritime deal, four other Mediterranean nations – France, Greece, Egypt and Cyprus – strongly condemned the Turkish move and called the pacts “null and void” claiming that they violate the territorial rights and undermined regional stability.

Following Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan’s admission that his military had suffered some losses in Libya but “neutralized” close to 100 fighters there – armed confrontations could escalate in the hapless country and can bully Geneva peace talks to implement a long-lasting ceasefire.

The signs of bigger tensions are already being materialized as LNA claimed of killing 16 Turkish fighters and a frigate near the port of Tripoli. Ankara’s military actions are not viewed positively in the ranks of Erdogan supporters. Former Turkey’s foreign minister Yassar Yakis recently cautioned him about the dangers of his policies in Syria and Libya.

It is quite clear that the snowballing process – which started off in Tunisia, expanded to Egypt and finally plagued Libya – did not lead to the social improvements, many Libyans would have hoped. The people in the country would be pressed to believe that they were more secure and well-off during Gaddafi government.

There is some strong social statistics to make them think in those lines. Under Qaddafi administration, the living standard of the people in Libya was among the best in Africa and they were enjoying free electricity, medical care and education and subsidized housing and transport. The ongoing conflicts have stolen food and money from them as well as put their life security on the brink of jeopardy apart from making them homeless.

In the midst of deteriorating economic and peace conditions in Libya, Chinese stance of employing peaceful means to resolve Libyan conflict once again proved vindicated. China’s warning in 2011 – if military action brings disaster to civilians and causes humanitarian crisis (in Libya) then its runs counter to the purpose of the UN resolution – is as real today as it was about 10 year before.

The 5+5 Libyan Joint Military Commission (JMC) dialogue could only put into effect a durable ceasefire and restore security to civilians if the regional and global players respect the territorial integrity of Libya and refrain from meddling into the beleaguered country.

'Namaste Trump' will be an event of pledges and reassurances

By: Azhar Azam

*This is one of my opinion pieces (unedited) that first appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)":
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-02-22/-Namaste-Trump-will-be-an-event-of-pledges-and-reassurances-OhIkzScc5W/index.html

Before making his first trip to India in a couple of days, the US President Donald Trump is vague whether or not he would sign a trade deal with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, though one thing is sure that any agreement isn’t going to be signed up in near future.

On February 18, he told reporters “We’re not treated very well” by the “tariff king” and expressed his skepticism on signing a trade deal but hoped to do “a very big” one perhaps “before the election.” Now he says “We may make a tremendous deal or maybe we’ll slow it down” and “do it after the election.” Both the leaders had failed to strike an agreement on the sidelines of UNGA annual session in September.

In the absence of a trade deal, the optics of meatloaf lover’s visit is grossly seen in inaugurations, rallies, smiles and waves or just a payback for “Howdy Modi” especially after India’s termination from the US preferential trade treatment last year and recent cancellation of its status as a developing country, restricting its duty-free goods entry.

Trade talks between the major economies bore a Spartan swipe on the back of American demands to grant more access to its farm products and the US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer called off his outing to New Delhi last week. The US is India’s second-largest trade partner behind China with a bilateral trade of $142.8 billion in 2018.

US president will start his maiden visit from Ahmadabad, the largest city of Indian state Gujarat and Modi’s hometown, where he served as the chief minister at the time of infamous 2002 Gujarat pogrom and was allegedly involved in initiating and condoning the violence that killed, raped, plundered and destructed properties of Muslims.

Trump arrival coincides with a critical juncture when ruling BJP is luring strong international criticism following a series of its discordant moves such as stripping the autonomy of disputed Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), detaining its political leadership and other prominent figures, inflicting about seven months of security lockdown in the valley and passing a religiously discriminatory Citizen Amendment Act.

Indian suspension of the civil rights in Kashmir and the ongoing military crackdown on eight million Kashmiris causing shortage of medicine, communications blackout and rising death toll – has, in particular, stoked intense diplomatic and political tensions with Pakistan alongside intensified fire-exchange incidents across the Line of Control (LOC).

Prime Minister of Pakistan Imran Khan has long sought Trump to play a mediation role in the resolving the core dispute of Kashmir. Although the US president initially offered his profound eagerness to intervene, nevertheless he quickly recoiled after a burly opposition from India and to protect American business and strategic interests in the region.

Same is the case with other major regional and global players including Pakistan’s closest and historic Arab allies, which do not want to blight their relations with the third-biggest oil market of the world and foresee their economic survival in tightening the lips on the plight of millions of people held hostage in Kashmir.

If the US and international community continued to overlook the growing military skirmishes along the LOC – the limited conflict can potentially escalate the risk of military confrontation between two-nuclear armed states. Increasing ethno-religious nationalism and anti-Muslim sentiment in India heighten this possibility as the factors might inveigle India to respond with force.

A nuclear war between India and Pakistan will be a recipe for disaster. While such a tragedy could result in fatalities of up to 125 million people immediately, it would severely impact the global climate and atmosphere in the form of declined surface sunlight, cooled temperature and reduced precipitation – leading to famines and massive starvation worldwide.

So, prevention of an Indo-Pak nuclear war should be the world’s topmost priority that could only be achieved by resolution of J&K spat. Even if the of UN-brokered Simla Agreement, which bars both countries not to alter the status unilaterally, could not be reinstated, ending of Kashmir siege can ease the growing tensions but lack of interest by the global nations is distancing peace from the region by every day.

China, until now, is the only country that has constantly voiced its concerns over the powder keg situation in Kashmir and mounting severities between India and Pakistan. Beijing has repeatedly pressed both the parties to understand the risk of further escalation and seek solution through dialogue.

Chinese stance of peaceful resolution of the squabble on the basis of UN Charter, UN Security Council resolutions and bilateral agreements provides an unalloyed solution of J&K dispute and can thwart the global suffrage that could erupt from the deadly consequences of fissile fuel vendetta.

But the apparent US strategy to use the Kashmir row as a bargaining chip between India and Pakistan is making it hard to resolve the decades-old issue. On one side, Washington solicits Islamabad to facilitate peace talks with Afghan Taliban and review its active participation in CPEC, ostensibly to back Pakistan perspective on Kashmir. And on the other side, it is forcing New Delhi to look at Beijing through the American lens in order to endorse its divisive moves in the valley.

As peace and stability in Afghanistan meets Pakistan’s and global interests, Islamabad is unstinting in extending its support for Afghan peace process however since CPEC is vital for the country’s plunging economy, expecting Pakistan to reassess or even slowdown the flagship project is something asking the South Asian nation to offend its own fate.

On the other hand, the flagging economy and the excessive internal engagement would outwit India to dish up the US bellicose objectives in the region. With the most hyped Indo-US strategic partnership is in the soup, the “Namaste Trump” will only be an event of pledges and reassurances by either of the sides.

Why China is the partner for Africa

By: Azhar Azam

*This is one of my opinion pieces (unedited) that first appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)":
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-02-19/Why-China-is-the-partner-for-Africa--Od4WVg7q6Y/index.html

About a month after contending in the Caribbean that Chinese investment in Africa “feeds corruption and undermines rule of law,” the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is on a whistle-stop tour to three African countries: Senegal, Angola and Ethiopia. It is the first African visit by an official of the Trump administration in more than 19 months.

Just as African political analysts called his comments “almost hypocritical,” arguing that the US companies were not necessarily the cleaner ones – the governments and people in the continent aren’t much excited at his arrival as well following White House’s recent travel ban on another four African nations: Nigeria, Eritrea, Sudan and Tanzania.

Former Nigerian Vice President Atiku Abubakar took the US immigration restrictions with “sadness” while Eritrean press statement dubbed the act “unfriendly” and expressed its “dismay.” The inclusion in the list of “pariah states” was shocking for the African nations, especially Nigeria that has been conducting counterterrorism campaign against Boko Haram with America and sustained close diplomatic relationship with the US since 1960.

While people of the continent are yet to forget the US President Donald Trump’s racist “shithole countries” remarks about El Salvador, Haiti and Africa, the new US budget proposal slashed assistance to Africa by 39% or $3.23 billion and scratched African health programs such as President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) by 26%.

Recalling that the US travel ban would effectively effect about a quarter of the continent’s population, American desire to reduce its military footprint and the retrench in economic and medical support is a precise message that it is not concerned about peace and stability, welfare and security of Africans.

So what Pompeo discussed in Senegal about resolving African security issues was thoroughly contradicting. On one side, he confirmed Senegalese foreign minister that Pentagon wishes to withdraw combat troops, leaving its military presence in the areas of training and intelligence and on the other hand, he pledged that the US would work closely with regional forces and European countries in the fight against armed groups.

Subsequent to his flimsy commitment in Senegal to combat with terrorism, Pompeo reached in oil-rich Angola to support Angolan President Joao Lourenco’s drive against corruption and to claw back billions of dollars plundered from state coffers. Again, Pompeo visit to Luanda was largely to secure the interests of American oil companies, including Exxon Mobil and Chevron, in Africa’s second-largest oil producer and third-largest economy of the continent.

His quote-in-quote words “We have got a group of energy companies that have put more than $2 billion in a natural gas project. That will rebound to the benefit of the American businesses for sure as well” shed light on the fact that he was more inclined to protect the US commercial its interests in Angola than to extend economic and infrastructure cooperation.

Pompeo is now in Ethiopia, a key US ally in the Horn of Africa, which has undergone dramatic political reforms since Nobel-laureate Prime Minister Abiy Ahmad assumed office in 2018. In Addis Ababa, Pompeo would discuss the construction of $4.2 billion worth of hydroelectric dam project that Egypt fears will dry off the Nile, on which the parched Arab state rely for 90% of its water.

Once questioned about Washington competition with Beijing in Angola and other African countries, Pompeo said that he would leave other to analyze how the US model differs from China’s way of business, adding “When we come, we hire Angolans.” His comments again towed the global attention over American S disquiet about Beijing’s leading role in developing the most impoverished continent.

Over the last 17 years, Chinese investments in Angola have exceeded $20 billion and Ethiopia was the country that charmed the largest foreign direct inflows from Beijing of $2.5 billion in 2019. Pompeo’s “debt diplomacy” went in tatters as Luanda’s debt was less than 50% of its total debt while it had managed to pull it down from $23.3 billion in 2017 to $22.8 billion until first quarter of 2019.

In Ethiopia, China-sponsored industrial parks helped its economy to transform and created thousands of jobs, which lead the two nations to knot themselves into an undeniable and enduring economic and trade relations. Chinese investments in Ethiopian infrastructure, manufacturing and textile sectors show its commitment and its preparedness to meet the economic, social and transportation needs of the country.

After US shale revolution, American focus in oil-producing African countries had significantly declined. In this crunch phase, China came in to help Angola and increased its crude oil imports from the country. In the first quarter of 2019, Chinese crude imports were 68% of total Angolan oil exports.

China also remained a key partner of Senegal in 2019. The bilateral trade between the two countries totaled $2.27 billion in 2018 while several Chinese businessmen have arrived in Senegal to find potential investment opportunities. In infrastructure cooperation, China has constructed a number of projects including the Chinese built Diamniadio industrial park.

While Pompeo touts that Senegal, Angola and Ethiopia are the “three countries in various stages of development in their transition to democracy and their stability,” he tends to impugn China-Africa relations by offering the US economic plans. But after the ditching US moves and unambiguous strategy to split up its ties with China, African nations would find it hard to cuddle American idea.

In the changing world, the interests of the entire world are interlaced and no country can align a new ally at the expense of the other. For Africa, China is a savior and a valuable and trusted partner that has invariably stood with the continent for decades with unwavering devotion and resolute support.

Beijing’s funding of a number of projects without attaching any stringent conditions, respect for African culture and understanding of its priorities and sovereignty – urge the region to reject Western Sino-phobic mindset. That’s why, China is highly celebrated as a dependable economic and strategic partner in the continent and more and more African people are turning up to hail its economic growth and presence in Africa.

Speculative US antipathies about China are losing traction

By: Azhar Azam

*This is one of my opinion pieces (unedited) that first appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)":
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-02-18/Speculative-U-S-antipathies-about-China-are-losing-traction-ObLQ9FGWbe/index.html

56th Munich Security Conference (MSC) ended on Sunday without any consensus on whether the world or west itself was becoming less western, “Westlessness,” a term coined by MSC Report 2020 and theme of this year’s gathering that comprised hundreds of leaders and thinkers from politics, international organizations and civil society to discuss preeminent global crisis and future security challenges.

The primary objective of the summit, the state of the West and to forge an international “strategic community” to resolve global conflicts through peaceful means, was indeed smashed halfway into the conference once the US Secretary of States Mike Pompeo defied the motto by asserting that the West was winning and debilitated international security cooperation over his redirected focus on China.

US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper followed Pompeo up and munched all his time in disapproving Chinese communist party and the country’s economic and political system. So akin to his teammate partner, Esper was also preoccupied with China’s growth and its mounting rapprochement with the neighboring and worldwide nations.

American officials’ use of MSC multilateral forum– tailored to discuss the global security issues such as Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Kashmir, Libya, Palestine, Venezuela, Ukraine and Yemen – to cast China as a rising threat, bashing Chinese ruling party and boasting of supplying medical supplies to coronavirus victims was passably dismaying and counterproductive for the participants.

The brazen and speculative US antipathies about China are therefore distinctly losing the traction by the time as the countries from North to South Pole, have spurned Washington’s hate-preach toward Beijing and reaffirmed the longing to strengthen their strategic communication and mutual trust to push their partnership with China to a new level as well as applauded Chinese role in global peace and development and its efforts to combat coronavirus epidemic.

International solidarity with Chinese people grappled with the pneumonia, the concurrence between Beijing and Berlin to jointly uphold multilateralism and speed up cooperation to promote China-EU investment, wide-ranging participation in BRI and Germany’s endorsement to one-China policy and its sovereignty and territorial integrity – are some of the many paradigm shifts in global community’s pragmatic approach to deal with China.

While the desperate diplomatic shots of the US representatives, to exploit the COVID-19 outbreak to slur Beijing and reroute the universal support in their favor by rebuking Chinese model, botched horribly – the US secretaries’ comments additionally contradicted the US President Donald Trump’s willingness to improve American relationship with China.

Of late, Trump has characterized Washington affairs with Beijing “perhaps the best relationship we have ever had with China, including with President Xi” – crowing that the landmark phase one deal will defend the US workers, protect its intellectual property, bring billions into the treasury and open new markets for the US products. He further praised China’s “counterattack on the Coronavirus” and execution of drug dealers.

Both the US officials are reluctant to embrace Trump’s convivial and pliant perception over China, which would allow the sides to sit down and have a serious dialogue in finding a conducive way for either of them in order “to live in harmony and interact in peace despite the different social systems,” to put in the words of Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi.

Bragging about providing drug provisions to China for battling out coronavirus by the US is lamentable. Beijing largely relies on its strength to tackle the epidemic, though has welcomed and thanked support of international community. So far, some 33 foreign governments and 4 international have extended medical assistance to China but it was the US that has shoot its mouth off in offering humanitarian support to the Chinese phenomena survivors.

American hostility toward China is rousing Europe to become more cynical of the US adamant attitude that has consistently forced them to completely decouple from the world’s second largest economy amid their unrelenting efforts to find a middle conduit to work between the two economic powerhouses so as to protect their economic and trade interests.

A day prior to US officials’ rhetoric, German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier took a jab on Trump’s “Make America Great Again” and “America First” campaigns and panned Europe’s “closest ally” for pursuing its own goals “at the expense of neighbors and partners” and discarding “the very concept of the international community.” German foreign minister Heiko Haas was also critical of the “uncomfortable reality of what a withdrawal of the US from military engagement and from international treaties means for us.”

After Pompeo rejected European pessimism about the US retreat from the global stage and refuted criticism on the transatlantic relationship, the French President Emmanuel Macron gainsaid him downright and warned “There is awakening of the West” and called for more German involvement. “”We cannot always go through the United States, no, we have to think in a European way a well,” the President of now the only nuclear state in Europe said.

Latest developments rediscovered Europe’s increased perception about the changing nature of the internal order and its pursuit to seek an independent foreign policy where no foreign country including the US would have the pervading clout to eclipse its economic interests with other economies of the world.

NATO is in its death throes

By: Azhar Azam

*This is one of my opinion pieces (unedited) that first appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)":
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-02-14/NATO-is-in-its-death-throes-O4w6bPGqo8/index.html

Over the time, the popularity of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is sinking in their publics. The coalition’s public favorability that was 71%, 73%, 64% and 56% in 2009 within France, Germany, Italy and Spain has gradually dropped to 49%, 57%, 60% and 49% respectively in 2019, a recent study by Washington-based Pew Research Center found.

Support for 29-membered North American and European alliance from the people of Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungry and Slovakia also plunged sharply while only 21% and 37% of the Turkish and Greeks endorsed the partnership. Overall, positive views about NATO fell from 64% in 2018 to 52% in 2019.

The survey findings spelled out further cracks in arguably the world’s oldest and successful alliance and could bequeath a significant blow to the NATO defense ministers’ ongoing meeting in Brussels. It would also serve as a setback to the efforts of Trump administration that has been wrestling with its European cronies to increase their defense spending and contribute more troops in the Middle East.

It echoed French Prime Minister Emanuel Macron last year’s onslaught at NATO when he downplayed the transatlantic alliance describing it “brain dead” following the US President Donald Trump snappy decision of troops pullout from Syria and paved the way for Turkey to move its military onto the Syrian border and establish a buffer zone.

The losing trust of some of the top European economies on the reliability of NATO is not surprising. The alliance was threatening to shake as they became wary of the bigheaded US attitude after Trump redirected his tariff guns toward the regional nations to succumb them to his taxing demands and called them “delinquent” while America was spending too much on maintaining missile defense systems across Europe and positioning 65,000 troops.

Washington too discerns that NATO is in jeopardy and could breakup at some latter time. In a press briefing on Tuesday, the US envoy to NATO Kay Bailey Hutchison admitted the rifts in the alliance and pleaded the European government to make their people realize the importance of NATO and coupled declining public support with lack of awareness.

US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper arrived in Brussels with a laundry list of American demands most notably surge of the NATO troops in Middle East, to begin with at least with Iraq so that Washington could step back from a territory which was once a centerpiece of its foreign policy and focus on implementation of National Defense Strategy (NDS).

Esper made a similar pitch to NATO nations about deterring “Iranian bad behavior” and reiterated his prior request of deploying air defense assets in the Middle East. Although on Wednesday, NATO conditionally agreed to expand its training mission in Iraq but without pledging any troop deployment.

The NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg remarks that it “fully respects the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq” was a silver-tongued warning to the United States that the alliance would not any intervene in the country without consultation with the Iraqi government.

NATO is so careful about its involvement in the Middle East that after American killing of the Iranian General Qassem Soliemani last month, it suspended its non-combat “train and advise” mission in Iraq over fears of regional instability and military casualties, which was widely anticipated in the form of Iranian retaliation.

The underwhelming response gave a clear indication about NATO’s diffidence not to indulge itself into the eclectic and multifaceted regional game as well as underscored that it did not countersign Trump’s divisive Middle East strategy or his maximum pressure campaign vis-à-vis Tehran.

Nearly all of NATO states have sidestepped to participate in US’ International Maritime Security Construct (IMSC) that bills to counter threats from Iran and ensure freedom of navigation and the free flow of commerce through the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz. As of now, only three NATO countries – Albania, the UK and the US – have joined the American multilateral effort which testifies that NATO had rebuffed the provocative move outright.

Even though the Baghdad government had declared the military defeat of Islamic State (IS) at the end of 2017, the US still maintains more than 5,000 troops in Iraq to prevent the group’s resurgence. As last year’s missile attacks on Saudi oil facilities pushed the US to lift its troop level to 17,000 – contrary to Trump administration’s desires, American forces are continuing to be entwined in the Middle East.

In the tensed regional background, it would no doubt be a tough gig for the NATO governments to convince their people to deploy troops and assets in a region from where Washington has overtly committed to extract. As such a move would amount to serving the interests of a foreign nation; it will invite a strong criticism and cogent reaction from opposition and public in the European countries.

All the appraisals steer to a precise: NATO is in its death throes!

Ending conflicts, developing infrastructure are critical for a secure, prosperous Africa

By: Azhar Azam

*This is one of my opinion pieces (unedited) that first appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)"
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-02-13/Ending-conflicts-developing-infrastructure-are-critical-for-Africa-O3o3mCdSec/index.html

Even though Africa is the home of 8 fastest economies out of a total 15 in the world and its poverty rate has gone down over the past few years, a whole host of Africans is still becoming poor. And if the circumstances do not change, the proportion of African poor in the global poverty could increase from 55% in 2015 to 90% in 2030.

Conflict and hunger are the major factors that has relentlessly underwritten the outgrowth of poor headcount in the possibly a star-studded continent. The emergence of conflicts and an undeniable link between the two life-threatening issues has posed serious challenges for the livelihoods of millions of African men and women, particularly relying on agriculture.

The boundless conflicts have destroyed African food systems, decimated crops and livestock resources and caused loss of assets and incomes – triggering food insecurity, malnutrition and hunger in the region. As a result, the number of people who are suffering from severe food insecurity in Africa had increased to 277 million in 2019.

As most of the African crisis and conflicts stem from poverty, economic hardships, inequalities in income and asset distribution, marginalization, mismanagement and external interference – international community needs to step up its efforts to help African Union (AU) in attaining its core objective of “Silencing the Guns” in addition to playing an emphatic role in erecting agriculture and infrastructure sectors of the regional nations.

Amid AU Commission (AUC) efforts to enforce a barrage of moves to meet its aspiration of a peaceful and secure Africa, China is extending a blend of agriculture, economic, trade and infrastructure assistance to the region so that the African countries can achieve UN sustainable development goal #1 of poverty eradication, inhibit the risk of food insecurity, provide jobs to the youth bulges and bring back millions of poor in the mainstream to contribute in the economic growth of their respective countries.

Over the past few years, China poured billions of dollars in Africa to build the region’s transportation network, develop infrastructure base and support its agriculture sector. Through China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC), Beijing had already pledged in September 2018 opulent investments of some $60 billion to region in the form of grants, interest-free loans and investments and financing by financial institutions and companies.

African borrowings from China at concessional rates and Chinese projects under Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) would tremendously cater the vital transportation requirements of the continent that will lower the travel time by up to 12% and ramp up their trade and integration. Considering one day less in transit expands trade by 5.2%, BRI has the potential to enhance the trade among African countries from 2.8% to 9.7%.

Being part of the BRI, Africa is ideally positioned to gain the benefits of Chinese-funded infrastructure projects, which are set to lift 7.6 million people from extreme and another 32 million from moderate poverty mostly in BRI corridors apart from bettering global real income by 0.7% to 2.9%.

The signing of an agreement between AUC and China within the framework of AU’s Agenda 2063 – to connect all capitals of the continent by road, rail and air transport – will be an inclusive indenture that will reduce the trade costs as well as improve connections across cities, accelerate urbanization and encourage regional integration.

China’s infrastructure investments, coupled with Special Economic Zones (SEZs), would bequeath positive spillover effects on the regional economies and unlock the true economic potential of the manufacturing and value-added industries in the continent. In Ethiopia, one of such initiatives, the Chinese-built industrial parks are strongly supporting country’s ambition to transform it into a manufacturing hub.

In agriculture sector, China is also actively working to extend its widespread assistance with the AU to implement Beijing Plan of Action. In the last decade, Chinese Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs signed 16 MOUs, provided science and technology support, established 20 Agri demonstration centers, sent agriculture experts to 37 African countries, arranged 337 training sessions inside and outside Africa, launched 38 occupational programs in Ethiopia and delivered 500 applicable technologies which benefitted one million African farmers.

Nevertheless, the success of the lionized African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AfCFTA), which has the potential to kindle industrialization and pave the way of African integration into the global economy as a major player, hinges largely on the development of a robust infrastructure.

By furnishing the most critical infrastructure development prerequisites of African continent, China is interleaving a pivotal role in making AfCFTA an economic sensation. While through agriculture and technology cooperation – it is empowering Africa to slim down poverty, wipe out hunger and unwind income and asset inequalities among its people.

Provided the continent manages to overwhelm its conflict quandary (which it is fixing steadily), the ambition of a secure, stable and prosperous Africa should no longer be an illusion and the privations of the regional people would end soon.

Trump’s tumbling Afghanistan strategy

By: Azhar Azam

*This is one of my opinion pieces (unedited) that first appeared in "The Express Tribune":
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2155721/6-trumps-tumbling-afghanistan-strategy/

Donald Trump, in April 2017, unveiled his Afghanistan strategy and cited fraught Iraq conditions to back down from his original instinct of US troops’ pull out from “Superpowers’ memorial park”, admitting at the same time that his compatriots were weary of war without victory.

Blithe president then vouched to start a hostile military spell against Afghan Taliban to get hold of a political settlement with them in future and charted his idea to integrate diplomatic, economic and military instruments for a prolific outcome. He also imputed Pakistan for often providing “safe haven to agents of chaos, violence and terror” even though Washington had waged Islamabad “billions and billions of dollars”.

In pursuance of the remodeled approach, the US forces rained bombs at the hideouts of the Afghan resistant group in Afghanistan as well as scolded its former non-NATO ally Pakistan. But the armed conflict scooped the civilian casualties in the battle-shawled country by 5% to 10,993 in 2018.

Though Anti-Government Elements (AGEs) were responsible for most of the civilian casualties, yet the US-led airstrikes too killed roughly the same number of noncombatants in 2018 as in 2014, 2015 and 2016 combined. So both the flanks dissipatedly molested the innocent Afghan folks to show off their nascent sway in the brutal face off.

Nearly one and a half year of its proclamation and after over 18 years of onerous war, Trump’s Afghanistan strategy has audibly crumbled and he is inordinately nonplused as how to end the American insoluble impasse in the cemetery of world’s most formidable militaries. American military casualties in the NATO-led non-combat Operation Freedom’s Sentinel (OFS) RSM had reached 642 including 83 deaths as of January 6.

Given that China, Pakistan, Russia and the US were wielding a cohesive diplomatic effort for a political settlement in Afghanistan – American unilateral military action to pile up military pressure on Taliban to influence Doha peace talks and the subsequent Trump’s snappy cancellation of the crucial exchanges was hapless.

Washington was perhaps circumspect of the growing involvement of Beijing, Moscow and to some extent Tehran. Since Taliban paid visits the three countries, Trump ostensibly butchered the Doha talks in fright of Afghan militants’ mounting inclination toward the US near-peer competitors or adversaries. The US establishment stalled the peace process also to gauge Afghan forces’ administrative and combat capabilities to hold Afghanistan’s September elections in a chaotic environment.

As Taliban sustained to gain control in Afghanistan and Afghan elections sparked more disturbances in the country, the US had no choice but to renew the peace talks with the armed group. Trump’s surprise Thanksgiving visit to the US troops in Afghanistan in late November was to apprise them that the peace talks are going to resurrect soon and many of them would be coming back home soon.

Washington desperately craves to unload Kabul in wake of surging public and veteran pressure that are roughly at the identical footing about US troop withdrawal from the invincible country or the war costs were too strident to sustain US overseas operation. Demand to repeal the US 2001 Authorization for use of Military Force (AUMF) and jettison Afghanistan are the rare consensus points for nearly all of the 2020 Democratic candidates.

The US cost of war in Afghanistan now outstrips that of Iraq. Comptroller’s cost of war report recounted that between 11-September-2001 and 31-March-2019, DOD had obligated more than $1.5 trillion on Overseas Contingency Operations (OCOs) – $730.9 billion on Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and $755.7 billion on OEF/OFS in Afghanistan.

All the latest developments, ceaseless American causalities and the prodigal use of the US taxpayers’ money guide towards the inklings that the US has unequivocally yielded a defeat to the endless war in Afghanistan. And it has lately towed Pakistan to trail a face-saving exit from the battle-scarred country while keeping a little intelligence footprint to invigilate China, Russia and Iran.

Brewing conflict in Indo-Pacific

By: Azhar Azam

*This is one of my opinion pieces (unedited) that first appeared in "The Express Tribune":
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2149069/6-brewing-conflict-indo-pacific/

The standoff between Tehran and Washington – after US killing of Iranian General and Tehran’s retaliatory action of firing a torrent of missiles on American military bases in Iraq – hasn’t unequivocally thawed and Washington is vying to drive itself into another potential conflict with China and Russia.

In a latest pestering move, US Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy said that the Pentagon for the first time would deploy its Security Force Assistance Brigades (SFABs) in the Indo-Pacific to “neutralize all the investments China and Russia have made”.

Deployment of multi-domain task forces – with a focus on the realms of intelligence, information, cyber, electronic warfare and space battalion (I2CEWS) – will be carried out within next two fiscal years and would aim to bolster alliances with regional partners.

US military has long-sought to send the SFABs to Africa and East Asia but until now; the advise-and-assist units have only been placed in Afghanistan where it have seriously struggled to find enough experienced troops to do the job and botched to develop the combat capabilities of Afghan forces.

It is thus pretty skeptical how American specialized crews would evolve a new paradigm to “punch a hole” in the enemy defenses or would be able to ensure its “ironclad and enduring commitment” to the region and strengthen or even persuade US allies to confront formidable Chinese and Russian militaries.

Though Secretary contended China was “militarizing the global commons” through the Straight of Malacca to justify American military presence in Pacific – he discounted the verity that US permanent military and civilian personnel deployments overseas had exceeded 228,000 as of September 30.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Tuesday lashed at the US concept of “free and open Indo-Pacific (FIOP) Region” and dubbed the provocative actions “destructive” which goals to divide the regional countries into “interest groups.”

Pacific is US Department of Defense’s priority-theater where it pledges to extend its commitment of regional stability and prosperity through “pursuit of preparedness, partnerships, and the promotion of a networked region” and in enactment of its phantasm, US has even shown willingness to budge its troops from Afghanistan to Pacific.

Immediately after it revived peace talks with Afghan Taliban, US Defense Secretary Mark Esper in December said he wants to reduce US military presence in Afghanistan “with or without (peace) deal” to pay greater concentration on the strategic competition with China.

Fear of turbulence in Afghanistan was the reason why just hours before strikes, Secretary Mike Pompeo hammered Tehran for its indisposition to join Afghan peace process and accused it for maintaining a relationship with Taliban and other militant factions as well as operating proxy networks in Afghanistan.

So while China, Russia and Pakistan were exerting deep efforts to decode a political solution in Afghanistan to end the US impasse in cemetery of superpowers, Washington was conspiring to relocate its troops from Kabul to the Indo-Pacific to seek a face-off vis-à-vis Beijing and Moscow.

US sees partnership with India a vital gadget to its Indo-Pacific vision. Though Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi cleared up in June 2018 during Shangri-La Dialogue that New Delhi does not see Indo-Pacific region as a strategy or “Quad”, an alliance comprising Australia, India, Japan and the US, a threat to China – the relocation of US troops from Afghanistan to the Indo-Pacific peddled Washington has aligned New Delhi to alter its strategy.

Indian foreign minister S. Jaishankar’s remarks last month about “open and free” Indo-Pacific described a changed New Delhi stance in region. Indo-US wired strategic partnership is fated to elicit tensions for China, after Washington would alienate Islamabad having withdrawn from Kabul. The US in return is likely to aid India to encircle Pakistan.

Even as, Islamabad could seek profounder assurances from Washington that it won’t echo history of ditching Pakistan once its objectives are met in Afghanistan – China and Pakistan would be closely monitoring the evolving developments and ratchet up military and strategic engagements to protect each other’s interests.