Foreign intervention must stop for a durable ceasefire in Libya

By: Azhar Azam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By: Azhar Azam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why China is the partner for Africa

By: Azhar Azam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speculative US antipathies about China are losing traction

By: Azhar Azam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NATO is in its death throes

By: Azhar Azam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By: Azhar Azam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump’s tumbling Afghanistan strategy

By: Azhar Azam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brewing conflict in Indo-Pacific

By: Azhar Azam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UK's decision on Huawei to guide the world towards cooperation

By: Azhar Azam

*This is one of my opinion pieces (unedited) that first appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)" https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-01-30/UK-s-decision-on-Huawei-to-guide-the-world-towards-cooperation-NFsumOHMsM/index.html and was republished by "China Daily" https://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202001/30/WS5e327c7da310128217273b5f.html

Following an extensive and focused assessment and deliberation, the United Kingdom finally allowed Huawei to be part of building its 5G telecommunications network. The “limited role” though prevented Shenzhen giant from supplying core and sensitive parts, the decision is still very significant.

The exclusion of global 5G leader could have deeper repercussions for the UK goal to diversify its supply chain by letting the disruptive entrants such as Huawei to kill the duopoly in the country and achieve the connectivity of the national infrastructure cheaply and quickly.

Going ahead with the world’s largest 5G infrastructure provider will boost up British government commitment to connect 15 million premises to full fiber broadband by 2025 and provide nationwide coverage by 2033 as well as would help to realize its ambition of becoming the world leader in 5G. In addition, the move will remove the barriers to the construction of a faster network in the country costing £5 billion.

Digital infrastructure market has very few top global players – just three, to be exact. What’s more, the Chinese telecom titan is the one that encompasses the two basic advantages required for the implementation of any major infrastructure deal: it tends to be cheaper than the rivals and it is much faster than those.

Shenzhen’s behemoth is the leader in UK fixed access (Full Fiber FTTP) and 4G mobile access market with share of 44% and 35% respectively so it is ideally positioned to accelerate the UK fifth-generation technology drive. British ratification also shut down the economic holes that were threatening to widen over interruption of 5G development plans.

Huawei clearance recouped the estimated permanent losses of up to $11.8 billion to the UK economy besides increase of up to 29% in investment costs for next-generation infrastructure and up to 10.4 million of English descents who could have delayed access to innovative technology.

The authorization rendered a grand reprieve to the several UK telecom providers too who had already started to deploy the Huawei technology in more than 70 cities and earlier warned that any suspension in the rollout of 5G could cost them and Britain economy billions of pounds apart from delaying the deployment by up to five years.

Global market share of Huawei is more than the combine share of the next two largest 5G builders. As British Vodafone, German Deutsche Telekom and Spanish Telefonica all are Huawei clients and have warned that the replacement of Huawei kits could cost billions of euros – British move can embolden the European Union to allow Huawei operate in the region.

US sanctions on Huawei are towing the global telecom providers into a situation where they would essentially sustain huge economic and time losses. Owing to these kinds of diverse convolutions, there has been an increased realization in the European countries that restricting Huawei won’t be doable option for them to mull over.

The UK consent is widely contemplated as a major blow to the US global campaign against Huawei. Britain action followed after its self-established Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Centre, working under the National Cyber Security Centre, found no malicious activity between Chinese government and Huawei.

Defining decision by one of the members of so-called international intelligence sharing group – “Five Eyes” including the US, the US, Australia, Canada and New Zealand – tersely rebuffed Washington allegations that Huawei was involved in spying activities for Beijing or had any clandestine links with China.

Over the period of last 15 years, only 8 companies from all over the world have managed to move up in the global ranking by 70 or more places. Huawei is one of them. It was the fifth-largest in worldwide research and development (R&D) according to the latest 2019 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard.

Soon after adding Huawei and its 68 of its affiliates to the US entity on May 16 by the US Commerce Department over national security or foreign policy interests, Trump administration issued a 90-day temporary general license to Huawei on May 22 and later extended it on November 18.

The grant and extension of license, which allowed the American companies to continue doing business with Huawei, was itself a rebuke to the US claims and emphasized that the world’s largest economy wasn’t finding a better substitute to Huawei in the country and it desperately needed to live off Chinese technology.

Despite the US last-ditch caveat to the UK that it “would be madness” to use Huawei technology, the British Prime Minister Boris Johnson made an independent decision as a head of a sovereign country and fulfilled his promise to provide people “access to the best possible technology,” eliminating the risks of fortune losses and lagging behind in global 5G race.

Johnson’s first forceful assertion after Brexit is a rousing guidance for European and other countries. While it would restore the confidence of business investors and capital markets globally, the move will steer the international world to pursue a cooperative and collaborative approach to regenerate the tariff- and sanction-hit global economy.

US should stop its uncalled-for interference in CPEC

By: Azhar Azam

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

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-01-26/-U-S-should-stop-its-uncalled-for-interference-in-CPEC-Nz0yHmIJBS/index.html

China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), the flagship project of Belt and Road Initiative, is racing ahead fast and is strengthening one of the oldest and strongest bilateral alliances between Beijing and Islamabad. On top of that, the game-changer economic partnership continues to transform Pakistan’s economy and livelihoods of the country’s people.

A total of 12 power projects, under CPEC, have either been completed or underway with a total generation capacity of 7,240 megawatts (MW) while another nine projects of 6,390 MW are in early stages, attracting a foreign investment of $12 billion. These projects have been largely financed by China through grants and concessional loans.

Only the CPEC energy projects have so far provided low-cost electricity to 33 million Pakistanis besides producing $250 million in tax revenues and creating 10,000 jobs. Therefore amid growing economic turmoil and plunging GDP, the people and government of Pakistan perceives CPEC as a buoyant development plan to reinstate the economy, improve critical infrastructure and open employment opportunities.

Lately, Beijing and Islamabad have decided to develop Pakistan’s city of Faisalabad as a major industrial hub. In this second phase of CPEC, the establishment of Special Economic Zone (SEZ) in the city of textiles could create nearly 300,000 jobs, draw investment of more than $2.5 billion and lessen country’s reliance on imports.

But the US ignores to spot CPEC in the backdrop of enormous economic benefits to Pakistan and socio-economic development of more than 200 million Pakistanis. Unfortunately, Washington willingly sees the project as its economic rivalry with Beijing and is insisting Islamabad to review its economic alignment with China.

The US ambassador for South and Central Asia earlier this week again urged Pakistan to reconsider its unstinting embrace of Beijing’s trillion-dollar BRI insignia. Addressing a think tank in Pakistan, she recapped her prior allegations such as lack of transparency in CPEC projects, debt burden, and award of contracts to delisted companies in addition to questioning the immunity of CPEC Authority.

In an interview with US news channel CNBC on Wednesday in Davos, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan hit back at her criticism and turned down the US claim that through CPEC; Beijing was towing Islamabad into a debt trap and labeled the remarks “nonsense.” Khan further eulogized China for its resolute economic support for Pakistan.

“When the Chinese came to help us with this Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and CPEC, we were at the rock bottom,” Khan responded when asked if the project was a debt trap. He also thanked China for coming and rescuing Pakistan by pumping in loans that “by the way are barely five or six percent of the total portfolio.”

As Wells broached no evidence to justify her accusations, the attempt appeared to only hurt the profounder China-Pakistan relationship by pecking doubts among the society. But she entirely disregarded that about three-quarter of a century-old friendship between the two countries has firmly interlaced them into a deep and unique rapport of brotherhood and trust.

Over the decades, Islamabad has not only relied on Beijing to help overcome its economic privations but has also consistently thrown its faith on its all-weather ally to put up its point of view on war on terror and Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) in front of the international community or to take up the issues in the UN Security Council (UNSC).

While the global world including Pakistan’s closest partners remain tone-deaf on the Indian unilateral actions in the disputed territory J&K, it is China that has become the voice of Pakistan on the global forums. Last week, Beijing once again called a meeting in the UNSC to urge India and Pakistan to seek solutions through dialogue, a demand Islamabad has long pursued.

Beijing has actively supported Pakistan on South Asian country’s endeavor to avoid the Financial Actions Task Force (FATF) blacklisting. Recently Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson emphasized that Pakistan’s political will and visible progress to strengthen domestic CFT (Countering Financing of Terrorism) regime should be recognized globally.

Relations between Islamabad and Washington have been dramatically perfected in the past few months over Pakistan’s facilitation of Afghan peace process. But the US should not expect Pakistan to ditch its iron-brother China to placate Washington. Such an act would an axe on its own feet since China is intensely aiding Pakistan to rout employment snags and bridge the development gaps in energy, infrastructure and industrialization.

Chinese embassy in Pakistan strongly responded to the Wells’ tickings-off too. In a compelling reprisal, Beijing’s spokesperson in Islamabad said that China would be more than glad to see the US develop its relations with Pakistan but oppose American intervention in China-Pakistan bilateral relations and CPEC, which created over 75,000 jobs directly and contributed one to two percent to the country’s GDP.

By dragging CPEC into the discussion, Wells, as a matter of fact, forthrightly compromised the basic US agenda of greater stress on expanding economic partnership and bolstering political engagement between Pakistan and the US in the aftermath of Afghan conflict, humanitarian crisis in J&K and Iran-US standoff.

The uncalled-for interference in China-Pakistan bilateral affairs also forfeited the other important intent of her arrival to promote trade and investment and the advancement of the shared vision of both countries’ leadership “for a long-term, broad-based and enduring partnership.”

If the US is truly concerned about Pakistan and people of the country, it should resolutely back CPEC and boost its trade and investment with the terror-hit country that has suffered billions of economic losses and lost thousands of lives due to Washington’s war on terror in Afghanistan. Maybe, it could counterweigh Pakistan’s sacrifices to some extent.

Why a tariff-free phase two deal should be the pressing priority?

By: Azhar Azam

*This is one of my opinion pieces (unedited) that first appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)":
https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-01-19/Why-a-tariff-free-phase-two-deal-should-be-the-pressing-priority-NnUCWebbt6/index.html

At an event in the Peterson Institute for International Economic Washington, IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva warned on Friday that the phase one deal between China and the US would carve the uncertainty that paled the global economic growth but won’t eliminate it.

She further recalled Fund’s previous forecast that projected the global trade tensions to shave 0.8% or $700 billion off international economic growth, about one-third of which was due to tariffs and the rest resulted from slowdown in business investment. Georgieva underscored that the deal was only an interim solution and the impact on investment was there on the cards.

Trade and investment are the vital components of the international economic system that relentlessly lurks in the twilight if any of the critical organs cease to function efficiently. That was the case when in a stream of diplomatic rhetoric; the US President Donald Trump unleashed a trade war with China about two year ago.

As a result of pervasive use of tariff sledgehammer – the international trade writhed, import costs whizzed radically, investors became leery of business investment, capital markets blunted and millions of farmers befell prey amid the protracting trade frictions between the two world’s largest economies.

Tariff guns didn’t discriminate between wealthy and poor nations and beaten up all in chorus including Americans. The US Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in August estimated American GDP to roughly shrink by 0.3% in 2020 over tariff-elicited increased domestic prices alongside declining purchasing power of the consumers.

As the phase one deal will still leave a vast majority of the Trump’s tariffs on Chinese goods in place, the business investment – threatened by uncertainty over future barriers to trade and their perception of risks associated with investment in the US – are likely to be affected heavily in the coming months.

Though the extensive and exhaustive negotiations between the two high-fliers economies would at least unwind the growing anxieties across the international trade and prevent the global economy to bleed for the time being, yet the specter of business investment is even now represents a gloomy picture as Georgieva pointed out.

So, there is an urgent need that both China and the US quickly set off a new round of talks, phase two dialogue, about revocation of existing additional tariffs to rejuvenate the investors’ confidence and to relocate the international economy on the economic recovery mode without more ado.

Immediate consultations on the phase two trade deal, designed for tariff reversal, are in the interest of the Trump administration that faces the looming presidential elections in the US. While the move would revivify the purchasing power of the ordinary Americans, overburdened with a loss of $580 in average household income, the US president can gain a lot politically to stem a second term by withdrawing tariffs on Chinese imports.

Trump should actively pursue a phase two deal with China also because the stimulus to the business investment would cast out the forthcoming downward pressure on the US economy, providing him an opportunity to create thousands of new jobs in an election year. He can of course boast of his achievements in the public just before election canvassing gets into a full-blown boom.

Manufacturing is one of the sectors where he can start from. Like others, the US trade row with China has emphatically impaired the US manufacturing sector. The chafing relations were primarily held responsible for the contraction of American manufacturing activity that dropped to a reading of 47.2 in December, the lowest since June 2009. It was also a fifth straight month of retrenchment.

Tariff hits by Trump on Chinese goods have proved fairly counterproductive for the country’s manufacturing sector. Albeit the US collected some $46 billion in duties from the US companies importing products from China however the country’s factory output was stalled and the new employments in the sector were leveled off.

Prevalence of the US tariffs provided very little respite to the American manufacturers who contributed more than $2.4 trillion to the US GDP in the third quarter of 2019 and employed about 12.9 million workers as of December. A phase two deal can do a charisma to their prosperity.

If China and the US would rescind tariffs on each other goods, millions of manufacturers in the country would be able to import cheap components from China and hence would be in a position to increase the US exports to China and the world over apart from generating more job opportunities.

Beijing has already committed to ramp up billions of dollars of manufactured goods from Washington. If tariffs are reversed, China’s purchase of auto, auto parts, machinery, electrical equipment, pharmaceutical products, medical devices and other manufactured goods would expansively shore up the key US manufacturing sector.

For more than 18 months, China-US trade tensions have rounded up global economy and decelerated its growth, roiled the financial markets and dismantled supply chains worldwide. Only a tariff-free phase two trade deal can bring back them all from the brink of collapse.

Afghanistan and top US priority

By: Azhar Azam

*This is one of my opinion pieces (unedited) that first appeared in "The Express Tribune":
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2139348/6-afghanistan-top-us-priority/

In December 2014, the former US President Barrack Obama formally ended the 13-year US combat mission – Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) or the war in Afghanistan – claiming that the longest war in American history had come to a “responsible conclusion”.

First African American head of state forthwith announced to launch the ongoing non-combat campaign, Operation Freedom’s Sentinel (OFS) as part of the NATO-led Resolute Support Mission (RSM), to train, advise and assist Afghan security forces and institutions and conduct counter-terrorism operations against remnants of al-Qaeda.

After Trump’s 2017 Afghanistan strategy, to launch hostile military campaign on Afghan Taliban and rebuke Pakistan, backfired and since Washington was bursting to chuck out Kabul – the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo appointed Zalmay Khalilzad to a newly created post of Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation in September 2018 to oversee the looming peace talks with Afghan Taliban in Qatar and hold consultations with Afghan, Pakistan and other regional governments.

Khalilzad frequently trekked to Islamabad and exhorted the Afghan-adjacent country to use its influence in brining Taliban to the negotiation table for a political settlement in the battle-scarred republic. In September, Pompeo and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford arrived in Pakistan to retune the stained US-Pakistan diplomatic and military relations.

The influx of large number of top US political and military officials in Pakistan and the subsequent Trump’s letter to Prime Minister Imran Khan – which sought Islamabad‘s assistance and facilitation for a political settlement in Afghanistan – underscored Pakistan’s pivotal role in brokering peace dialogue between US and Taliban and eventually provide a willowy exit to the world’s most powerful military from Kabul.

Perceiving that the peace and stability in the devastated land was a shared responsibility, Islamabad responded earnestly and afterward played a pivotal role in persuading Taliban to kick off a peace dialogue with Washington started in Doha, Qatar within next few months.

Pakistan role in facilitating Taliban-US talks was greatly appreciated by the US. In its 2019 report to the Congress, the US Department of Defense (DOD) admitted Pakistan’s active patronage for Afghan reconciliation and its contributions in bringing Taliban to the negotiation table. The report further acknowledged that Pakistan security forces were fighting and conducting counter-terrorism operations against US-designated terrorist organizations ISIS-K and AQIS in its territory.

Unfortunately, all Pakistan’s concentrated, hardcore and peacemaking efforts were tainted after Trump busted the peace talks with Taliban through a cascade of his tweets on September 8. While the US president accused the armed group for building “false leverage” by continuing their attacks – in truth, American forces assumed the very same pugnacious maneuvers to strengthen the US bargaining position.

Amid extensive peace talks, the US dropped 613 and 753 weapons in the months of July and August respectively in Afghanistan – higher than many months since OFS/ORS was started in 2015. US Commander in Afghanistan General Austin Miller’s remarks that America had “dialed up” military pressure on Taliban “to shape the political pressure” and keep them on the negotiation table was a brusque confession that the US wronged the Afghan civilians for its strategic interests.

Again Afghan civilians fell prey to the offensives from either of the sides and their casualties increased 42% year-on-year in the third quarter of 2019 to reach a total of 8,239 including 2,563 killing for January to September 2019. Pro and anti-government forces were approximately equally indictable for the sharp rise in Afghan civilian fatalities.

It is hence pretty pellucid that Afghanistan is no more on the US foreign policy’s top priorities agenda. Indeed, it had decided to leave war-torn country in 2014 when it ended OEF and initiated OFS/RSM. Ex-National Security member riposte to SIGAR the same year “Your job was not to win, it was to not lose” gave a clear-eyed view of the US backdoor withdrawal strategy in Afghanistan.

The US finds virtually no ally to rationalize its drone strike in Iraq

By: Azhar Azam

*This is one of my opinion pieces (unedited) that first appeared at "China Global Television Network (CGTN)" https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-01-07/The-U-S-finds-no-ally-to-rationalize-its-drone-strike-in-Iraq-N3GJBPTobu/index.html and was republished by "China Daily" https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-01-07/The-U-S-finds-no-ally-to-rationalize-its-drone-strike-in-Iraq-N3GJBPTobu/index.html

Being the biggest economy and purportedly the predominant military might of the world, the international community expects the United States to add thrust to the global economy, utilize its universal influence positively to resolve regional conflicts and make an important contribution for the peace and stability the world over.

Unfortunately, the US has completely loathed behaving like a dynamic and responsible state and blinded by power and rage, has continued to perversely rattle the global peace efforts by its provocative and threatening tones and aggression on the weaker nations in the name of securing American lives and national security interests.

The history echoed as after killing the head of Iran’s elite Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Quds Force Qassem Soliemani in a drone strike, the US President Donald Trump accused him for “plotting imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel” while parroting the same hoary claim that Soliemani had targeted, injured and murdered hundreds of American civilians and servicemen.

By assassinating the Iranian top military leadership, Washington is ostensibly preparing to reenter into the Middle East, from where it had formerly gestured to pull out. Though Trump murmurs that he does not want a regime change or war with Tehran, the deployment of thousands of additional troops in the Persian Gulf nullifies his contentions. The US had hitherto invaded Iraq twice to make the Baghdad its strong foothold in the region and is now again baiting the impoverished nation for its sham strategic goals.

Unlike previously, when Washington used to employ such tactics of attacking sovereign countries and killing their leadership to legitimize its hostility and forge multilateral military alliances – this time, nations across the globe rebuffed to buy the US impression of misconception about Iran.

Trump’s adverse action has been strongly disapproved by the international world as a whole and even by the US allies and domestic American political gurus and Congressmen. While Iraq considered the step as “aggression” – China, France, Germany, Russia, Turkey, Britain and others showed a very serene and objective approach and urged the sides, the US in particular, to exercise restraint that could otherwise entail grave consequences for regional peace and stability.

Americans, which were one-voiced on September 11, are now slating Trump for not taking the Congress on board for airstrike in Iraq. Following her statement about Trump administration’s “provocative, escalatory and disproportionate military engagement” that put American citizens, military personnel and allies in danger – the US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is set to introduce and vote on “War Powers Resolution” to limit the President’s military actions regarding Iran.”

Trump’s rival presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders urged Congress to reassert its constitutional responsibility over war while and furious Senator Chuck Schumer endorsed Sanders and planned “to fight him (Trump) tooth and nail” on starting an endless war. Many American also took to the streets to denounce the strike.

The US military conducted the operation in Baghdad so covertly that even its closest ally the UK, which has 400 troops in the Middle East to work alongside the US, and the Prime Minister Boris Johnson, were out of loop as well. Neverthless, UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab official response after US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s tweet about recognizing the continuing aggressive threats posed by the Iranian Quds Force resounds the US ordaining attitude to its handiest partner.

Pompeo made such as effort to influence Pakistan and phoned the country’s army chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa presumably to seek Islamabad support. But Pakistani military head emphasis on maximum restraint and de-escalation as well as the assurance “We will not allow our soil to be used against anyone” blow up the US intent to inflict disturbance in the Middle East.

In a telephonic conversation with Iranian foreign minister Jawad Zarif, Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister termed the US act a “military adventurist” that goes against the international relations. He pressed Washington to pursue the process of dialogue and asserted that China is ready to play a constructive role for peace and stability in Western Asia.

China has also backed Iran’s Hormuz Peace Endeavor (HOPE) that is furthered by Tehran as an important forum of dialogue and political negotiations among the region’s nations based on no use of force, settling crisis peacefully, respect each other’s sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs of other countries.

But all the fused international voices of peace negotiations and restraint seem to have no impact on the US as Trump continues to escalate the situation and push the region into yet another bloody war. After bragging about two trillion dollars of military equipment acquisitions, Trump issued a “legal notice” that the US would strike back in case of any Iranian reprisal, “perhaps in a disproportionate manner.”

As opposed to putting itself accountable to the international community on its uncalled-for offensive, the US haughty attitude is greatly brazen and deplorable. While it should be using the global diplomatic forums to ease the tensions with Iran, it is trying to create more critical mess in the conceit of its military prowess and hegemonic posture.

9/11 terrorist attacks on the US were indubitably the horrific incidence so the global community fiercely condemned the incursions in unison and unanimously backed the US war on terror. But this time, the US is the aggressor – not a victim – which deliberately ripped up the international laws, violated the sovereignty of an independent country and exterminated a serving Iranian army general, therefore is finding virtually no ally to rationalize its drone strike in Iraq.

The lurching Indian economy and protests

By: Azhar Azam

*This is one of my opinion pieces (unedited) that first appeared in "The Express Tribune":
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2128797/6-lurching-indian-economy-protests/

India has been one of the fastest growing major economies of the world over the past few years that allowed it to lift millions out of poverty. As the country’s growth dropped to 4.5% in the second quarter of the year – lowest in six years – IMF called it to it to take urgent policy actions to address the current downturn and return the economy to a high growth path.

IMF forecast coincided with Moody’s and Fitch estimates that condoned Indian GDP growth to decline considerably to 4.5% and 4.6% respectively in FY2020. Owing to the global and domestic economic slowdown, some seven million people are threatened to be trapped in the poverty in the South Asian country.

Narendra Modi-led Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) should be wakeful of New Delhi’s imminent economic crunch while it was preparing to contest 2019 national elections. The saffron brigade, therefore, didn’t rely on the wonted election jingles of shoring up economy, introduction of public welfare projects and creating vast job opportunities.

Hindu nationalist party instead deliberately focused on the contentious issues such as annulment of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), enactment of Citizen Amendment Act (CAA) and the construction of Ram Temple to stir the religious sentiments of predominantly Hindu Indian population.

The truculent manifesto paid off prolifically and the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) claimed a landslide victory in 2019 Lok Sabha elections, winning 353 seats and became the only non-Congress government to regain power in the political history of India.

Massive public support spurred BJP to cash on the strong nation’s backing and it forthwith pursued to keep Indian folks obsessed with its querulous pre-election program and additionally to make them distracted from the sickening country’s economy.

Ignoring the international resentments, BJP has so far repealed the autonomous status of Muslim-dominated J&K and Ladakh in violation to the Simla Agreement with Pakistan; published the latest version of National Register of Citizens (NRC) that excluded nearly two million people in Assam; pledged to roll out NRC across India by 2024 and snatched a verdict from Indian Supreme Court to build Ram Temple in place of Babri Mosque in Ajodhya town of Utter Pradesh.

With economic woes simmering in the off-sight, Indian parliament recently passed another controversial legislation Citizen Amendment Act (CAA) 2019 – which excluded only Muslims and permitted Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan to obtain Indian citizenship. BJP argued since these minorities were undergoing persecution in the three countries, it was its moral obligation to shelter them.

Meanwhile, it was highly irrepressible for BJP to mask the deteriorating Indian economic indicators that continued to pinch hard the mass population of more than 1.3 billion. The fall in consumption, slackened private investment and three-year high 8.5% unemployment rate shake up the overwrought Indian people and they hit back at BJP’s divisive move of CAA legislation and showed their anguish in nationwide protests and the country’s State Assembly elections.

Just within a few months of regaining absolute power, Indian citizens doled out some serious blows to the Modi administration as his BJP conceded a huge lead to the trilateral opposition alliance in Jharkhand. BJP contested on 79 of 81 seats in the Indian eastern state and could win only 25 as compared to rivals’ 47. It was BJP’s fifth consecutive defeat in Indian state elections.

Back to back thrashing conquests are alarming signs for the BJP government. Where the protests revealed that people had quickly rejected any sectarianism or religious divide in India, the large majority of Indian also overruled any political ambitions to thrive at the cost of their economy.

This is something the global economies can learn learn from. Public gripes in India – also fueled by onion crisis and rising inflation touching three-year peak of 5.5% – again shed light on the importance of the economy that though may be eclipsed for the time being over sporadic public emotions but can never become dormant completely.

New Delhi’s consistent Muslim-fixated debatable actions have put the United States, a close Indian ally, in an awkward position that has been very vocal about Chinese discrimination of Muslims in its Xinjiang autonomous region. While Washington has bitingly criticized Beijing over its treatment of minorities, the world is yet to see something substantial on New Delhi from the Trump administration and American Congressmen.