Trump: An unexpected nuclear savior

By: Azhar Azam

The US ulterior motives of using Ukraine as a proxy to force a regime change in Russia were unveiled once former US President Joe Biden at the beginning of Russia’s invasion put Kyiv at the forefront of the liberal democracy and vehemently declared “this battle will not be won in days or months either.”

His comment the Russian President Vladimir Putin “cannot remain in power” left US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken to tidy up the ensuing mess: "As you know, and as you have heard us say repeatedly, we do not have a strategy of regime change in Russia, or anywhere else, for that matter.”

While Blinken forgot Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and many more that descended into chaos, instability and social unrest over the US regime change policy, Biden’s remarks told all: he wanted to reinforce the US primacy by simultaneously sending arms to Ukraine in an attempt to wallow the Russian army in a quagmire and imposing harsh sanctions on the Kremlin, hoping Russian people to stage a civil uprising in the country.

The US Department of Defense’s data – showing the US Congress elevated the cap of the Presidential Drawdown Authority from $100 million to $11 billion for the Fiscal Year 2022 and Biden used this power 55 times to transfer the Pentagon’s defense articles and services worth $65.9 billion to Ukraine during his tenure – as well as a myriad of sanctions corroborated that his administration’s objective was to make Russia bleed economically and militarily with Ukraine as the pivot.

But this strategy failed as the Russian economy swam against the tide and its military continued to make advances. This forced Biden to authorize Kyiv to use powerful America-provided long-range weapons, the Army Tactical Missile System, to strike deeper into the Kremlin as a last-ditch effort.

His decision didn't alter the course of the conflict yet it raised the specter of a major escalation with Russia revising its nuclear doctrine. The updated policy vowed to shield Russia and allies from “aggression of any state from a military coalition” and extended nuclear umbrella to the Collective Security Treaty Organization, a multination alliance that commits to exercise the right of collective defense in accordance with article 51 of the UN Charter.

At the root of the US’ Russia containment strategy has been the fallacy if Kyiv could be carved out of Moscow's orbit and sucked into the Western camp, Putin might struggle to survive. This liberal delusion, which began with West's vocal support of the pro-democracy movement in Ukraine during the 2004 Orange Revolution and culminated in calls of Kyiv’s accession to Nato, turned out to be a geopolitical farce.

Right from the outset, Biden per a former US defense official knew Kyiv's victory was unattainable; still, he pursued a dangerous strategy of enrolling Ukraine into NATO. This “propaganda narrative” of supporting democracy in Ukraine, he warned, carried a real risk of nuclear catastrophe as indicated by his warning of an “Armageddon.” As if it wasn’t troubling enough, Biden kept bedeviling a nuclear-armed behemoth.

Until now, Biden’s reluctance to provide long-range weapons to Ukraine had relatively prevented to provoke Russia. But his key policy shift has radically lifted the threat of nuclear escalation. As a result, the world has found itself mired in nuclear threats.

The US President Donald Trump wants to restart nuclear arms control talks with China and Russia once he “straighten(s) it out” in Ukraine and the Middle East. Beijing has linked the denuclearization negotiations with “drastic and substantive cuts” to the US and Russian nuclear arsenal, stating they together possessed 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons.

If Trump is serious in encouraging China and other nuclear powers to join the nuclear disarmament process as well as to protect the world from unfathomable consequences of a nuclear war, he should first evolve an agreement with Moscow on no-first-use of nuclear weapons. Russia has rejected his proposal yet should he address some of the Russian concerns, the world could be prevented from being shunted on the brink.

One fundamental factor for Russia's rejection is threats to its national security by Nato expansion and America’s attempts to keep flames of the Ukraine conflict belching out. The US policy of containing rivals by ganging up military alliances and flooding the regions with weapons has inflicted a crippling damage to peace in the Middle East and led to the risks of nuclear proliferation and is now threatening to capture Europe in a powder keg once the Ukraine conflict concludes and poses new challenges for the continent.

The implications of the US’ perilous approach of seeing other countries as a challenge or adversary are formidable. While this policy leads to confrontation between major nuclear states, triggers a race in the rest of the world to acquire nuclear weapons and shuns cooperation on nuclear security, it gives a free rein to non-state actors, pursuing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, to exploit the great-power tensions.

Trump – with his known transactional approach, anti-Nato rhetoric and accelerated efforts to end the Ukraine war – could prevent the world from sliding into a nuclear meltdown. His actions to nip the root cause of the crisis by ruling out Ukraine’s Nato accession would alleviate Moscow’s core grievances, deter it from using nuclear weapons and force it into demonstrating commitment to nuclear security.

His ninety-degree turn from defending democracy to economic opportunism and refusal to grant security guarantee to Kyiv unfortunately leaves the country stranded and Europe shocked; it will save millions of people from dying and pave the way for nuclear disarmament and a stronger cooperation on risks of proliferation and illicit transfers, helping build a robust global nuclear security architecture.

*My article (unedited) that first appeared the Express Tribune

World's future lies in multipolarization and multilateralism

By: Azhar Azam

In his keynote address at the "China in the World" event of the 61st Munich Security Conference, China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi said China's answer to the question whether multipolarity will bring chaos, conflict and confrontation as well as domination by major countries and the strong bullying the weak, is, "We should work for an equal and orderly multipolar world," abide by the UN Charter and respect international rule of law without double standard. It is important to practice multilateralism and pursue openness and mutual benefit.

As political and economic liberalism, which shaped the post-World War II era marked by U.S. hegemony, continues to crumble under the rise of national populism in many Western democracies, Wang's emphasis on pursuing cooperation and pledge that China will be a steadfast constructive force offers valuable insights on tackling common world challenges.

The developing nations in the Global South widely consider Washington as incapable of tackling global challenges and major conflicts due to the double standard it displays when it comes to applying equal norms of accountability to all. And they are justified, given that America, which contravened international law and the UN Charter repeatedly in the past, is now trying to breach Ukraine's territorial integrity – just as it did in Iraq in 2003 – to suit its own interests.

China is regarded as the "most prominent and powerful" advocate of a multipolar order. Beijing's principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other sovereign countries and respect for the diversity of civilizations have been well-received internationally. However, the West fears it is rallying the Global South's support to reform the global order in order to replace the dominance of Western developed nations with its own.

China is a strong advocate of peaceful resolution of conflicts and disputes and when facilitating talks between rival countries has also ensured that the hard-won peace is sustained. For instance, after brokering the historic rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia in 2023 that sparked a wave of reconciliation in the Middle East, it is now ensuring implementation of the China-Iran-Saudi Arabia Beijing Agreement.

It was a notable achievement of the Beijing-proposed Global Security Initiative, which underlines respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries, promotes true multilateralism, and calls on major nations to uphold the authority of the UN and its status as the main platform for global security governance.

U.S. President Donald Trump's talk about buying Greenland from Denmark and the Panama Canal and making Canada America's 51st state is making political analysts perceive Washington as not "an anchor of stability, but rather a risk to be hedged against." His announcement of "buying and owning Gaza" and displacing Gazans has strengthened that perception. The mentality of seeing the world as U.S. property will have serious implications for global security, setting a dangerous precedent for others to annex the territories of smaller, weaker states.

The perception in the past that America upholds global stability by leading a rules-based international order changed gradually as American interventions generated "more ill will than goodwill" in many parts of the world, becoming a symbol of hypocritical posturing and double standard. Washington's weaponization of the concept against its geopolitical rivals and repeated violations of international law have bolstered this impression.

The notion of a rule-based international order is losing credibility with the U.S. seeking to construct a bloc of like-minded states with the objective of imposing its will on the rest of the world.

The prospect of a multipolar world is far from appetizing to a unilateralist power tending to fuel conflicts and tensions, shunning channels of economic and peace dialogues, and following protectionist and imperialist policies. These actions have weakened global institutions and deprived developing nations of their rights.

In a polycentric system, based on the UN Charter and international law, regional powers have the opportunity to become leading geopolitical actors. Wang's suggestion is that equal rights, equal opportunities and equal rules should become the basic principles of a multipolar world. That will democratize international relations and incorporate the Global South into international bodies, giving more economic and strategic stability to a turbulent world.

Unilateralism has failed to develop a common approach to global problems, undermining international cooperation even in areas of shared interests. Multilateralism holds the potential to maintain peace in the world, improve the quality of people's lives and resolve global challenges such as climate change and health crisis.

Multilateralism encompasses inclusivity, equality and cooperation and fostering a more prosperous, secure and sustainable world and is the world's future, as indicated in the Munich Security Report 2025.

China's commitment to a multipolar world and multilateralism isn't aimed at displacing America; it simply seeks to empower the developing nations too so that they can assume greater responsibility internationally. China's intention is to develop broad cooperation between developing and developed countries, including the U.S., and to combat real challenges such as conflicts, economic regression and climate change that threaten international stability and the very existence of mankind.

*My article that first appeared in the CGTN:

Trump's tariff approach is unwise both as a policy tool and a strategy

By: Azhar Azam

On February 10, U.S. President Donald Trump announced new 25 percent tariffs on all steel and aluminum imports into the U.S. Many critics believe that yet more import duties are coming.

Trump has framed tariffs as a tool to stimulate the U.S. economy, protect jobs, generate tax revenue and pressure other countries into trade talks, not grasping that this strategy could backfire, ending up weakening America's growth, raising the cost of living at home and causing economic disruption worldwide.

Trump's new policy has a wider influence. The largest sources of U.S. steel imports are Canada, Brazil and Mexico, followed by South Korea and Vietnam, according to data from the American Iron and Steel Institute. New 25 percent tariffs would be a serious impediment to these cross-border trades and likely to hurt the U.S. economy in return. Even Trump himself has acknowledged that tariffs will do harm to Americans.

Academic and governmental studies confirm that tariffs have raised prices in the U.S. and lowered its economic output and employment since 2018. These taxes were almost completely absorbed by American consumers and retailers. There is resounding evidence that new tariffs will be passed to U.S. importers and consumers, severely affecting lower income households and hurting growth and pushing up prices.

It isn't that the U.S. does not comprehend the cataclysmic repercussions of tariffs on Americans. In 2019, Joe Biden denounced Trump's tariffs on China, saying "He thinks tariffs are being paid by China. Any freshman econ student could tell you that the American people are paying his tariffs."

This led to hopes that Biden, after becoming U.S. president, would rescind these duties to help alleviate some of the economic worries of Americans. Yet, in his ideology-driven pursuit of weakening China economically, the former U.S. president kept those levies in place that hit Americans hard and eventually became a political liability for his party in the 2024 U.S. presidential election.

Levies will not make a significant impact on the Chinese economy given the fact that China is comparatively less dependent on the U.S., thanks to its steady shift to domestic production and consumption and trade with other countries. Studies of the CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis show that Chinese exports are outpacing global trade – with Chinese exports up 12 percent or more in volume terms while global trade is growing at more like 3 percent.

But these domestic tariffs will surely hurt the U.S. growth, drive up inflation and lead to spiraling prices of everyday products for American consumers. Due to the catastrophic impacts of tariffs, the U.S. health sector, that despite efforts to build a domestic supply chain relies heavily on international sources for generic drugs, will come under tremendous pressure, making it more vulnerable to drug shortages.

Tariffs will also neutralize Trump's own economic agenda that he, on the campaign trail, billed as a surefire way to cut the cost of living for Americans, making the lives of the most of them a lot tougher.

By pursuing a trade war with China and others, the "tariff man" is meting out a blow to U.S. households and exacting a "self-inflicted wound to the U.S. economy." This "bully strategy" didn't bring manufacturing jobs home before and could contract the U.S. GDP, say economists, by 1.5 percent and 2.1 percent in 2025 and 2026.

While Trump's tariffs are a wake-up call for countries that have hitched their political and economic interests solely with the U.S., underscoring the importance of diversifying their relations, they will exacerbate trade tensions, lower investment, reduce market efficiency and disrupt supply chains, resulting in further erosion of the international trade system.

The first Trump administration's tariffs undermined its exporters' global competitiveness by increasing the input costs of components and parts imported from China. The new trade war could be even more devastating for Americans and the U.S. economy as it covers a much broader range of goods.

Trump's tariff approach is unwise both as a policy tool and a strategy not only because it simultaneously hurts domestic consumers, puts the U.S. exporters at a disadvantage against global rivals and curtails the country's economic prosperity, but also because it damages America's credibility as a reliable trading partner and drives countries to instead trade among themselves.

*My article that first appeared in the CGTN:

A divided Europe is Trump’s soft target

By: Azhar Azam

Since Donald Trump’s ‘landslide’ win in November’s US presidential election, the European Union (EU) has been nervously bracing for a tidal wave that would shake the foundation of the transatlantic partnership and put the bloc’s unity to test.

Within a couple of months, Brussels hastily sealed a trade agreement with four Mercosur countries – Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay – carried out the biggest overhaul of the EU-Switzerland trade ties and concluded a stalled trade agreement with Mexico to showcase its strength to the tariff man.

In Europe, looming Trump’s tariffs are nudging Berlin and Paris closer, driving the French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz into demonstrating unity to the transactional US president who has lambasted the EU for treating the US "very, very badly" and will stack up obstacles for the European countries.

But the real challenge to the bloc stems from internal divisions. For instance, key European powers, France and Germany, differ on several issues ranging from deployment of troops to Ukraine and nuclear power to the South American deal. Unlike Berlin, Paris has wanted to send troops to the Ukraine war, is committed to build nuclear reactors and abhors the Mercosur accord, believing it would undermine the French farmers with a tide of cheap poultry and beef from Latin America.

Trump's return has forced them to exhibit cohesion; these deep-seated resentments toward each other could dominate their aspiration of forging a joint response against the US. Both Macron and Scholz have weakened politically at home, further dimming the hopes to respond to Trump with one-voice.

Macron is an ardent campaigner of European strategic autonomy; Berlin, irrespective of whoever becomes the next German chancellor, will cling to Atlanticism. Although the former advocates for a “united, strong and sovereign Europe” and later describes Trump as a “challenge,” divergent approaches of the two countries will continue to strain the Franco-German relationship, hampering the EU ability to construct a resilient alliance against Trump.

In Davos, the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen used the World Economic Forum (WEF) to warn Trump the EU would expand relations “not only with our long-time like-minded friends, but with any country we share interests with.” His speech was disseminated as the European response to Trump’s “America First” presidency.

Yet unfazed by her diplomatic maneuvers, Trump ripped the EU apart with his grandiloquence. In his virtual address at the WEF, he continued to thump the bloc for having "hundreds of billions of dollars" of deficit and not buying the US farm produce and cars and derided the Union’s red tape, pointing to recent multibillion fines on Apple and Google while accusing it of flooding America with millions of vehicles.

Hours after Trump signed an executive order to pull the US out of the Paris Agreement, putting America in line with the likes of Iran and Yemen, von der Leyen pitched the climate treaty as a “best hope for all humanity" and boasted of the EU's new partnerships with Mercosur, Switzerland and Mexico in an effort to portray the EU as a unified bloc.

While France-Germany tensions pose a serious threat to pan-Europeanism, EU unity is being further imperiled by the advent of the Eurosceptic, right-wing bloc comprising Hungary, Slovakia, Austria and possibly Czechia. The nationalist leaders such as Italy’s George Meloni, the only EU leader invited to Trump’s inauguration and Hungary’s Victor Orban, a longtime admirer of the deal maker, will also help Trump to split the Union and capitalize on the EU internal weaknesses.

Leaders across the EU are urging to stick together in dealing with Trump’s “zero-sum” trade war. These calls aren’t new. Several European leaders in the past have made such appeals without the European dream of becoming a formidable global force, capable of coping with economic and strategic challenges, coming into fruition.

Brussels has only itself to blame for stranding the bloc into this hapless position. By disregarding the downsides of the Biden administration's China-only tariff policy, the EU submitted to the US and torched its vital tool of strategic ambiguity, which would have helped it to become a major power broker and served as a hedge against the impending Trumpism.

Once Trump returned, the EU found it sheepishly apologetic, geopolitically isolated and strategically limbless in its effort to withstand the US president's tariff barrage and remain globally relevant. The way things are unfolding, Brussels could even struggle to sustain its distinctiveness as a bloc internationally with a possible China-US detente ruining its ambition of making the EU an influential player internationally.

A fragmented Brussels lacks options to brave Trump who has stunned America’s transatlantic allies by asking them to raise their defense spending to a whopping 5% of their GDP and could threaten to upend the US defense and security guarantee if Europe decides to retaliate by hitting America with its own tariffs. With divisions continuing to beleaguer the bloc, the EU is rather a soft target for Trump.

*My article (unedited) that first appeared in the "Express Tribune"

TikTok ruling: SCOTUS has failed to protect Americans and U.S. constitution

By: Azhar Azam

Friday's ruling by the Supreme Court of the U.S. (SCOTUS), paving the way for an imminent ban on globally popular app TikTok, comes even as many in the U.S., including lawmakers, say there is "no credible evidence" the app presents a national security threat. A significant number of Americans don't support the ban, which will impact the livelihoods of millions of Americans, and see it as a sign of the massive disconnect between politicians and the public.

Signed by President Joe Biden last year, the controversial Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act requires TikTok to be sold or face a ban. The Biden administration argues the app poses a national security threat while ByteDance, TikTok's parent company, stands firm not to sell its subsidiary.

Now with the SCOTUS rejecting TikTok's appeal, the short video-streaming app has a Jan 19 deadline to divest or face a blackout in the U.S., which will prevent 170 million American users from accessing it.

This is not Washington's first bid to ban TikTok but it failed in the past. In 2020, two judges blocked the ban, ruling that the so-called national security threat was "hypothetical" and that the government "acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner." After the state of Montana passed a ban on TikTok in May 2023, a district judge issued an injuction against it, saying the move "violates the constitution" and "oversteps state power."

The reality is that the app is such a powerful tool that Donald Trump on his campaign trail signed up to it to attract young voters. Even Biden's campaign had a plan to use it to reach out to young voters. The full-throttle use of the app by presidential candidates debunks the notion that it is a national security threat.

In fact, TikTok can be be crucial in raising public awareness on critical issues such as climate change, and it can be used to counter hate crimes and violence, which the U.S. is increasingly grappling with. The app has become a platform for language-learning communities and educators and scholars; it is also an essential forum of expression for underrepresented voices such as people of color and other marginalized groups.

Besides facilitating entertainment and conversation, TikTok is an important source of revenue and job creation. Some 7 million businesses using TikTok are estimated to have contributed $24.2 billion to the U.S. GDP and supported 224,000 jobs in 2023. Banning TikTok would shut down a lot of those small businesses and hurt millions of Americans.

Last month, Trump asked the court to delay the ban so that he could find a "negotiated resolution" that would address the national security concerns while also preserve the rights of tens of millions of Americans. But by backing TikTok's ban, the SCOTUS sends out the message that it doesn't believe in a negotiated solution.

Usually, the SCOTUS takes about three months after an argument to issue a ruling. Yet in this case it did so within a week of the arguments.

TikTok has become a political lever in the U.S. During his first presidential term, Trump signed a pair of executive orders to bar Americans from doing business with TikTok and WeChat, alleging they were tools of corporate espionage. Then Biden expressed similar fears. The question is, if TikTok is a threat to U.S. national security, why did Biden in 2021 revoke Trump's executive order to ban TikTok and WeChat?

There are more instances of double standard. TikTok is accused of collecting Americans’ data and passing it on to the Chinese authorities. But the data TikTok has pales in comparison to what American tech companies collect. Besides, to allay this fear, TikTok shifted all its user data to servers in America. On the other hand, the U.S. has been pressuring its firms to create backdoors in their encrypted messaging apps to gain access to private communications. This is a clear attempt to use every Internet-connected device for enhanced surveillance.

By passing a law to shut down a social media platform, the Biden administration sets a dangerous precedent of unconstitutional government intervention in the corporate sector. This reinforces the belief that America is a threat to global businesses and resorts to questionable means to suppress the nations it perceives as rivals. Washington's actions imply a marked reversal from its so-called Internet policy of openness and free speech and are bound to discourage international firms from entering the U.S. market, fearing similar treatment.

The TikTok ban also has far-reaching consequences for the China-U.S. relationship. America's digital protectionism amplifies the perception of decoupling from China and weaponization of national security concerns to stifle fair competition. This, besides complicating the bilateral relationship described as the most important relationship in the world, could force Beijing to take retaliatory actions to safeguard its interests.

In this era of global community, the measure will balkanize the global Internet, disconnecting Americans from the rest of the world, and widen the global digital divide, when it is crucial to bridge it to meet the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Hopefully, when Trump assumes office his administration will rectify this. After all, China-U.S. economic and technological cooperation holds the key to defusing tensions and supporting each other's development.

*My article that first appeared in the "CGTN"

Resilient China-Africa partnership: Navigating challenges together

By: Azhar Azam

In a 35th consecutive visit by a Chinese foreign minister to Africa, Member of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee and Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi is visiting Namibia, the Republic of the Congo, Chad and Nigeria between January 5 and 11.

The China-Namibia ties are rooted in political understanding, cultural cooperation and academic exchanges. Windhoek appreciates China's important role and the impact of Chinese investments in Africa's development. Namibian President Nangolo Mbumba last month described Beijing's relations with the Global South as unique because it always looked to establish win-win cooperation with "no historical hangover" and because China "was never a colonizer in Africa or the Caribbean."

While China's investments in the Husab Uranium Project and Rossing Uranium Mine have contributed to about 7 percent of Namibia's GDP, further financial support of more than 1.5 billion Namibian dollars (about $80.2 million) at the Summit of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) last September was committed to helping Windhoek to construct housing facilities for police officers and other future projects as well as bolster its drought relief efforts as part of Beijing's push to promote mutual development and build a high-level community with a shared future.

During the FOCAC summit, Chinese President Xi Jinping met with President Denis Sassou Nguesso of the Republic of the Congo and acclaimed the country's progress in consolidating peace and development under his leadership. Leaders of the two countries later witnessed the signing of bilateral agreements including the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and digital economy as the first ladies of the two countries held discussions on promoting healthcare, education and women and children's welfare in Africa.

Beijing's development projects have transformed the Congo's infrastructure landscape, bringing benefits to the Congolese economy and prosperity to the domestic people. The No. 1 National Highway – a key outcome of the FOCAC and widely known as the "Dream Road," linking Brazzaville, the capital, with Pointe-Noire, the economic center – has become an economic lifeline for the Congo by reducing the travel time and distance, transporting about 90 percent of the country major products, generating 10,000 jobs and training more than 4,000 local technicians.

China has been Chad's largest trading and investment partner for quite a few years. Beijing supports N'Djamena in pursuing its independent development path and is committed to playing its role in the country's development. The bilateral relations have been elevated to a strategic partnership. Chad's President Mahamat Idriss Deby Itno believes that China's sustained development brings opportunities for his country, Africa and the entire world.

At the FOCAC, leading Chinese companies and institutions signed six memorandums of understanding with Chad in areas such as energy, water, agriculture and infrastructure that would contribute to the country's development and the well-being of its people.

China and Nigeria have maintained warm ties for almost 54 years since 1971 and are locked in a close economic relationship with a bilateral trade volume reaching $1.31 billion, a year-on-year increase of 16.5 percent in 2023. Ahead of the FOCAC, Xi and Nigerian President Bola Tinubu held talks, inking several deals including on BRI and elevating bilateral ties to a comprehensive strategic partnership, demonstrating their commitment to using the strengthened relationship for "robust development, stability and security" across Africa.

In the latest sign of deepening ties, Beijing and Abuja recently renewed a currency swap deal worth over $2 billion. The deal is expected to boost trade and investment between the two countries, ease pressure on Nigeria's foreign exchange reserves, reduce transaction costs and stabilize the country's economy.

In a world plagued by conflicts in Europe and the Middle East, protectionism, political turmoil in several Western countries and economic crisis exacerbated by U.S. hegemony, the China-Africa relationship has solidified through a joint vision of promoting peace in the world, extending respect to each other, increasing economic engagement and pursuing win-win cooperation. Wang's four-nation trip would open new horizons for the China-Africa cooperation, delivering a message of peace, harmony and mutually beneficial development.

It isn't just China's investment and lending that portrays Being as a trusted African partner; it is also China's pledge to share its experiences in poverty alleviation, technology and development that in contrast to the U.S. and other Western powers has won admiration from African leaders. This has made Beijing an inspiration for the countries across the continent.

Wang's trip to Africa not only maintains the long-held tradition of visiting Africa but also aims to put actions behind words by implementing the outcomes of the FOCAC. This consistent and steadfast commitment to the continental people, stability and sustained development will break the ground to forge an all-weather China-Africa community with a shared future for the new era, a partnership that is more resilient and capable of jointly withstanding uncertainties and navigating regional and global challenges toward common prosperity for both sides.

*My article that first appeared in the "CGTN"

Somaliland trading recognition for sovereignty in the Horn

By: Azhar Azam

Situated in the larger Horn of Africa with hundreds of miles of coastline along the Gulf of Aden, bordering Ethiopia to the south and west and Djibouti to the northwest – Somaliland is a self-governing region of Somalia that declared independence from Mogadishu in 1991 but remains unrecognized internationally.

A tectonic shift is taking place recently as the US ambassador to Somalia Richard Riley attended Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi’s inauguration as the new Somaliland President and said that it was “one of the best examples of democracy in action in Africa,” in a signal to build relations with Somalia’s breakaway region.

The same day Abdullahi was sworn in, a Republican Congressman Scott Perry introduced bill in the House to recognize Somaliland as a sovereign state. Republicans had attempted to pass pro-Somaliland legislation in the Congress but these bills were ultimately rejected by the House and Senate.

This time, the bill could pass given former aides of the US President-elect Donald Trump say that he could recognize Somaliland and the de facto state has shown its willingness to provide the US a military base in the port city of Berbera, which was modernized with the support of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and whose proximity to the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait – a critical shipping route that connects the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean through the Gulf of Aden – drastically enhances its strategic value for commercial and military activities and counter China's influence.

In 2020, Somaliland opened a representative office in Taiwan, drawing China’s wrath. Recently, Taipei's Deputy Foreign Minister François Chihchung Wu led a delegation to attend Abdullahi’s swearing-in ceremony. This as well as Beijing’s close ties with Mogadishu and its support of Somalia’s territorial integrity could push the US to consider this proposal.

Somaliland has been offering this facility to other countries in exchange for recognition. In January, its President Muse Bihi Abdi signed a memorandum of understanding with the Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmad to provide the landlocked country access to the sea on the condition that Addis Ababa at a future date would recognize Somaliland. The deal infuriated Somalia, which labeled it an “aggression” and called his ambassador back from Addis Ababa.

But after Somalia and Ethiopia in a Turkey-brokered agreement agreed to mend ties, ending fears of a wider conflict, Somaliland has now turned to the US for a deal that would earn it the status of a separate country and allow America to establish an intelligence facility in the Horn to monitor arms trafficking, Houthi movements in Yemen and Chinese activities in the neighboring Djibouti.

As the Project 2025, a controversial agenda created by the right-wing Heritage Foundation that is widely seen as a blueprint for the coming Trump administration, has called for "the recognition of Somaliland statehood as a hedge against the US's deteriorating position in Djibouti,” Somaliland has a better chance to get itself recognized by the US with the right-leaning administration taking over the White House in a few weeks.

The Biden administration has been favoring Somalia over Somaliland yet the policy appears to have changed as it sent a high-level delegation led by Riley and the commander of the US Africa Command Maj Gen Brian Cashman to the region who met both outgoing and incoming Somaliland presidents and discussed peace, stability and prosperity across the Horn, indicating a bipartisan support could grow on Somaliland.

However, there are choppy waters ahead. Egypt, a key US ally in the region – that has closely aligned itself with Somalia, holds deep-seated rifts with Ethiopia over its construction of a dam on the River Nile and is an important mediator between Hamas and Israel – could take the US recognition of Somaliland as betrayal.

Turkey, America’s Nato ally and the other major regional player, would be upset too for it has inked a defense and economic agreement as well as an oil and gas deal with Somalia. Such a move would also elicit from a scathing diatribe from the African Union that has long opposed secessionist movements, believing they would encourage separatists across the continent.

Somaliland’s recognition by Trump would further have far-reaching implications given it would prompt strong reservations from Somalia, a vital America’s ally in the fight against al-Shabaab and the rising threat of Islamic State in Puntland, Djibouti and Eritrea as well as America’s key partners, in addition to Egypt and Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar that are bolstering their engagement with the regional nations and could see tensions in the region as a hazard to their economic and security interests.

The UAE is by far the biggest Gulf player in Africa. While Abu Dhabi has invested $59.4 billion in the continent over the last decade, it is operating a network of logistics platforms and ports in the Horn including Somaliland and Puntland, the two Somali-federated states. The UAE had earlier developed military installations in Eritrea and Somaliland during its military campaign in Yemen, urging Somalia to perceive Emiratis a threat to its unity.

During the cold war, the Horn couldn’t witness sustainable peace and prosperity as the region became a proxy battleground for the US and the Soviet Union with the former seeing the territory as a means of solving its problems such as preventing the advances of the Soviet communism and the latter viewing it as a key to victory over its Western rivals.

Once violent extremism and interstate conflicts shoved the region into a perpetual instability, an intra-regional propensity to choose confrontation over dialogue on access to the Red Sea and inclination to surrender its sovereignty to foreign nations to extract economic benefits have allowed the great and middle powers to jostle for influence across the Horn with some patting distant countries to exploit the opportunity.

As Somaliland trades recognition for sovereignty by tempting America to strengthen its military footprint in the region, this approach would kick off a race in the region where other countries could consider offering their territory to international powers. This would have horrifying consequences for the people and peace in the Horn, which unarguably is one of the poorest regions in the world.

*My article (unedited) that first appeared in the "Express Tribune"

After Britain, will China be next to join CPTPP free trade pact?

By: Azhar Azam

While Trump’s unilateral ways might make it easier for Beijing to rally support, the path to its accession remains littered with obstacles.

*My article that first appeared in "South China Morning Post"