Shifting tides in the Middle East

By: Azhar Azam

Turkey and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) maintained warm economic, cultural and political ties until relations descended into deep animosity in 2010s over Ankara’s support for Arab Spring and Muslim Brotherhood’s government in Cairo. Turkey backed the Islamist organization while Saudi Arabia and UAE opposed its rule.

Broad approval of a Pan-Islamic, religious movement in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Syria was perceived a threat to the dynastic rule in Saudi Arabia and UAE. Qatar, another hereditary state endorsed Mohamed Morsi before he was overthrown by Egyptian army in 2013 and died during a trial over charges of espionage in 2019.

Notwithstanding differences on Brotherhood – US, through one of the costliest CIA covert programs Timber Sycamore in Syria, managed to align regional rivals in 2013 and started to deliver lethal assistance to 50 vetted opposition factions. The operation – staffed by representatives from America, France, Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and UAE – conked out as patrons supported their favored groups. Resultantly, US policy in Syria failed and many CIA-supplied weapons ended up in the hands of al Qaeda.

Qatar diplomatic crisis, Jamal Khashoggi killing, competition for influence in Sudan and exchange of accusations to undermine the Palestinian cause deteriorated Saudi-Turkish relationship further. Each of them wanted to lead the Muslim world; Ankara pursuit of irredentist, Neo-Ottoman ideology across Mideast, Africa, Eastern Mediterranean and Caucasus widened the trust deficit.

Nevertheless, Turkey and Saudi Arabia managed to find consensus on Syria where they backed opposition forces. In March 2015, Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan supported the Saudi-led mission in Yemen and slammed Iran for trying to dominate the region by following a sectarian agenda and backing Houthi rebels, demanding Tehran to withdraw forces from Yemen, Syria and Iraq.

There are speculations Ankara still can intervene in Sana’a over requests to jump into the fray from Al-Islah Party, the Yemeni affiliate of Brotherhood that ostensibly played an important role to cool tensions between Saudi Arabia and Turkey and whose cooperation in the conflict Abu Dhabi has long opposed.

In December 2017, Ankara-Abu Dhabi ties plunged to a new low after Erdogan, without naming UAE foreign minister, chided him as an “impudent” nouveau riche after he shared a tweet, denunciating Ottoman leader Fakhreddin Pasha of stealing money and manuscripts from Medina in 1916. In turn, Abu Dhabi stressed the Arab world “will not be led by Tehran or Ankara.”

Egypt, UAE and Turkey have been at odds on multiple fronts in Mideast and Horn of Africa. Last year, bickering turned into fierce diplomatic spat once Abu Dhabi indicted Ankara for interference in Libya and Turkey claimed UAE was assisting al-Shabab militants in Somalia, bringing “chaos” through intervention in Tripoli and Sana’a and alongside Egypt, “trying to destabilize the whole region.”

Erdogan, who threatened to suspend diplomatic relations with the Emirates on normalizing relations with Israel, himself seems to toe the UAE line as he recently agreed to minimize “differences of opinion” with Tel Aviv in a phone talk with his Israeli counterpart Isaac Herzog and emphasized a “mutually beneficial” relationship.

America's consistent deprioritization, reduced engagement and phased pullback from the greater Middle East that started under Obama, adopted by Trump and is being followed by Biden to shift focus on a theater of strategic importance, Asia-Pacific, propelled countries for a wider regional rapprochement.

Qatar blockade by the Arab quartet (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE and Egypt), demanding Doha downgrade diplomatic ties with Tehran and close a Turkish military base on Qatari soil, was withdrawn and diplomatic relations were restored in January. After lifting the embargo, Abu Dhabi said it didn’t “cherish any feuds” and expressed willingness to bury the hatchet with Ankara.

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu gave an affirmative response, adding first contacts between Ankara and Cairo had been restored since two regional powers sparred and broke off in 2013. Tensions eased between Egypt and Turkey once Turkish government forbade three Brotherhood-linked TV channels in the country from airing criticism against Cairo.

In a glaring move, Erdogan bypassed diplomatic protocol and personally received UAE National Security Advisor Tahnoun bin Zayedon August 18. The “historical and positive” meeting, focused on cooperation and economic partnership, was a carpe diem moment for Ankara that helped an increasingly isolated Turkey to recalibrate relations with the Emirates, Egypt and Saudi Arabia and launch a charm offensive to curry favor with Abu Dhabi for “serious” investments.

A rare phone call between Erdogan UAE de facto ruler Mohammed bin Zayed on August 31 further opened up the way for new wider regional reconciliation. Abu Dhabi profited from détente too since it has been seeking to shore up Middle East collaboration under Washington’s steady withdrawal from region.

The cost of bitter Turkey-UAE rivalry – which fueled conflict in Libya, tested their relations on Brotherhood and their allies in Syria and Tunisia and pushed to vie for influence in Somalia – is particularly high for Ankara where stubbornly high inflation has reached 19% and central bank is forced to sell $128 billion forex reserves to support the free-falling lira.

Establishment of a $10 billion fund by UAE in Turkey and cooperation agreements between two countries would shift trend from conflicts to economic issues. The pivot to economy and possible swap deals should support lira, shed 45% this year, and set tone for other countries to follow and contribute to region’s stability and growth.

UAE has been trying to cap rivalries with both Turkey and Iran as the Gulf state hones in on a post-pandemic economy after America's retreat from Afghanistan “definitely” provided a “very worrying test” about the opaque US commitment and described Washington’s snotty attitude to abandon allies and leave a “vacuum” in the region for trouble.

After Abu Dhabi said it would take steps to de-escalate tensions with Tehran, bilateral rifts took a backseat during Iranian officials’ visit to UAE as two sides agreed to work for regional stability and prosperity. In a latest diplomatic overture, UAE top diplomat reached Damascus and threw trust behind Syrian strongman, Bashar al-Assad.

Meanwhile, Erdogan is keen to enhance ties with Saudi Arabia and make use of the “close cooperation” for regional peace, stability and prosperity. Albeit expressing strong reservations about resumption of talks on the Iran nuclear deal, Riyadh intends to continue negotiations with Tehran.

Washington’s allies in Arabian Peninsula have voiced their “angst” to the Biden administration on US declining commitment to the region. US president’s snub to greater Middle East at the “Summit for Democracy” further establishes his lagging interest in the Middle East and would accelerate this novel, localized framework of cooperation and broader regional rapprochement.

*This is one of my opinion pieces (unedited) that first appeared in "The Express Tribune":

https://tribune.com.pk/story/2333721/shifting-tides-in-the-middle-east

Biden needs to focus on reforming US political system

By: Azhar Azam

A report from the University of Cambridge which covered 154 countries and combined more than 25 data sources, 3,500 country surveys and four million respondents between 1973 and 2020, wreaked blunt force trauma to advanced economies that championed democracy as a definitive solution to every economic, political and social problem.

The largest dataset ever created on global attitudes found democracy was in a "state of malaise" as the share of individuals "dissatisfied" with democracy had significantly jumped from 47.9 percent in mid-1990s to 57.5 percent in Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia and Americas. The citizens of many large democracies including Australia, the UK and the U.S. showed their "highest-ever" level for displeasure on the so-called egalitarian politics.

Ahead of the virtual "Summit for Democracy" on December 9 and 10, "very few" believed American democracy was a good model for the rest of the world to follow. After the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer, Americans and the international community suspected that the Western form of democracy set a fair example and considered that racial or ethnic discrimination was worse in the U.S. than in other parts of the world.

Unsurprisingly, the U.S. is now described as a "backsliding" democracy and "victim of authoritarian tendencies" over significant weakening of checks on the government and civil liberties. Several factors such as a disputed presidential election, the passage of restrictive voting laws and the January 6 invasion of the Capitol in Washington have exposed serious deficiencies in the U.S. democratic system and questioned Joe Biden's legitimacy to host a debate on democracy.

It is no wonder that owing to political divisions in the country, the Western political model is steadily losing its luster within and outside America. The U.S. president's campaign for democracy, therefore, sounds more about salvaging Americans' deteriorating faith in the U.S. political system than countering the "autocracies" elsewhere.

Since 1981, the country's government has shut down 14 times as two major rival political parties continue to fight tooth and nail over funding of hundreds of federal agencies.

Nevertheless, there have been a number of instances when U.S. politicians, after being gridlocked in bitter partisanship, came up with a bipartisan consensus to protect their duopoly in an "irrational and dysfunctional" political structure, according to the magazine, Harvard Business Review. This was what happened last month after the Democrats and Republicans acted in concert to pass a $1 trillion infrastructure bill.

The oligarchic political arrangement in the U.S. comprising four traditions – characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism – has been controlled by the powerful business organizations, revealing America is a democratic republic in name only.

The rising influence of economic elites and organized groups, a leading driver of polarization, denies average citizens' role in policymaking and uses the system to entrench wealth by seeking tax breaks and blocking redistributive policies. If some challenge big corporations' interests, they will lose the latter's support in the election. With congressmen being the agents of the major businesses, Americans shouldn't expect their representatives to deliver results to them.

Since the concept of a "coalition of democracies" was floated last November, global leaders cast doubts about the success of the "cold war-style" alliance against China. Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was one of those who sharply dismissed Biden's idea, emphasizing that not many countries would be interested in this kind of approach.

The five-term prime minister of Singapore called Donald Trump's era a "tumultuous ride" and perceived his "America First" and "Make America Great Again" as a "narrow definition" of the U.S.' historical interests overseas. As a result of the U.S. "judgment," the city state as well as Thailand and Vietnam in Southeast Asia were not invited to the event, which could go on to complicate the U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy in next few months.

At a time when the world is embattled with so many challenges and sorely needs global cooperation on economy and health, observers are highlighting the voting rights controversy, the U.S. president's struggle to manage election-related chaos and Americans' distrust in domestic democratic institutions. Biden's highfalutin framing of the summit to position the U.S. as the global democratic leader and his misguided focus on ideological differences cannot satisfy his nation; it would further divide the international world and undermine universal cooperation.

The summit is taking a back seat in Europe, where regional countries are holding the citizen-led Conference on the Future of Europe from December 10 to 12 on a wider range of topics including climate change, health, economy, jobs and digital transformation. While critics in South Asia are seeking the U.S. to fix its democratic deficits before preaching democratic values, some Latin American leaders are excluded from the meeting over the region's strong economic ties with China.

Biden should not define geopolitics as a clash between "autocracy and democracy" to divide the world through an ideological approach over fear of China's growing economic power. China has its own democratic model, which, unlike the U.S., allows people to actively participate in the development of the country. As Chinese pragmatic and goal-oriented policy emphasizes on cooperation between civilizations, Biden won't be able to construct a coalition against China and will have to reform the U.S. political system to make it favorable for Americans.

*This is my opinion piece that originally appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)":

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-12-11/Biden-s-needs-to-focus-on-reforming-U-S-political-system-15SDTLoLhhS/index.html

ASEAN summit injects new impetus into Malaysia's economic, strategic ambitions

By: Azhar Azam

Malaysia is the second-largest exporter of goods in ASEAN, with the exports accounting for over 60 percent of its GDP. In 2020, China was Malaysia's largest export destination as it got 16.2 percent of the country's total exports worth $37.7 billion. In the same year, China was also its biggest source of foreign direct investment for manufacturing, services and primary sectors, which totaled $4.3 billion.

Beholden to China for its COVID-19 support, particularly vaccine donations, Malaysia wanted to see a deepened cooperation between ASEAN and Beijing on post-pandemic recovery; public health and pharma capabilities to better prepare for future health emergencies; and digital economy, given its accelerated growth during the prevalent infections worldwide.

In return, China showed optimism for the two countries, fast-tracking post-pandemic economic growth by scaling up trade and investment to new heights. Beijing is willing to share its development experience and enhance cooperation in potential areas, such as the digital economy, industrial parks, infrastructure construction, equipment manufacturing, information and communications technology, and cyber security.

Peace and stability is Malaysia's top priority to advance regional development. This was reflected in the speech by Malaysian President Ismail Sabri Yaakob at the ASEAN-China Special Summit when he expressed alarm at the U.S.'s regional approach. He reiterated that the two sides were fully aware of the need for peace to attain economic growth.

Most of his views were consistent with Beijing as he urged China and ASEAN to work together on a multilateral world order for "sustainable and peaceful coexistence" while commemorating the 30th anniversary of the ASEAN-China Dialogue Relations. He backed China's call and urged developed nations to meet their promise to developing countries of fighting climate change by providing finance, transferring technology and building capacity.

According to the Malaysian president, Kuala Lumpur aspired to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and lauded commitments made by China at the COP26 in Glasgow, seeking to maintain balance between climate change and socioeconomic development. Climate change is threatening to undo the last 50 years' progress in development, global health and poverty reduction mostly in the developing states with weak health infrastructure. It is, therefore, crucial to join forces on a shared challenge and prevent it from plundering the hard-won gains.

Declaring that it has realized the first centenary goal of building a moderately prosperous society in all aspects, China not only contributed to 70 percent of global poverty reduction, according to World Bank data, but the world's most populous and developing country's average annual contribution of more than 30 percent to world GDP also helped safeguard international peace and development.

The Chinese authorities understood the importance of the climate crisis long before and took measures to counter the imminent threat. Over the past two decades, China has added one-fourth of the world's new vegetation areas. On top of that, China's energy consumption per unit of carbon dioxide emissions also witnessed a drop of 18.8 percent between 2015 and 2020.

Since development imperatives of China and Malaysia are highly compatible and the latter aims to benefit from its participation in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, the two sides have the opportunity to close ranks, integrate their economies and strengthen bilateral trade and investment relationship in the coming years.

In his address, Chinese President Xi Jinping committed to providing $1.5 billion, in addition to delivering 150 million COVID-19 vaccines and transfer advanced technology, to ASEAN nations to bolster their pandemic control and economic revival efforts. The economic and health support will boost Malaysia and other ASEAN nations' inoculation campaigns and economic prospects.

Moreover, the Malaysian president's digital economy push got an immediate boost after Huawei on Tuesday launched its newly refurbished and upgraded Customer Solution Innovation Center to assist Malaysia to become a regional digital hub.

Against the claim that the South China Sea would be one of the thorniest issues between China and ASEAN, Malaysia adhered to Xi's call for practicing "true multilateralism," agreeing to peacefully resolve all territorial and jurisdictional disputes and exercise "self-restraint," something Sabri referred to earlier. The intent to hold friendly consultations and forge an environment conducive for negotiations on the Code of Conduct in the strategic waterways would open the way for a durable peace and stability amid the U.S.'s malign activities to destabilize the region.

*This is my opinion piece that originally appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)":

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-11-25/ASEAN-summit-injects-new-impetus-into-Malaysia-s-economic-ambitions-15ttRdSu8hO/index.html

Reciprocal Sino-US cooperation shouldn't be hesitate

By: Azhar Azam

Notwithstanding that there were no breakthroughs and Chinese President Xi Jinping and U.S. President Joe Biden didn't cobble together a joint statement, the U.S. media admitted the "tone of the relationship" had significantly improved. Some prior and subsequent events also suggested the relations were slowly thawing between the two world powers, Beijing and Washington.

A joint China-U.S. declaration at the 26th United Nations Conference of Parties on Climate Change (COP26) in Glasgow where the presidential envoys of both countries, responsible for about 40 percent of the world carbon output, agreed on enhancing climate action and signed an agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions surprised everyone. They also intend to establish a working group, which could include technical exchanges and identification of areas of mutual interest, to meet regularly through the decade.

Then ahead of the highly-anticipated talks, China and the U.S. agreed to ease travel and visa restrictions on journalists, allowing them to enter and leave both countries more freely. In February last year, Washington had classified five Chinese media organizations as "foreign mission" to exercise tighter control over Chinese media.

Biden characterized the virtual meeting in positive terms, said the two leaders had "a lot to follow up on" and announced setting up four working groups, revealing there will be more to report in the next two weeks. He didn't provide specific details. However, it was important that sense was finally prevailing in the White House to ameliorate, stabilize and set the direction of perhaps the crucial bilateral relationship in the world.

Understanding any conflict between the two major economies would be a powder keg for their economies, and China won't budge on issues of its national interest, the U.S. president sought "straightforward competition" with Beijing. As Biden's aides contended with ending the U.S. engagement policy toward China for "a stable, peaceful competition," the approach stoked concerns about stopping the trade war and scaling back tariffs that have caused supply chain disruptions and are hurting businesses on both sides.

"Build Back Better" is Biden's economic metaphor through which he disengages himself from his predecessor's "America First" policy. As he explores areas of cooperation with Beijing, he should extinguish the heat of tariffs from China-U.S. trade ties.

American companies importing products from China expected Biden to roll back former U.S. President Donald Trump's trade wars as they were jaded with the latter's policies and voted for a moderate and pro-business presidential candidate last year. But 10 months into the White House, $350 billion of taxes are still in place and continue to impact the life of ordinary Americans.

Lowering or eliminating levies on China could ease inflationary pressures on American families, farmers and businesses as well as create 145,000 jobs by 2025, with "significant decoupling" threatening the U.S. GDP to reduce by $1.6 trillion over the next five years. The fact that tariffs tend to boost prices and raise costs was acknowledged by the U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen in a recent interview.

The Biden-Xi virtual meeting was held at an extraordinary time when international growth is returning yet faces near-term risks with a spike in global inflation. The "Bidenflation," following the Labor Department's announcement the prices rose by 6.2 percent in 12 months to historic highs in almost 31 years, really hurt the U.S. companies and people.

Undoubtedly the supply chain problem is a global phenomenon; idiotic trade policies and practices of the administrations have badly exposed the vulnerability of the inefficient U.S. logistics system. In the middle of the international shipping crunch, the U.S. imposed 221 percent additional duties on the biggest chassis manufacturer, China Intermodal Marine Container, and exacerbated domestic companies' supply chain woes and the inflationary pressures.

Many voices have called for defusing tensions between Beijing and Washington in the past.

Warning Trump his efforts to treat China as an enemy and decouple it from the global economy would undermine America's international role and reputation - several veteran experts in 2019 blamed the U.S. actions for contributing to the downward spiral in the relationship. They believed China shouldn't be considered an economic adversary or existential national security threat, and its economic expansion was irresistible despite Washington's opposition.

The importance of a thaw in the bilateral ties and cooperation is being realized in the U.S. for the now and future generations, protecting the country's strategic interests and seeing Beijing's vitality in climate change, transition to clean energy, green technologies, scientific research and public health. In the recent past, unwarranted U.S. restrictions have interrupted academic, journalistic, people-to-people and business exchanges across the two nations.

Washington should comprehend great economic strength comes with a great responsibility. Over the years, America has shirked from this fundamental duty that would have calmed tensions and pushed bilateral and international trade and economic growth. A message to maintain sustained, warm ties from Chinese and U.S. leaders will give them a signal to resume connections and collaborate for mutual growth.

The White House is promoting Biden's idea to establish "guardrails" to prevent an accidental clash and responsibly manage the competition. Fear of a political backlash may make it hard for the U.S. president to effectively focus on repairing the overall China-U.S. relationship, but broad and frank talks for expanding the cooperation between China and the U.S., two economies accounting for 40 percent of the world economy, shouldn't be allowed to linger on for a long time.

*This is my opinion piece that originally appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)":

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-11-21/Reciprocal-Sino-U-S-cooperation-shouldn-t-be-hesitate-15ld41vbjMs/index.html

In Bosnia and Kosovo, US-Nato can better their global image

By: Azhar Azam

In October 1990, the CIA produced a national intelligence estimate titled Yugoslavia Transformed. It prophesied the country will cease to function as a federal state within one year and dissolve into two. The assessment expected a protracted armed uprising by Albanians in Kosovo and ruled out a full scale, inter-republic war but warned serious inter-conflict will accompany the breakup. “The violence will be intractable and bitter.”

Over the next four years, the United States gave a chilly response to the Bosnian war, believing it was Europe's ballgame and the Europeans should handle the problem on their own. The US President Bill Clinton in 1995 suddenly changed gear and decided to assert America’s leadership to end the war in the Western Balkans.

Washington-brokered Dayton Peace agreement ended more than three year Bosnian war by establishing a bicameral legislature in the two administrative units, the Serb-majority Republika Srpska and the Bosniak-Croat-dominated Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). While the accord has been criticized for entrenching ethnic divisions that spurred the past conflicts, it gave state-level veto powers to the Serb entity, which frequently exploited the authority to block legislation for more than 25 years.

The treaty didn’t resolve the status or even made no mention of Kosovo, mainly a Muslim-majority territory that Serbia considers its province. Kosovar Albanians in 1998 launched rebellion against Serbian rule. Citing actions and policies of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) with respect to Kosovo a threat to America’s national security and progress in BiH, the US President Bill Clinton proclaimed national emergency on 09-June-1998.

In March 2019, the NATO opened a broad barrage against Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic’s brutal repression and offensives against Albanian villages and rebels of the Kosovo Liberation Army. During the air campaign (between March and late June), at least 10,000 people were killed by the Serbian forces in Kosovo and about 90% of the population was forcibly displaced from their homes.

The Serbian forces systematic campaign to ethnically cleanse Kosovo included looting of homes and businesses, widespread burning of houses, use of Kosovar Albanians as human shield, detention, summary executions, exhumation of mass graves, rapes, violation of medical neutrality, identity cleansing, torture, sexually assault, imprisonment in inhumane camps, persecution and psychologically abuse.

America’s role in Dayton was “first disinterested, then disinterested and finally decisive.” The international community, which “stumbled and fumbled” for years, finally agreed on a solution that wasn’t much different from previously discussed and negotiated plans. It didn’t aggressively move forward on the Kosovo issue either.

Pristina declared independence in 2008 and is recognized by nearly 100 countries including the US, which remains the largest contingent with 635 troops in the Western Balkans. Deployed mostly at a sprawling military base, Camp Bondsteel, in central Kosovo, they are known as “forgotten battalion” over America’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. NATO has no plans of military drawdown to ensure a safe and secure environment in Kosovo; it isn’t a long-term solution of the conflict.

The Western Balkans – comprising the “enlargement countries” Albania, BiH, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia and Kosovo for their perspective to accede to the European Union (EU) – is expected to see faster economic growth (5.9%) in 2021 following last year’s 3.1% contraction. This rebound came on the back of falling infection rate, loosened mobility restrictions, increased domestic consumption and tourist arrivals as well as from positive spillover effects from Europe’s strengthened external demand in advanced economies.

Yet economic recovery is fragile as poverty rate in the region, notwithstanding 1% decline, would remain at 20.3% with surging unemployment through the first half of 2021. As the region's optimistic outlook is marred by risks over inflationary pressures, separatist-Serbs threat to create their own army endangers regional economic rejuvenation and Dayton other than exposing Sarajevo to the dangers of fragmentation and return of conflict.

If BiH is pushed towards disintegration, it will adversely affect the Kosovo and the EU enlargement policy that is in deep crisis; nevertheless pledges to make strategic investment in peace, stability, security and economic growth across the European continent through the €30 billion Economic and Investment Plan for the Union’s “inner courtyard.”

Amid growing tensions in the two subnational Bosnian territories, the US President Joe Biden is sending his diplomats envoys to the Western Balkans to resolve the issue of BiH. Donald Trump comes to the fore as he deploys his “Envoy Ambassador” to defuse Belgrade-Pristina border tensions over Kosovar anti-smuggling operation.

These peace-promoting efforts should be supported by the international community, especially the EU, to prevent genocide such as the 1995 Srebrenica massacre of 8,000 Muslims by Serbs and promote peace for region’s sustainable economic growth. More importantly, it provides the US and NATO an opportunity to ameliorate their image as a peace-builder after devastating wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

*This is one of my opinion pieces (unedited) that first appeared in "The Express Tribune":

https://tribune.com.pk/story/2329891/in-bosnia-and-kosovo-us-nato-can-better-their-global-image

Beijing and Jakarta to protect regional peace and economic growth

By: Azhar Azam

Pursuing a friendly policy toward China and supporting the Chinese people-centered vision of a shared future and mutual growth, Indonesia is committed to safeguarding regional peace, strengthening vaccine research, participating in regional cooperation programs such as Belt and Road Initiative and addressing climate change along with Beijing.

Dismayed by the rational and pragmatic Indonesian approach, Washington is still courting the biggest Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) economy in the hope that it will take a harder stance against Beijing, particularly on the South China Sea. While it's a "tough sell" to wrest Indonesia from China given China's huge investments and vaccine cooperation, close economic and strategic relationships between the two countries almost eliminates the likelihood of any confrontation.

In 2020, Jakarta's exports to Beijing rose 10.1 percent to $37.4 billion. Considering Indonesia's trade deficit with China, Beijing in January pledged to import more Indonesian products, after which Chinese imports from Jakarta in the first nine months of 2021 surpassed its exports to the Southeast Asian state. In addition, several big Chinese companies have promised to invest in new energy, which would elevate Indonesia's contribution to the global electric car industry.

Last year, then U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo broke sweat to drive a wedge between China and Indonesia by highlighting the Uygur issue and Beijing's "unlawful" claims during his trip to Jakarta. But his attempt backfired since many influential Indonesians viewed him with skepticism, believing escalation was not in the interests of either country.

During his meeting with U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan recently, Indonesia's Coordinator for Cooperation with China and Coordinating Minister of Maritimes Affairs and Investment Luhut Binsar Pandjaitan declined to sever ties with his country's biggest investor and key trading partner, China. Chinese investments were helping Indonesia "to survive," he told Sullivan, "Why don't you come too?"

Distinct from a historically wobbly Washington approach towards Jakarta, China and Indonesia have deepened their economic cooperation to the provincial level. A number of provinces in the archipelago seek to take advantage of Chinese technological growth and enormous domestic demand.

Bengkulu, Central Sulawesi, West Kalimantan and Riau Islands are a few of the many Indonesian provinces that have completed or signed deals to construct power plants with Chinese assistance in terms of agriculture technology, which could help them develop special economic zones and increase their commodity exports to China. Another province, West Java, has even established sister ties with China's Chongqing Municipality and Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region as well as Henan, Heilongjiang and Sichuan provinces to expand cooperation on agriculture, culture, tourism and manufacturing industries.

After Indonesia scrambled to find medical gear amid the raging coronavirus pandemic in early 2020, it found China willing to provide the critical supplies. In December, Jakarta received the first batch of Chinese vaccines – a humanistic gesture for which Indonesian President Joko Widodo showed gratitude in a televised address. He later took his second jab of the Sinovac vaccine at the presidential palace in a live broadcast event.

On August 31, Indonesia administered its 100 millionth vaccine jab and became the seventh country to reach this milestone. China's Sinovac played a vital role for Jakarta to achieve this feat, as more than 90 percent of the country's vaccine doses arrived from Beijing. The Western media is trying to cast doubts on the efficacy of Chinese vaccines yet the Indonesian authorities have quashed their qualms by approving Sinovac for children aged 6-11 years.

The inclusive relationship between the two sides is evolving into military cooperation. In May, the Chinese and Indonesian navies jointly conducted a naval drill – focused on communication, search, rescue operations and maneuver formation – in the waters near Jakarta to improve coordination during emergencies at sea. Previously, the Chinese navy had deployed its fleet in the waters north of Bali to help Indonesia lift the debris of its sunken submarine.

Joko Widodo called Chinese President Xi Jinping a "good friend and brother" of Indonesia and expressed a desire to work with China under the framework of the BRI. The two countries earlier signed "Two Countries Twin Parks," an initiative to synergize the BRI and Indonesia's Vision for the Global Maritime Fulcrum.

Some assert Jakarta owes a "hidden debt" to Beijing over infrastructure projects including the BRI-linked Jakarta-Bandung High Speed Railway. The Indonesian officials are however sure that collaboration with China "will bring a substantial impact" to the country and hope more Chinese companies will play a greater role to further the BRI cooperation.

All these developments manifest that the economic and strategic relationships between China and Indonesia is consolidating and getting stronger. The U.S.-led AUKUS, which alarms ASEAN and draws Indonesia's "deep concerns over the continuing arms race and power projection in the region," nevertheless is a peril to regional peace and prosperity, and should unite all the Southeast Asian states to defend their economic growth that could be endangered by America's destabilizing activities.

*This is my opinion piece that originally appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)":

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-11-09/Beijing-and-Jakarta-to-protect-regional-peace-and-economic-growth-152PCyv7Pjy/index.html

Crisis situation in Afghanistan can escalate and complicate global security

Azhar Azam

Afghanistan faces an uncertain future after the government in its mid-year budget review made a downward revision of revenue targets and cut appropriations for development expenditures. Sharp reductions in international aid are now driving a collapse in basic health and education services, with the sudden loss of public sector activity representing a stark economic and development outlook of the country.

While a widening balance of payment and very large trade deficit (28 percent) is threatening to push 10 million additional people below the poverty line, the UN report paints a grim humanitarian picture of Afghanistan, warning one in two Afghans can face high levels of food insecurity in the winter season.

The devastating drought, affecting 25 of 34 Afghan provinces, and increased conflict, driving more than 664,000 people out of their homes, triggered this acute food crisis. Nevertheless, the freezing of $9.5 billion in national assets compounded the situation as a moribund economy led to disruption of the banking system, and devaluation caused high unemployment and soaring food prices.

After the Taliban captured Kabul, the US froze Afghanistan's foreign assets and stopped shipments of cash to the already suffering nation, exposing the cash-strapped population to dire humanitarian and development challenges. Washington's action threatens the Afghan economy, 43 percent of which is reliant on foreign aid, and 97 percent of people are at the risk of sinking below the poverty line.

In the UN-hosted September's conference in Geneva, donors pledged more than $1 billion in humanitarian aid, including $200 million for the World Food Program, only after the agency said 14 million Afghans were on the brink of starvation. As 93 percent don't have enough to eat, the US antipathy toward the Taliban shouldn't hold it back in helping Afghans stave off the appalling food scarcity and economic meltdown.

Washington's humanitarian aid for Kabul ($474 million) is less than two-day of America's war expenditure in Afghanistan that averaged $300 million a day in the last 20 years. On top of this, the US has been reluctant to provide economic assistance or at least release Afghans' money to bolster their fight against hunger and support the country's long-term development.

The G20 in a special summit later agreed to combine efforts with the Taliban to laser-focus the looming humanitarian crisis emanating from Afghanistan's economic collapse. But unless sanctions on Kabul are lifted, and its billions of dollars remain confiscated by Washington, any attempts to circumvent the humanitarian disaster won't succeed.

In a bid to avoid recurrence of the 2015 migration crisis, when over one million asylum seekers, including from Afghanistan, gathered around the European Union external borders, Brussels announced a humanitarian package of 1 billion euros for Afghanistan. Yet the bloc shelved Afghan development assistance of 1 billion euros that could have helped alleviate poverty, create jobs and stimulate the economy.

The Western governments don't want the Taliban to fail over self-centered interests such as risks of a mass exodus of Afghan refugees, terror threats and narcotics trade. After all, they have now formed a government in Kabul and are administering a chaotic country and institutions with banks running out of money, unpaid civil servants and surging food prices.

As such a scenario would undermine the so-called US "enduring" counterterrorism efforts, let alone its support for human rights of all Afghans, including women and minorities, therefore it is important for the West to quickly realize the fact and find a working relationship with the Taliban before the situation spirals out of control.

The UN has also been calling for the release of Afghan foreign assets to undo a "severe economic downturn" that could set Kabul back for generations and push millions more Afghans into poverty and hunger. Stressing the Taliban should be given an opportunity to "do things differently," it says humanitarian support, though saves lives, won't balance out the threat of the country's economic collapse, and there is a need to make the economy "breathe" again.

Washington shouldn't make the drought-hit nation pay for its failures in the Afghan war or just because the US military wasn't winning the battle and had been losing ground to the Taliban every year. Hunger is crucifying millions of Afghans. At this "make or break moment" when the IMF predicts the economy to shrink by 30 percent, the US continues to snub demands of the people of Afghanistan to release their frozen reserves just to keep leverage on the government in Kabul.

The US pursues to assert restrictions on the Taliban while continuing humanitarian aid for the Afghan population, expecting the move won't harm them. But the gamble could fire back and fuel hatred for America among vulnerable Afghans who are being rounded up by the tumbling economy and battle for supremacy between Kabul and Washington. Since countries with food shortages are more likely to experience terrorism, the simmering situation could boil up into full-blown violence that would prompt intense security implications for Afghanistan and the entire world.

*This is one of my opinion pieces that first appeared in "China Daily":
https://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202110/31/WS617e5954a310cdd39bc72609.html

US warnings cannot impinge on the China-LAC relationship

By: Azhar Azam

In 2008, Chinese demand drove a commodity supercycle in Latin America, helping the region withstand the global financial crisis. International trade in 2020 collapsed due to the pandemic, yet the resilient trade with China provided a key source of external growth to Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) as their bilateral trade grew 26-fold from $12 billion to $315 billion between 2000 and 2020 with a forecast to more than double to $700 billion by 2035.

A much-needed impetus in 2020 to the region, which accounts for 30 percent of global COVID-19 mortality and witnessed 7.4 percent of GDP contraction last year, came from Beijing, which rallied around LAC to support its efforts to outride the storm and fast-track economic recovery through Chinese imports of beef, copper, oil and a number of other products from several South American states such as Brazil, Chili, Colombia and Uruguay.

The bracing China-LAC trade relationship, Beijing's investments to develop regional infrastructure and successive Chinese leaders' visits and signings of partnership agreements have alarmed U.S. policymakers about China's growing engagement in America's backyard. Passing over opportunities that the Chinese economy presents, the panic-stricken U.S. officials claimed that diplomatic overtures underpin Beijing's economic activities, and assist it to institutionalize cooperation and garner support in international fora.

China, the most important market for South America and second-biggest market for LAC overall, is crucial to reverse the trend of the region's economic downturn. As investments are likely to rebound in 2021, Beijing's offer of $1 billion in loans for vaccine purchases would give vaccine shots to a population where 37 percent of the people are inoculated. Argentina is also actively pursuing to expedite talks with China for implementation of an ambitious $30 billion investment program encompassing 15 infrastructure, energy and transport projects.

Nearly half of the countries in LAC, including three of the four largest regional economies, have seen China as their biggest trading partner. Through an estimated $140 billion investment, including $8 billion in six Caribbean states, Chinese companies have built dams, roads, railways, bridges, ports and telecommunication networks. Latin America's prominence for China was evidenced by Chinese President Xi Jinping's 11 visits to the region since assuming power in 2012.

The U.S. Southern Command's 2021 posture statement asserted China was gaining global influence and leverage across all its domains: cyber, space, extractive and energy industries, transportation hubs, roads, infrastructure, telecommunications, legal and illegal fishing, agriculture and military training. It bizarrely linked Beijing's donation of security supplies and equipment, health cooperation and the Belt and Road Initiative with winning the favor of regional security forces, pursuing "medical diplomacy," indebting the fragile economies and impinging on the U.S. allies' sovereignty.

Clearly, Washington is petrified by Beijing's burgeoning relationship with the LAC governments, 19 of whom have attached themselves with the transcontinental connectivity and infrastructure project. In 2019, China dethroned the U.S. to become the leading trade partner of Brazil, Chili, Peru and Uruguay. The close China-LAC affinity has pressed American officials to propagate a false narrative, but the regional nations rejected such U.S. warnings, saying there are no indications Beijing is creating a "military sphere of influence" and its primary interests are largely economic and diplomatic.

The so-called world superpower shouldn't coerce the region to make scratchy choices for execution of its malign geopolitical ambitions against China. Some LAC states have already lost their robust economic momentum due to the COVID-19 variants. As Nigel Chalk, acting director of the International Monetary Fund's Western Hemisphere Department, has stated, the trends of uncertain productivity with damage to human capital over "persistent unemployment, increasing informality and school closures" could take many years to reverse, so Washington needs to try not obstructing LAC economic revival.

Even though the U.S. has been a dominant power in Latin America, China is a reliable diplomatic and trade partner of the region. Washington must not bully regional nations just because most of them want to take advantage of Chinese growth or have switched recognition from China's Taiwan region to the Chinese mainland while others are signaling to make a sovereign and fair foreign policy judgment.

China never intended to politically intervene or influence the regional governments over their bilateral relations with other countries. The U.S., however, has been seeing LAC as a source of problems and ratcheting up warnings, cloaked with intimidation about the alleged region's dependence on China.

The U.S. arrogance was reflected when Secretary of States Anthony Blinken in October took a trip to Ecuador, giving an ominous warning to the region that working with Beijing could bring risks in "narrowly defined areas" albeit claiming no country would be forced to choose between China and the U.S. In September, U.S. President Joe Biden sent a diplomatic team on the first "listening tour" to South America in a bid to trumpet his Build Back Better World as a credible international initiative, though Margaret Myers, a China-Latin American expert at the Inter-American Dialogue, commented that "it's very hard to compete with China at this juncture."

Other than that, Blinken mostly wasted his visit criticizing leaders of other regional states, such as Venezuelan President's Nicolas Maduro's "deeply unfortunate" actions, discussing mass migration across the Americas, demanding accountability on human rights abuses, calling for preservation of democracy and boasting the U.S. vaccine donations without making any real investment commitments, something the regional countries need the most. Reaching Washington, he railed against Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega for trying to establish "authoritarian dynasty."

Notwithstanding Washington's animosity toward Beijing, diplomatic and trade ties between China and Latin America – particularly South America, thanks to pent-up historic Chinese demand – even during the pandemic blossomed. The relationship would further strengthen as after a decade of China-CELAC (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States) cooperation – China is now considered as a natural partner of the bloc that has a history of supporting the regional countries at trying times, and was the only country where LAC exports registered an increase in 2020 by 2 percent against an overall drop of 13 percent.

*This is my opinion piece that originally appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)":
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-10-24/U-S-warnings-cannot-impinge-on-the-China-LAC-relationship-14Cwin3jPck/index.html

Deepening Algeria-Morocco rivalry and US role

By: Azhar Azam

Algeria and Morocco have a long history of a jittery political relationship especially over Western Sahara, an area claimed by both Algiers-backed Polisario Front and Rabat. The dormant violence erupted in the region last year after Morocco launched attack into the UN-patrolled demilitarized zone, forcing the pro-independence group to end the 1991 truce and resume an armed struggle in the desert territory.

The US recognition of Moroccan sovereignty on Western Sahara in December 2020 and plan to forge ahead on a $1 billion of arms deal against Morocco mending its ties with Israel under the Abraham Accords deepened rifts and exasperated Algeria that viewed the move targeted stability of the country. The Polisario also strongly reacted to a “flagrant violation of the UN Charter” and said the political gambit won’t help to find a peaceful solution to the conflict.

Even as the border between the Maghreb states was closed since 1994, diplomatic channels continued to operate since they were restored in 1988 over another dispute. With an unchanged US position and no signs from the Biden administration to roll back the decision of accepting Morocco’s jurisdiction on the former Spanish colony, tensions spiraled once Algiers in August accused Rabat for using Israel’s Pegasus spyware against Algerian officials and broke off diplomatic relations with Rabat.

Contending Kabylie separatist MAK group was getting support from “Morocco and the Zionist entity,” Algiers further tightened the screws on Rabat and restricted access of the Moroccan flights to its airspace, indicating not to extend the Maghreb-Europe Gas (MEG) pipeline. The stringent measure, if implemented, would deprive Morocco of 7% of the gas transported to the Spanish and Portuguese markets through the country.

Morocco is a key market for France with an added importance to serve as a linchpin to establish the French economic, political and cultural influence in the postcolonial African states. Unless Paris (and Washington) scale back their diplomatic protection for Rabat at the UN Security Council, peace in the region would hang by thread for many more years.

Spain’s economic interests in Morocco, alongside strong support for the Sahrawi independence movement in the Spanish public, has pressed it to stay neutral in the standoff. However, after Madrid allowed Polisario leader Brahim Ghali admit in a Spanish hospital in Ceuta over humanitarian reasons, Rabat labeling of the permission as a “reckless and totally unacceptable act” blew the whistle for the relationship. Morocco has territorial claims over Ceuta and another Spanish enclave, Melilla.

But Washington’s ambiguous stance is the major source threatening to escalate tensions as the conflict could spill over across the Sahara-Sahel region. Warning about destabilization of the entire North Africa, the Polisario is sticking to its decision to call off the 1991 ceasefire and fight across the 2,700-km long Berm wall if the international community to deliver on its unfulfilled promise of self-determination for the Sahrawi people.

The US President Joe Biden may judge it politically difficult to undo Donald Trump’s violation of international law and UN Security Council Resolutions but he cannot remain a silent specter. Washington’s belief “an independent Sahrawi State is not a realistic option” shouldn’t be an excuse for settling dispute since its recognition doesn’t affect position of the UN, EU and dozens of other countries, which recognize Polisario-proclaimed Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) as an independent state although some have withdrawn their recognition and the Republic remains a full member of the African Union.

Last month, the Luxembourg-based EU top court determined the Polisario was “recognized internationally as a representative of the people of Western Sahara" and the territory wasn’t part of Morocco. The far-reaching verdict, establishing desert waters weren’t part of the EU-Morocco agreement and repealing bloc’s agricultural and fishing agreements with Rabat, gave a sense of great achievement for the Polisario internationally.

Coupled with the pandemic, the deteriorating situation has changed the operational environment of the UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara, whose mandate was to oversee a referendum 30 year ago in 1992. On the other hand, Washington’s proposal for a “just and lasting solution” clearly fails to bring a peaceful resolution to the conflict and is pushing regional stability into further uncertainty.

Earlier in his speech at the UN General Assembly, Algeria’s Foreign Minister Ramtane Lamamra reiterated his country’s “permanent stance” to give the right of self-determination” to the Sahrawi people and backed the African Peace and Security Council’s proposal that the warring should parties should hold direct negotiations; an idea sounds good considering aggravation of the peace environment.

Upon winning the election, the Biden administration pledged to review a slew of Trump’s controversial foreign policy choices. But once took power, the US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, despite endorsing the political negotiations, reassured Morocco his country wouldn't backtrack from the prior president’s dramatic shift of recognizing Rabat’s sovereignty over Western Sahara.

The Biden administration has so far failed to come out with a coherent framework that can blow at least some steam off in Western Sub Sahara. Still there’s time for the US and the international community to facilitate peaceful and meaningful talks between the Polisario and Rabat, which will inevitably calm Algeria-Morocco tensions. Once France and the US pull back their diplomatic shield for Morocco at the UN Security Council, both the claimants will be compelled to sit at the negotiation table and resolve the dispute in a nonviolent way.

*This is my opinion piece (unedited) that originally appeared in "The Express Tribune":

https://azhar-azam.blogspot.com/p/about-me.html

Morrison’s diplomatic gaffe mortgages Australia’s economic future

By: Azhar Azam

Australia has not done much well in the Pacific (excluding Papua New Guinea’s independence and the RAMSI force in the Solomon Islands) since the Second World War. It’s about time. But recent history has not been without a gaffe. It was a great shame that Morrison’s first foray into Australia’s Pacific policies featured a needless mistake. This Australian non-confrontation approach coincides in part with that of the EU.

The reverberations of Australia’s submarine deal cancelation with France are unlikely to simmer down any time soon, especially the way Australian President Scott Morrison scrapped the contract and informed French President Emmanuel Macron through a text message.

Kiwis’ efforts to mollify Paris and push for closer economic ties with the European Union (EU) faced challenges as the bloc gave a nod to the French request and delayed a long-planned Brussels-Canberra trade deal for one month, casting doubts on the future of the far-reaching treaty.

It’s an outcome in the offing

The last-minute Australia’s ditch to France had already put trade negotiations at risk and left the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen wondering whether the EU would be able to strike a trade deal with Australia in a show of solidarity with France.

The AUKUS rebuttal was so shocking; it forced France, usually a savvy country toward allies and foes, to turn bitter diplomatically. Paris compared US President Joe Biden’s “unilateral, brutal, unpredictable decision” through presser with Donald Trump who often wittingly vilified the US partners on Twitter including Macron whom he privately belittled as “a wuss guy.”

Washington hoped the phone call between Macron and Biden and the return of the French ambassador to America would bring the fraught France-US relationship back to normal, anticipating the former to soften his stance on Europe’s strategic autonomy. But the French president continues to be stubborn in his urge as he seeks Europeans to “stop being naïve” and is speaking expressively on defending regional interests and developing military capacity.

In Australia, the postponement of the trade talks sparked a contentious debate

Opposition lambasted Morrison over his failure “to do the diplomatic leg work required to manage the relationship with our French partners.” The criticism followed after former Kiwi Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull warned the candid-free “appalling episode” will “endure to our disadvantage for a very long time.”

Turnbull’s fears aren’t unsubstantiated. While breach of “contract of the century” would have economic implications for the French defense sector, the deserted submarine deal also pitted against Macron’s campaign for a second term just less than seven months ahead of the presidential elections in the country.

France is the 7th largest global economy and a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Paris’ economic and strategic importance as well as strong defense characteristics – a nuclear-armed nation with the 6th largest defense budget in the world, which has the most powerful military in Europe and is an important factor in the Pacific– as a whole takes the shine off Australia in the ongoing fracas and outlines French critical role in regional and transnational affairs.

Canberra’s lackluster attempts in conveying a defiant message to Paris, which would flabbergast the entire EU, has led to this diplomatic brinkmanship. Morrison’s reluctance to talk to Macron and insistence to follow his schedule further compelled Élysée Palace to hold only “conversation of substance.” This communication breakdown elicited hyperalgesia in French, urging them to dub their abandonment as “Australian punch, an American late-tackle and a British eye-gouging.”

All isn’t well for Canberra either

The reason why Australia dumped a $43 billion deal with Paris, Morrison argues is nuclear submarine technology that wasn’t previously available. But with the first of the French subs supposed to be in waters in 2032, Australia won’t have new subs for the next 20 years. That means the Australian sub-program would hang by thread for at least a couple of decades and by that time, even nuclear submarines could be obsolete or visible by countries such as China whose technology will have reached an advanced level to detect and destroy the Australian sub.

The US, UK and Australia have pitched the novel strategic alliance, the AUKUS, against China. Don’t forget the Australian strategic strategy in 2016 admired Beijing’s continued economic growth and opportunities it brought for Canberra and other nations in the Indo-Pacific. Canberra had even pledged to expand defense relations with Beijing through personnel exchanges, military exercises and practical cooperation in areas of mutual interest.

Although Australia’s 2020 defense strategic update seems to toe the line of the US’ China policy and accused Beijing of pursuing greater influence in the region, Canberra circumvented to antagonize Beijing and kept the focus on China-US strategic competition its immediate region: “ranging from the north-eastern Indian Ocean through maritime and mainland Southeast Asia to Papua New Guinea and the southwest Pacific.”

Even as Australia has jumped on the US America’s bandwagon to counter China in the region, Morrison says the AUKUS would ensure stability in the Indo-Pacific. Clearly, Australia doesn’t want to sandwich itself between existing and emerging superpowers of the world in the event of any military flare-up. This Australian non-confrontation approach coincides in part with that of the EU where a vast European majority sees the growing China-US rivalry for Beijing’s emergence as a new geopolitical reality.

Canberra’s economic stakes in Beijing are much higher than in Brussels

China has been the biggest export market for Australia and it remains the major destination for Australian goods despite the ongoing trade and political tensions. In comparison, China is the biggest source of imports for the EU with which it runs a trade deficit; still, the bloc is committed to securing the Beijing-Brussels trade and investment relationship.

But when it comes to diplomacy and realistically balancing relationships with China and the US, Australia fares poorly against the EU. Unlike Brussels that endured pressure however didn’t take sides to protect its ties with the major economies, kept communication lines open and sought deepening cooperation with Beijing in the Indo-Pacific amid differences, the Morrison administration has completely failed to do the necessary groundwork to prevent Canberra from being caught between the two behemoths. The tally rises to three with the addition of the EU.

Morrison’s diplomatic gaffe has a cost, which Turnbull says will dog Australian relationship with Europe for years. As this impasse could even prolong to decades and Canberra is yet to take a real pinch of the trade war with Beijing, the Kiwi government is on the brink of losing more than two dozen allies in Europe and has effectively mortgaged his country’s economic future just at the stroke of a pen in Washington.

*This is my opinion piece that originally appeared at "Global Village Space":
https://www.globalvillagespace.com/morrisons-diplomatic-gaffe-mortgages-australias-economic-future/

China is poised to take the role of global environmental leader

By: Azhar Azam

From a variety of animals, plants, fungi and microorganisms that make up our natural world, each of the species and microbes help to maintain balance in the world by working together in ecosystems. They form biodiversity, which supports everything humans need to survive, including food, clean water, medicine and shelter.


But with a 60-percent decline in the global population of mammals, fish, birds, reptiles and amphibians since 1970, scientists believed the world was heading, if it hadn't reached, toward a sixth mass extinction after the first five extinctions that wiped out about half of all species in a relatively short period.

As biodiversity remains one of the tipping points in the environmental system and hasn't been considered the greatest threat, the first phase of the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP15) to the United Nations (UN) Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) – as well as 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and 4th meeting of the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from Their Utilization – kicked off in the city of Kunming in China on October 11.

It is the biggest UN summit in 10 years, and a crucial one, after countries failed to meet a single target in the previous decade of the goals agreed in Aichi, Japan in 2010. Days ahead of the 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) in Glasgow, Scotland, COP15 has a unique value for several reasons.

Chinese President Xi Jinping promised to strengthen man's relationship with nature by protecting animals, rivers, mountains, lands and deserts. He also highlighted the need to build a green, low-carbon and circular economy and step up green international cooperation and share the benefits of green development with developing countries.

At the virtual summit, governments will renegotiate targets under the global biodiversity framework before an in-person summit in Kunming from April 25 to May 8, 2022. The push Beijing gave through "the Paris Agreement for Nature" would translate into protecting biodiversity for this decade, halting and reversing rampant biodiversity loss the world over and realizing the UN vision of "living in harmony with nature" by 2050.

The U.S. has never signed the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which was originally signed at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and ratified by 195 countries. The U.S. is unlikely to endorse the most important international treaty to protect species, ecosystems and genetic diversity over political divisions and strong resistance from conservative nationalists in the country. The Donald Trump administration had ripped more than 125 environmental rules and policies during his four-year term.

In contrast, China's Ecological Conservation Red Line (ECLR) initiative within a decade has succeeded in designating one-fourth of its land area for protection, allowing the country to emerge as a global leader in deploying data-driven conservation. Xi's announcement at the UN General Assembly to no longer finance new coal-fired power plants abroad is also being viewed as an encouraging sign for Beijing's action on biodiversity.

A white paper, released recently by China, revealed that the East Asian country had over-fulfilled three of the Aichi targets – establishing terrestrial nature reserves, restoring and ensuring important ecosystem services and increasing ecosystem resilience and carbon storage – with progress made on 13 other targets including mainstreaming biodiversity, sustainable management of agriculture, forestry and fishery and sustainable production and consumption.

China's placement of eco-civilization as one of its fundamental socio-economic development principles and robust efforts to control the trend of eco-degradation – such as a logging ban, returning farmlands to forests and grasslands, establishing national parks, controlling water pollution and banning fishing in the Yangtze basin – are admired internationally and emphasize Beijing's valuable inputs to protect the largely-neglected biodiversity issue in other parts of the world.

Stressing that the issues of biodiversity and climate change were intertwined, environmental advocates sought to link the two and find solutions to solve these crises. David Cooper, the CBD deputy secretary, said, "By conserving our ecosystems, wetlands, forests and grasslands and by restoring our ecosystems, we can contribute to both reducing greenhouse gas emissions and also helping people adapt to the unavoidable climate change."

His call for investing in biodiversity received an affirmative response as China announced it will launch a 1.5-billion-yuan Kunming Biodiversity Fund for developing countries to help them protect nature.

While the fund "should jump-start an urgently needed conversation on biodiversity finance," Beijing by laying out strong domestic biodiversity protection measures didn't disappoint the world watching it to contribute to global conservation and add "momentum in the run-up to COP26."

For the European Union, COP15 is as crucial as COP26 vis-a-vis life on earth. Brussels Commissioner for Environment, Oceans and Fisheries Virginijus Sinkevicius, representing the bloc, clubbed the two crises together that pose existential implications to mankind.

China is not only committed to achieving carbon neutrality by 2060; it has been on the way to playing its part in coping with climate change, reducing carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by more than 48 percent from the 2005 levels.

The COP15 isn't over as yet but it has already established its worth in the world and underscored Beijing's vital role in neutralizing both existential threats, setting the tone for China's environmental leadership.

*This is my opinion piece that originally appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)":

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-10-15/China-is-poised-to-take-the-role-of-global-environmental-leader-14kymMHD8Na/index.html#:~:text=China%20is%20not%20only%20committed,percent%20from%20the%202005%20levels.

Liberal internationalism should end with all its manifestations

By: Azhar Azam

In the aftermath of the Cold War, the U.S. described its role in four key elements: global leadership; defense and promotion of the liberal international order; defense and promotion of freedom, democracy and human rights; and prevention of the emergence of regional hegemons in Eurasia.

All these essential components of U.S. foreign policy are closely intertwined with each other. Washington claims the liberal international order respects territorial integrity, and values international law. America actually has used the clumsy mechanism of liberal internationalism or liberal hegemony for military intervention in remote areas to impose its democratic form of government and control the world.

Washington's invasion of Kabul to topple the Taliban government – and offensive on Baghdad, where the U.S. intelligence agencies found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction or Saddam Hussein's prewar links to al-Qaeda – was the last vestige of liberal internationalism that sought to bring democracy by force.

The U.S. falsity about forced political change in Afghanistan and Iraq was revealed by George W. Bush in 2004, when the former American president clearly expressed his goal in Baghdad and Kabul under the pretext of "democratic" allies. Behind delivering on the neocons' democratic demands, Washington's display of brute power had hegemonic ambitions as well.

Some U.S. officials thought restricting retaliation to Afghanistan could be dangerously "limited" and wanted a flamboyant victory. The purpose was to intimidate defiant Syria, Libya, Iran and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and reassert the U.S. waning hegemony in the region by trying to turn all Mideast countries into liberal democracies.

Notions about American exceptionalism are age-old and have been embedded in post-Cold War U.S. administrations. Even before the September 11 attacks, then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in 1998 arrogantly stated "we are the indispensable nation" and declared to "put force behind the diplomacy" as she was making the case for a possible strike on Iraq.

Donald Trump was contemptuous of the liberal international order and criticized China's ticket to the World Trade Organization, which his predecessors thought would help to turn China into a liberal democracy. He also needed big arms and diplomatic deals with the Mideast kingdoms to showcase in the 2020 U.S. presidential elections.

But Trump wasn't solely responsible for the downturn in liberal internationalism. When he took over, although proponents didn't accept the "death" of the doctrine, they agreed America's authority as the hegemonic leader of the liberal world order had slid into deep crisis.

Realists have been calling for less militarized and more cooperative U.S. foreign policy. They believe America should learn from its practical and moral failures to unilaterally shape the destiny of other nations by force. Putting emphasis on military restraint, diplomatic engagement and cooperation with all nations, they urge changes at the grassroots level of the U.S. overly-militarized foreign policy.

U.S. President Joe Biden's appointments, after Trump's global tumult, signaled a return of normalcy; even then a belief of American supremacy in his team challenged hopes to tweak behavioral change in the White House to ensure "greater military restraint" in the use of military forces.

A total bust of liberal internationalism and rising clout of realists across the U.S., such as those at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, have unnerved liberal internationalists and pressed them to come out in support of liberal internationalism.

Liberal internationalists say the "Quincy Coalition" ideology is driven by common adversaries rather than liberal internationalism. They argue the Coalition offers a "woefully weak response of the undeniable reality" about Beijing's alleged expansion and hegemonic ambitions and its agenda, if implemented, would harm fundamental U.S. interests, dominance and influence.

In response, Anatol Lieven intrinsically linked liberal internationalism to the U.S. hegemony and one form of American ideological nationalism. The senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute opposed liberal internationalists' view that "selective cooperation" with China on climate change should accompany "wider U.S. geopolitical and ideological confrontation." He called for a systematic cooperation with Beijing on a range of key issues, alluding to the fact that the U.S. and allies' share in global GDP had halved and Chinese economy was roughly at par with the U.S.

Biden's speech defending his decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan may be a "decisive break" or "one of the most eloquent repudiations" to liberal internationalism. Nevertheless, his policy to gang up alliances against China follows the very similar objectives enshrined in liberal internationalism: push the U.S. partners in confrontation with China and reestablish America's hegemony on both allies and rivals.

However, the world is waking up and decoding the cloaked message. The Alliance of Democracies' poll in May indicated majorities in 53 countries saw the U.S. as a bigger threat to democracy and an overwhelming majority in China approved of the democracy they had. The findings suggested nations were mistrustful of the U.S. strategy to trigger internal chaos overseas and advance America's hegemonic ambitions.

The U.S. interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and several other countries have cost Americans and global people dearly in terms of both treasure and life. The myth, economics and Western democracy are reciprocal, crumbles as 95 percent of Chinese citizens are quite satisfied with the government in Beijing, according to a poll launched by Harvard's Kennedy School of Government in last year. With a new Cold War causing significant losses to the U.S. and the global economy, Biden's idea to rally democracies around China is doomed to fail and it's time to end the liberal internationalism with all its manifestations.

*This is my opinion piece that originally appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)":
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-09-30/Liberal-internationalism-should-end-with-all-its-manifestations-13Z5WdF5Ti0/index.html

Europe is fed up with longtime US bullying

By: Azhar Azam

History tells America is an incredibly fatal and reliably opportunistic ally that "has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests." In May 2018, President of European Council Donald Tusk had to rail against the U.S. "capricious assertiveness" on issues including Iran, Gaza, tariffs and North Korea. "With friends like that (America), who needs enemies?"

The U.S. hits allies harder than its adversaries. Once a major non-NATO ally, Pakistan couldn't wipe the bitter memories of 480 U.S. drone strikes, the only time a country was attacked by its ally, killing more than 70,000 people and incurring economic losses of $150 billion. It's a warning for Australia that says the so-called AUKUS boosts its defense and regional security but in effect is ceding at-least some sovereignty to the U.S. and the UK.

America's lunatic frenemy policy toward its allies has once again pressed France to call out the U.S. and other two alliance states for "duplicity, contempt and lies" and stabbing in the back after the defense pact thwarted a $40 billion Canberra-Paris deal, signed in 2016 to build conventional submarines.

In 2015, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker blew the whistle for creation of a European Union (EU) army. However, the British government and politicians rejected his proposal, stating there was "no prospect" of such a formation and it would be detrimental to interests of the UK, NATO and the U.S. Still, France and Germany in 2018 cogitated for "a real, true European army" as Europeans couldn't trust the U.S. to defend them and times to rely on others had passed.

America's devious withdrawal from Afghanistan is again pushing the EU to "catalyze" its own permanent military force after Union's calls, to delay retreat from Kabul airport for safe evacuation of Europeans, fell on deaf ears in Washington. The changing perception is Europe backs the French President Emmanuel Macron's firm position that NATO was "brain dead" over waning commitment from its lead guarantor, the U.S.

One of the defining factors behind EU pursuit of autonomous defense has been the relentless criticism from the U.S. over burden-sharing costs. Washington's reproach can be traced back to 1953 when then-U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles shocked his NATO allies by threatening to take up an "agonizing reappraisal" if it didn't contribute to the U.S. cold war policy.

Former U.S. President Donald Trump's full-throttled and parochial opposition to America's NATO allies – accusing Germany for being "captivated to Russia" and hammering France and other European countries over defense spending or trade deals – is only amongst many reasons for rupturing the transatlantic alliance.

Indeed, Washington has been downgrading Europe's strategic interests for 30 years since the end of the Cold War in wake of sharing the defense burden. The U.S. further restricted European access to America's U.S. market and technology, used International Traffic Arms Regulations to obstruct European competition in third-country markets and aggressively lobbied against EU efforts to develop an indigenous defense industrial and technology base.

A persistent trend of three decades where unvaryingly helped the U.S. to dominate international arms market at expense of the EU; never-ending obsessive tendency in the White House limited bloc's ability to raise its defense share, allowed Trump to bust the cracks in the relationship wide open and emboldened the U.S. President Joe Biden to reveal the painful truth about America's interests in the outdated NATO.

The head-scratching moment, thanks to the latest U.S.betrayal to the EU key member France, unclothed Washington's inner despair toward Brussels. This core driver of the U.S.' Europe policy received a poignant rebuke from the top EU leadership who put a punctuation mark on Biden's "America is back" and the U.S. "loyalty and transparency" and demanded an explanation.

Biden ditched NATO allies in Europe not just for he was disappointed with Brussels investment deal with Beijing or perception about France for being "too soft" on China. The U.S. disenchantment dates back to decades when Paris searched for Gaullist streak of complete independence and is sharpening with bloc's recent wish for strategic autonomy and greater global role, reluctance to circumvent confrontation in the Indo-Pacific and approach to see Beijing a cooperative and negotiating partner.

The "very belligerent" tripartite alliance of "English speaking countries" against China is designed to advance the U.S. unilateral interests and imperil peace and economy of the Indo-Pacific. Washington's all-or-nothing proposition is entirely different from Brussels that actively seeks cooperation with its economic and strategic partner, Beijing. Fed up with the U.S. bully of the Union, the EU is trying to draw its own map of trade and investment relationship and intending to pursue multifaceted engagement with the world's second-largest economy.

*This is my opinion piece that originally appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)": 

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-09-24/Europe-is-fed-up-with-longtime-U-S-bullying-13OFhlrlti8/index.html

Why do efforts to disintegrate China-Africa relationship fare badly?

Azhar Azam

Every year, China hosts around 1,000 African professionals, including journalists and 80,000 students – double the size of those who travel to the U.S., making it the top training and education destination for Africa. Second only to France, the East Asian country has launched 62 language and cultural centers (Confucius Institutes) on the continent.

Besides overtaking the British Council, Germany's Goethe Institute and the American Centers, China displaced the U.S. as Africa's largest trade partner in 2009, with the bilateral trade hitting as high as $200 billion in 2020.

Over the last decade, Beijing played a central role in financing and became the largest financer of infrastructure in Africa, covering 6,000 kilometers of railways and highways, 20 ports, 80 large-scale power facilities, 130 medical institutions, 45 stadiums and 170 schools.

A number of studies have rebuffed claims about China's alleged predatory lending practices, neocolonialism, pillage of natural resources, land grabs and import of Chinese workers for construction projects. The independent investigations further found Chinese firms were hiring up to 90 percent local workforce and "really" investing and developing African infrastructure.

It is often contended that bilateral trade benefits China more than Africa. The latest trade data debunked this assertion, showing that Chinese imports from its all-season ally had risen by 46.3 percent in the first seven months of the year. Over the last 20 years, flow of Chinese investments in Africa has also surged by more than 25 percent on a yearly-average basis, hitting $2.1 billion for the period.

Still, Beijing's approach to create new bonds of affinity with Africa and African people continues to vex the observers. They view China's unreserved engagement in Africa as an effort to build "soft power," secure financial interests, gain a strategic sphere of influence and galvanize support on multilateral forums.

Even though China-Africa Peace and Security Forum extended commitment to common, comprehensive, collaborative and sustainable security, the initiative to shape Africa's peacekeeping capacity, strengthen defense and military cooperation and channel funds through the United Nations Peace and Development Trust Fund are irrationally linked with gaining a strong foothold in the continent.

The bloody conflicts in many parts of Africa, such as Lake Chad Basin, Mozambique's Cabo Delgado, Gulf of Guiana, Somalia and Ethiopian Tigray, threaten to impede economic growth. Beijing's security inputs have assisted the region to achieve peace and security objectives to advance a sustainable socioeconomic development.

For African nations, China's development model to push growth and alleviate poverty offers a definitive version for modernization and transformation of regional economies. The unique mix of transparent, accountable and rules-based cooperation serves the core interests of the continent and the people.

Beijing is neither part of any global competition to dominate Africa nor does it want to capture the continent. What fascinates African states is China's inspirational development, whose experience the world's second largest economy has been more than willing to share, to drive Africa to forge its own economic path.

The growing Chinese influence stokes fears in the U.S. for being sidelined by China on the continent. Washington tried best to contaminate the minds of African governments about Chinese technological companies. However, most of them haven't succumbed to the U.S. bullying as at least 266 Chinese technology initiatives are underway across the region.

Africa seeks to harness digital technologies and innovation to transform societies and economies to promote regional integration, speed up economic growth, stimulate job creation and break the digital divide for socioeconomic development.

China's commitment to foster digital collaboration, ranging from 5G to data centers, smart cities and skills and education programs, is deliberately advertised as a threat to Africa's security and sovereignty.

Such narratives are totally baseless and ridiculously speculative. Indeed, these endeavors are intended at shifting attention from the U.S. and many so-called democratic countries that spy on their own citizens and deliver high-end surveillance technology, spyware and other censorship applications around the world.

China stepped in to fill the technology developmental gap in Africa, especially after Western retreat in investment ventures. For example, Huawei has built around 50 percent and 70 percent of Africa's 3G and 5G infrastructure. This provision of data centers, created by the leader in next-generation technology, would additionally help Africa to meet high data center facilities' demand.

Realizing Chinese potential in digital connectivity and anticipating its economy to reach the frontier in science and technology by 2049, experts opine Africa must determine ways to tap into the educational, technological, healthcare and sustainable gains in China.

International leaders and organizations have been blasting rich nations for vaccine hoarding and dispassion to provide enough jabs to developing countries. The gluttony of wealthy states, forcing the global COVAX initiative to announce slashing vaccine deliveries to Africa by about 150 million doses, holds Africa in the "chokehold" and widens rich-poor divide by hampering Africa economic recovery.

At this tipping point, China by mid-July had donated or exported vaccines to about 40 African countries, more than double than what Beijing committed in February.

The operationalization of manufacturing facility in Egypt for Chinese vaccine production, hailed by the World Health Organization as a good example of international cooperation that contributes to the UN Sustainable Development Goals, and another one in Morocco, would help slow the spread of virus and strengthen Africa's ability to tackle pandemic-related economic challenges.

China's affair de coeur with Africa stems from regional nations' fervent wish to learn from Beijing and develop their physical and technological infrastructure, boost economic growth and pull millions from extreme poverty. Chinese cultural, education, financing, health, investment, security and technology cooperation is empowering the continent to emerge as an important political and economic bloc in the world.

So, efforts to disintegrate the iron-clad relationship or schemes to rival Beijing have fared badly so far and would meet the same fate in future as well.

*This is my opinion piece that originally appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)": 

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-09-20/Why-do-efforts-to-disintegrate-China-Africa-relationship-fare-badly--13Gn54JQ8qA/index.html