Biden's 'America is back' is the sequel of Trump's 'America First'

By: Azhar Azam

Once he took over as the U.S. President after four years of Donald Trump's discordant international approach, Joe Biden outlined his vision for the U.S. foreign policy to domestic and international audiences to declare "America is back, the transatlantic alliance is back.”

Many of the U.S. allies in Europe, which had adjusted or were trying to attune to a world without the U.S. leadership or were charting their own independent way, wondered whether they should trust Biden's word and the broken relationship could really be restored.

Following six months of Biden's young presidency, his assurance to rebuild alliances and the U.S. moral standing and construct a wall against the fierce U.S. economic competitor, China, has come to a standstill. With Beijing's role in e-mobility easily deepening ties between China and the European Union (EU), the Afghanistan catastrophe is urging some to press their governments to consider alternatives to the U.S.-led order since America will never be back.

The "position of strength" Biden sought – to compete by building back better, working with partners, renewing international institutions and reclaiming lost reliability – is being blown to smithereens in Afghanistan, given the "10 times more profound and structural" problems than they were in Saigon.

It's the U.S. arrogance, overseas interventions and apathy to international cooperation that has weakened the world's biggest economy's ability to strike back and stand even among equals.

At the Group of Seven (G7) and NATO summits in June, Biden echoed "America is back." But his refrain was an attempt to get a larger share in the pie like Trump's "America First." Few European leaders would show their distrust in Biden's assertion publicly, yet privately they worry that his commitment to the NATO allies as well as to international cooperation and global governance is becoming a partisan issue in America, leaving them wondering if America was really back?

Within a couple of months after the "successful" EU and G7 meetings, several European countries fear that Biden's unilateral decision to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan is the sequel of Trump's "America First" policy and that the U.S. president's promise to strengthen the transatlantic alliance lacks candor and genuineness.

Following the fall of Kabul, the U.S. President took 48 hours to talk to British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and another 24 hours to phone German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Biden's wariness to discuss an issue of mutual concern fueled apprehensions and resentments within the Europeans, who are now openly questioning the way the U.S. withdrew from a war launched in support of America.

The Afghanistan debacle shoves the Biden administration into a situation where he has to ensure that the country doesn't turn into a terrorist sanctuary and how to deal with the Taliban. But more disturbingly for the White House, Biden's "America is back" mantra is badly hit amid growing questions on the U.S. commitment and competence.

Dismayed former NATO Secretary General Lord George Robertson, who invoked Article V for the first time after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S., is no more proud of an organization he once led. He feels the unique solidarity of the transatlantic alliance has been crushed by the "recklessness" and "unilateralism of the United States president" that will be difficult to recover, if it isn't lost completely.

At the recent G7 meet, the U.S. president refused to extend the August 31 deadline of troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, which was proposed by the key allies. His act to pour into the wounds of the fractured relationship would dumbfound the wrathful U.S. allies and illuminate fissures with the alliance ahead of the major conferences, the United Nations General Assembly and the G20 in Rome.

Biden's "America is back" delusion is further exacerbated by his plummeting domestic approval ratings, which have dropped to the lowest since he assumed power not just over his ability to handle international crisis but also due to the rise of highly contagious Delta variant cases, stubbornly high rate of unvaccinated adults in some of the country's poorest states and weak job management, leading "the promise of April" become "the peril of August.”

Even as the U.S. House voted to push on mere a procedural motion to draft the $3.65 trillion jobs and infrastructure bill on August 24, the spending faces challenges from both House and Senate, with the Democrats having a hairline majority in both chambers.

As some Democrat Senate centrists say they cannot support the package and Republicans have blasted their rivals for pursuing their priorities in an effort to shrug off what's happening in Afghanistan, passage of the initiative is a tough gig to pull off for the Biden administration.

With Biden finding it difficult to handle domestic and international crises and distinguish himself from Trump on ditching the U.S. allies, this is highly unlikely he would be able to convince Europe and the world that "America is back." Rather, the European leaders aren't too far to openly equate the most-chanted slogan with his predecessor's "America First."

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

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-08-27/Biden-s-America-is-back-is-the-sequel-of-Trump-s-America-First--1334cTcnkze/index.html

Taliban and the recognition challenge

By: Azhar Azam

Quite a few veteran diplomats and observers of the world’s most powerful military alliance, NATO, hang their heads in shame over collapse of Afghan security forces like house of cards , giving Taliban a walkover and West's betrayal and abandonment of Afghan people to a “regime of medieval savagery and backwardness” in the most craven way.

In the US, President Joe Biden faces harsh reproach for telling extremists the planet’s superpower lacks “strength and stamina” against a stubborn enemy, asking Americans to be “alarmed and ashamed” on hastily absconding Afghanistan. The Australian government is being scolded for repeating the Vietnamese mistakes over turning back on Afghan employees. The UK legislators flavor the setback in Afghanistan as shameful.

Taliban’s lightning advance came on the heels of the US hasty retreat, an outcome written on the wall though Americans took too much time to realize. Anticipating an imminent crisis, Pakistan – the South Asian country played major role in bringing Taliban leaders on the negotiating table – has consistently sought the US pursue a “responsible withdrawal” and pull the plug on an inscrutable escape from Afghanistan citing terrorist threats.

Biden wasn’t prepared to regret his decision as the Taliban were conquering provinces after provinces and tightening the noose on Afghan security forces around Kabul. Stunned by the rapidity of insurgents’ territorial gains, NATO’s military retirees of the Afghan war however did so due to “seriously dire” situation and a “strategic mistake” that “sold the future of Afghanistan.”

The movement’s seizure of Kabul – much before 90-day US intelligence assessment and roughly a month after Biden commented it was “highly unlikely” Taliban would be “overrunning everything and owning the whole country” – now places Washington in an awkward position and begets more humiliation for the US and coalition partners.

A staggering amount of $89 billion spent by the US to rebuild the Afghan military clearly sinks with threadbare soldiers surrendering to Taliban like “goats and sheep” or fleeing the country on Uncle Sam-provided vehicles. To Washington’s chagrin, Taliban war booty included not just US tanks and Humvees but also aircraft potentially including Black Hawks and drones, meant to fight them and protect Kabul from annexation.

The way worse than Saigon scenes in Kabul and ongoing embarrassment unfolds cataclysmic failure of the successive US administrations’ Afghanistan policy for which they bear “major responsibility” and can easily be accused for running the risk of making Afghanistan a breeding ground for terrorists and bringing harm to Europeans, Americans and elsewhere through its chaotic withdrawal.

Even Boris Johnson, the closest US ally, went so far as to pin the blame of the security situation in Afghanistan on Biden. The British prime minister followed up his disapproval of the US Afghan strategy and took another swipe at Washington but the US president was yet to notice any dent to the US credibility within allies.

“The West could not continue this US-led mission, a mission conceived and executed in support of America, without American logistics, without US air power and without American might,” Johnson said at the House of Commons. In brief, he questioned Washington’s commitment to the US partners and just fell short of hinting London should relook at the bilateral relationship at least on global security.

Disengagement from the Taliban isn't the right solution either to the compelling issue. They are by any means an important political and military player in Afghanistan. So, it’s crucial to engage them through a rational and non-interventionist approach to remodel a country that is more stable and does not pose security threats to other world states.

Johnson seems ready work with Beijing and Moscow, believing “global cooperation was crucial” and is keen to develop a unified response on forging ties with the Taliban-led government in Afghanistan. While the US constantly is in direct communication with the Taliban and the European Union realizes Brussels needs to talk to them, the warriors can sense a quiet recognition from the world leaders as legitimate Afghan rulers.

The widespread change of heart is bolstering the Taliban. Capitalizing on their diplomatic grooming, thanks to international embrace for the negotiation teams in the last few years, they have smartly made the entire world responsible for the country's destruction and demanded everyone meet the “moral obligation” to help rebuild the devastated state.

A masterful display of advancing Afghanistan’s economic growth is in full swing as Taliban officials appreciate China’s positive contribution to promote peace and reconciliation in the country, seeing Beijing as Kabul’s economic lifeline and showing willingness the world’s second largest economy play an integral role in Afghan reconstruction.

Notwithstanding the Taliban have emerged as the main influential factor in Afghanistan, it won’t be an easy ride to gain international diplomatic or economic support. This is for the militants don’t wholly represent the entire Afghan population, have been warned not to win Kabul by flexing muscles and also as they may be phlegmatic about sharing substantial power with other political parties.

Before pushing forward their economic agenda effectively, Taliban need international recognition, which will be a tough gig to pull off albeit encouraging statements from the world’s leading economies. Most importantly, they will’ve to demonstrate the practical implementation of their commitment to prevent Afghanistan from turning into a launch pad for terrorist activities.

Washington is clearly a defeated power, which pleads Taliban to spare American embassy or citizens in Afghanistan from attacks in return for aid and has been duping its own nation for almost two decades by asking them to rejoice a win the US had never won. The watershed moment sends shockwaves through the American public as Biden’s approval ratings skid in his young presidency with the resurgent virus leading the “promise of April” to the “peril of August.”

Yet, Taliban are entering into a much more exacting phase – rebuilding the economy from scratch and reconstructing a wartorn country – than they’ve encountered so far, attacking and capturing cities through gun power. As the nut of getting international recognition is too hard to crack with the looming domestic political crisis, economic and reconstruction have to be at a very long range.

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

https://tribune.com.pk/story/2317794/taliban-and-the-recognition-challenge

Central Asia likely to limit U.S. re-engagement in development and economic cooperation

By: Azhar Azam

Central Asia's proximity to China and Russia and its tendency to act as a conduit between Asia and Europe, the largest and the most developed continents respectively in the world, tempted the U.S. to make it a region of vital strategic importance.

Initially, Washington didn't even seek access to energy in the heart of Asia or democratize the region, rather viewing it as a theater in the war on terror and a tool to counter revived Beijing and Moscow.

In order to further its long-term strategic goals, Washington in the late 2000s established the Northern Distribution Network to reduce an overreliance on Islamabad for non-lethal supplies to Kabul. NATO's outrageous killing of 24 Pakistani soldiers in November 2011 impinged on the bilateral relationship and forced America to move to a costlier and longer route through Central Asia.

A transformed U.S. strategy afterward provided programmatic assistance to support democracy and enhance the economic capacity of Central Asia; still, core principles of the new blueprint were unchanged: use the region's geostrategic location to address its national security interests and blunt China's growing investments in the region's infrastructure.

As analyzed by The New York Times, Washington's "Great Game" against Beijing had to be a tough mission, as U.S. presidents have never visited Central Asia, unlike Chinese President Xi Jinping, who has made several state visits to the region. And when the last time then U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo did in 2020 after a gap of five years, he wasted the opportunity by vainly trying to hoodwink Central Asian states, which were becoming overly dependent on Beijing.

Pompeo's demented show failed to rupture China's ties with countries in the region, which viewed Beijing as a trusted business partner that was investing tens of billions of dollars in laying pipelines and creating rail connections. Yet in doing so, Washington walked back from its earlier stance that it didn't want to compete with Beijing in Central Asia.

The U.S. President Joe Biden has been striving to restore America's partnerships and gang up an alliance against China. His administration is re-engaging Central Asia through the C5+1 – Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan ("the stans") and the United States – a program to improve regional connectivity and boost economic cooperation.

What's important is that this initiative shouldn't be exploited to pep up American supremacy in the region and geopolitical ambitions against China. That's because Biden's aides deeply believe in the primacy, exceptionalism and indispensability of America to the world; there's been a subtext of forcing Central Asia to downgrade their relationship with Beijing and the U.S. president himself seeks to rival China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

The governments and people in China and Central Asia have a long history of friendship and cooperation. Now the BRI and the crisis situation in Afghanistan are bringing them closer to each other. Hiding some of Asia's most sublime mountain trails, jewel-like azure-blue lakes and rugged mountains – the landlocked region is a natural extension to the Silk Road Economic Belt (SREB), the proposed overland BRI route.

Central Asia holds a special place in the grand Chinese economic and infrastructure plan. The BRI aims to promote international connectivity, global growth and development and increase mutual understanding, respect, trust and friendly relations between peoples and countries.

Between 2015 and 2019, exports from Central Asia to China grew 35 percent to more than $20 billion, with Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan reporting the fastest increases of over 50 percent.

Taking advantage of its leading role in two of three earthbound belts going all the way to Europe as well as the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean, the region can greatly benefit from China's proposal to bring innovations and foster pilot zones along the SREB within the framework of "China+Central Asia" cooperation.

The Afghan turmoil has worried Central Asian nations about an extremist spillover from the neighboring country. As terrorism threatens to push pack the regional economic agenda, it's critical for all stakeholders to jointly hedge against instability emanating from Afghanistan and strengthen security cooperation.

Since mid-April, the Biden administration has been reportedly considering countries bordering Afghanistan – Tajikistan and Uzbekistan – and Kazakhstan for monitoring and quickly responding to the security threats. Uzbekistan is also being weighed upon as a jumping-off location for drone strikes in Afghanistan.

It's surprising after pulling out forces from Kabul in a hasty and highly irresponsible manner, exposing thousands of Afghan translators and interpreters susceptible to terrorist attacks – Washington is looking to control the situation remotely from a region that expelled the U.S. military or where it had ceased operations years before.

After Pakistan questioned the U.S. commitment to resolve the Afghan conflict, expecting Islamabad to settle America's 20 years of "mess," Uzbekistan has also publicly denied hosting American military bases. Since Kazakhstan and Tajikistan can't allow foreign militaries without endorsement from the Russian-led Collective Security State Organization, the U.S. is scrambling to influence the region and use Central Asia as a springboard to contain either China or Russia.

One country which could be directly held accountable for refueling the Afghan dispute and security threats to Central Asia is the U.S. Washington's headlong retreat has pushed Afghans to the edge of a cliff, risking peace across the entire region. No stranger to America's equivocal attitude, Central Asian states are most likely to limit U.S. reengagement in infrastructure development and economic cooperation.

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

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-08-14/Central-Asia-may-limit-U-S-re-engagement-in-regional-development--12HvKDBO3te/index.html

Restoring ties with China will power UK's own interests

By: Azhar Azam

The number of Chinese students applying to universities in the UK has now outstripped the number from European Union (EU) countries, according to recent data from the UK-based Universities and Colleges Admissions Service, despite the recent ups and downs in the relationship between the two countries.

For the British economy, which aims to lift education exports to £35 billion ($48.5 billion) by 2030, as per the British Government's International Education Strategy policy paper, but faces challenges, Chinese students would be an invaluable boost to help drive a 40-percent rise in demand during the next few years.

It might surprise some though it isn't unexpected. Last year, researchers from China and the UK co-published more than 19,000 research papers, showing political tensions could still be avoided and people-to-people relationships strengthened by fostering a joint, more impactful academic collaboration.

Recently, British Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak acknowledged the "truth" that China is "one of the most important economies in the world" and Britain needs "a mature and balanced relationship" with the world's second largest economy.

After his hopes to reopen the British financial sector's access to the EU crashed, Sunak is seeking to tap the potential of the fast-growing Chinese financial market with assets of £40 trillion ($55.48 trillion).

China's Premier Li Keqiang, in a virtual meeting with top British business leaders later, stressed that Beijing and London should resolve differences through dialogue. He emphasized bolstering trade, economic and health cooperation and promoting people-to-people and cultural exchanges to benefit the public across the two economies.

These positive signals suggest that perhaps the time has arrived for China and the UK, two ancient civilizations with unique cultures, to reserve disputes and thaw their frozen ties by cooperating on common interests.

In 2020，when global foreign direct investment flows decreased by almost two-fifths, China's inbound direct investment rose more than 10 percent to $212 billion; in the first quarter of 2021, it witnessed an almost three-fold increase to $98 billion.

On top of that, foreign investors' buying of Chinese bonds and stocks surged 40 percent to $806 billion, and 30 percent of central banks are planning to increase their holdings in yuan, the Chinese currency that is estimated to be one of the world's top currencies in a decade.

With China's foreign trade growing by 27.1 percent to about $2.8 trillion in the first half of 2021, its best in history – the UK should also look to deepen all-round relations with its third largest trading partner and an important investment partner.

The UK Government says China is a great economic story of the past three decades that, even with a modest growth, has a huge market potential for UK exporters and investors due to the spiraling number of middle- and high-income consumers and viable investment prospects.

So, this is the moment the UK needs to mend its ways and unsubscribe to the United States' hostile policy toward China that will be as damaging for London as it's for Washington. China's trade, economic and financial growth iterates London has no (better) alternative except for deepening its relationship with Beijing, which provides more unfettered opportunities for the British economy and businesses than any other market in the world.

Nuclear energy has been a rare area of cooperation between China and the UK. In 2013, the British Government agreed to have a Chinese-French consortium build its first nuclear power plant in 20 years. China General Nuclear Power Corp is an investor in the £20 billion ($27.7 billion) nuclear reactor in the fishing village of Sizewell in Suffolk. It also plans to build a new plant in Essex using its own reactor technology.

However, there are now reports in the British media that London could block the Chinese company over security concerns. This is apparently over the same unfounded security concerns that saw the British Government block Huawei last year from taking part in the 5G rollout in Britain though the Chinese company had been given the go-ahead earlier.

If the UK is mulling options to exclude Chinese companies from the nuclear energy and telecommunication industries, Prime Minister Boris Johnson must tread carefully. This is an issue that could breach contractually-bound international treaties, trigger intense reaction from Beijing, and affect London's credibility as a global partner.

This sort of politically motivated move would lead to serious consequences for Britons, who have been threatened by power shortages for years and face blackout risks as the old coal plants and existing nuclear reactors except the ones under construction will be shut down by 2030 as their period of operability ends. Any anti-Chinese company move over the Sizewell reactor will inevitably affect the development of the Essex reactor and adversely impact the country's targets of achieving zero carbon emissions by 2050 and employment generation.

After Brexit, the UK's businesses are experiencing headwinds and extra red tape from their single largest trading partner, the EU. In addition, London has to deal with an unprecedented set of economic shocks from the pandemic. This watershed moment is a reminder for Britain not to run away from the fact that restoring cooperation with China is in its vital interest. It would help drive growth, create jobs and meet the massive domestic energy requirements.

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

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-08-07/Restoring-ties-with-China-will-power-UK-s-own-interests-12xaUAOcqXe/index.html

US Iraq and Middle East policy faces hard challenges

By: Azhar Azam

Remarks from U.S. President Joe Biden before a recent bilateral summit with Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Kadhimi appeared to gesture that Washington didn't want to make any military footprint in Iraq. A readout from the U.S. State Department and a joint statement also redefined the U.S. role in Iraq as solely to support Iraq's fight against ISIL and to build the capacity for future threats.

The new U.S. Iraq policy coincides with analysts' presumption that a complete troop withdrawal should be avoided to deny Iran a posthumous win, enable burden sharing with Gulf allies and help ensure Jordan's security.

The strategy also aligns with another recommendation to gradually move to noncombat assistance and maintain an advisory mission in Baghdad, as a full departure would pose high risk to U.S. strategic interest over countering Iran.

Following the initial fanfare, however, defiant voices are erupting in Iraq. They are rejecting U.S. forces' metamorphosed transition from a combative force to a purely advisory role. Militias are refusing to accept the changed description, and some are threatening to attack the U.S. combat or non-combat troops until they leave the country.

An overwhelming number of Iraqi people don't condone U.S. military presence in the country. The U.S. assassination of a prominent Iranian general in January 2020, which also killed a senior Iraqi military leader, reinforced this distrust.

Since kicking out ISIL from Iraq in 2017, Washington has consistently maintained there aren't any combat troops deployed other than advisers and trainers. In fact, both the U.S. and Iraq on April 7, 2021 confirmed that the mission of the U.S. and coalition forces had transitioned to a training and advisory role based on Iraq's increasing military capacity.

Regardless, top U.S. general for the Middle East Frank McKenzie ruled out the possibility of an American withdrawal from Iraq, saying "we're going to stay in Iraq," as leaving would fulfill one of Iran's goals. America's strategy to counter Iranian influence in Iraq under the guise of fighting ISIL won't satisfy political parties and armed factions. The U.S. is trying to sell an old wine in a new bottle.

Washington is additionally looking to exploit the tripartite summit, which was held among Egypt, Jordan and Iraq in June of this year, and seen as an attempt to neutralize or counter Iranian influence in Iraq and across the region.

However, Al-Kadhimi would be very careful over following America's guidelines and compromising his high standing in the region. The Iraqi Prime Minister has developed a good relationships with Tehran and Riyadh.

Building on his close ties with Iran and Saudi Arabia, the talks he's orchestrating between the two regional foes, confirmed and approved by respective foreign ministries, could give peace and stability a chance to prevail in the Middle East.

Regional stability has been a remote prospect in the Middle East, mostly over Saudi-Iranian rivalry. As Riyadh adjusts its regional strategy after losing former U.S. President Donald Trump’s unflinching support, and as Tehran seeks the Kingdom's approval for nuclear talks with the Biden administration, there is a need to blow off steam between the two arch rivals and push the peace process forward.

Although it's too early to judge the outcome of the negotiations, this is a step in the right direction to resolve bilateral rows, cut a deal on the Yemen conflict and end the almost five-year diplomatic stalemate.

There are more positive signs. Iran's president-elect Ebrahim Raisi sees no obstacle to having a discourse with Saudi Arabia and is eager to reopen embassies. His invitation to Saudi Arabia and gestures to improve links with Gulf Arab neighbors should be welcomed by regional countries.

Economic cooperation is seen as the driving force behind the formation of the new ABC (Amman, Baghdad and Cairo) alliance. Baghdad's GDP in 2020 witnessed a sharp contraction due to volatile oil prices and the pandemic, reversing two years of steady recovery. As roughly 90 percent of Iraq's revenues come from oil exports, much of the country's projected economic growth over the next two years will depend on crude exports.

China is helping to ease Baghdad's financial woes and rebuild infrastructure. The U.S. delusions of grandeur, fiscal or its "forever wars" in Afghanistan and Iraq, continue to erode the appeal of American leadership.

Concerned over Beijing's strengthening relationship and growing influence in the Middle East, including in Iraq, the U.S. wants to shore up alliances against China. However, this strategy won't be backed by many pandemic-hit regional and global economies that are looking to gain from China's projected high economic growth.

Iraq's commitment to forging a conflict-free region, maintaining good relations with all countries and prioritizing economic interests as well as rapprochement in the Middle East is challenging American hawks. The U.S. militaristic obsession is struggling to stay relevant across the region. Economic cooperation and engagement is the right approach to follow.

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

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-08-02/U-S-Iraq-and-Middle-East-policy-faces-hard-challenges-12oD8E5jnji/index.html