The United Nations said Wednesday a multi-nation conference that the organizers had hoped would “add momentum” to the faltering peace talks between Afghanistan’s warring parties has been postponed.
Turkey, Qatar and the U.N. had planned to convene the 10-day event, proposed by the United States, in Istanbul starting this Saturday.
“China’s leaders see distant water fleets as a way to project presence around the world. The aim is to be present all over the world’s oceans so that they can direct the outcomes of international agreements that cover maritime resources.” — Tabitha Mallory, CEO of China Ocean Institute and affiliate professor at the University of Washington, Axios, March 23, 2021.
In the past five years, more than 500 abandoned wooden fishing boats, often with skeletons of starved North Korean fishermen aboard, have washed up on the shores of Japan. For years the cause was unknown, until it was found out that the likely reason was that “an armada” of Chinese industrial boats fish illegally in North Korean waters…. It is estimated that China’s fishing vessels have depleted squid stocks in North Korean waters by 70%.
The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) said in a report that one-third of the Afghan population could suffer food insecurity due to a worsening drought crisis in the country.
According to the report, 13.1 million people are grappling with food shortages according to the latest food insecurity analysis.
This acute food security crisis compounds social and economic hardships already faced by millions of people in Afghanistan due to the COVID-19 pandemic and years of conflict.
Russian troops are massing on the Ukraine border, Chinese vessels are swarming Whitsun Reef of the Philippines in the South China Sea, and China’s air force is flying almost daily through Taiwan’s air-defense identification zone. Chinese troops for almost a year have been dug in deep in Indian-controlled Ladakh in the Himalayas. Two large aggressors are threatening to break apart neighbors and absorb them.
American attempts to de-escalate flashpoints are seen in Russian and Chinese circles as failures of resolve.
The Global Times, an unofficial Communist Party tabloid used by Beijing to signal new policies, on April 12 posted a video of Hu Xijin, its editor-in-chief, warning that Beijing would overfly Taiwan—in other words, fly into Taiwan’s sovereign airspace—to “declare sovereignty.”
Chinese leaders speak provocatively because, among other reasons, they do not believe the United States or others will come to Taiwan’s rescue…. In effect, China’s leaders are saying they do not believe President Joe Biden would defend Taiwan.
In a propaganda blast on April 8, China’s regime said Taiwan “won’t stand a chance” if it decides to invade the island. This Chinese self-perception of overwhelming strength is extraordinarily dangerous….
[W]e have already passed the point where just declarations and warnings will suffice. The Biden administration has yet to impose costs on China for aggressive actions jeopardizing America’s security and that of allies like Japan. Chinese leaders, while hearing the mild warnings from the Biden administration, must be asking one question: “Or what?”
Vladimir Putin in 2019 said that Russia reserved the right to protect ethnic Russians outside Russia. This month, Dmitry Kozak, deputy head of Russia’s presidential administration, said his country might intervene to “defend” its citizens. If it did, he suggested, Ukraine would not survive because it would not be “a shot in the leg, but in the face.”
The American response has not been adequate. Russians perceive Biden as feeble. “In Putin’s game of brinkmanship, Biden blinked first,” said journalist Konstantin Eggert to the BBC, referring to the American president proposing a meeting to his Russian counterpart. Biden’s “nerves,” he said, “had failed him.”
That assessment may be correct. In the face of threats directed at Washington by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, the U.S. Navy did not, as many had expected, send two destroyers through the Bosporus into the international waters of the Black Sea. Politico reported that “two U.S. officials familiar with the plans” said the cancellation was due to American concerns about inflaming the Russia-Ukraine situation….
The ultimate decision to stay away made it look as if the U.S. had backed down.
The Dragon and the Bear appear to be coordinating moves, as they have for some time. At the very least, each is acting with an eye to what the other is doing. Once one of these aggressors makes a move, the other large state, taking advantage of the situation, will almost certainly follow. Biden also has to be concerned about Moscow or Beijing acting through proxies Iran and North Korea.
All the elements for history’s next great conflict are now in place.
Russian troops are massing on the Ukraine border, Chinese vessels are swarming Whitsun Reef of the Philippines in the South China Sea, and China’s air force is flying almost daily through Taiwan’s air-defense identification zone. Chinese troops for almost a year have been dug in deep in Indian-controlled Ladakh in the Himalayas. Two large aggressors are threatening to break apart neighbors and absorb them.
The Biden administration has issued warnings to both Moscow and Beijing, but neither looks impressed. American attempts to de-escalate flashpoints are seen in Russian and Chinese circles as failures of resolve.
At least at this moment, those adversaries are right to scoff at the new U.S. leader.
The Chinese are especially bold. They describe their flights near Taiwan as “combat drills.” At the same time, they are sending large ships close to Taiwan’s waters. The Liaoning, their first aircraft carrier, recently steamed along the east side of the island in an especially provocative gesture.
The Global Times, an unofficial Communist Party tabloid used by Beijing to signal new policies, on April 12 posted a video of Hu Xijin, its editor-in-chief, warning that Beijing would overfly Taiwan — in other words, fly into Taiwan’s sovereign airspace — to “declare sovereignty.”
Threats like that start wars. Chinese leaders speak provocatively because, among other reasons, they do not believe the United States or others will come to Taiwan’s rescue.
For decades, Washington has maintained a policy of “strategic ambiguity,” not telling either Beijing or Taipei what the U.S. would do in the face of imminent conflict. This approach worked in generally peaceful times with a more cooperative Chinese leadership, but, with far more aggressive rulers in Beijing, that policy is failing.
Beijing is no longer impressed by American power. China’s top diplomat, Yang Jiechi, in the infamous Anchorage meeting in the middle of last month, launched into a tirade in which he told Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan that the U.S. could no longer talk to China “from a position of strength.”
Beijing is openly mocking Washington. Ominously, Global Times on April 14 ran an editorial with this headline: “When Real Determination Is Lacking, the U.S. Should Maintain ‘Strategic Ambiguity.'”
In effect, China’s leaders are saying they do not believe President Joe Biden would defend Taiwan. The editorial, in support of this view, makes it clear that Beijing thinks the military balance of power is in its favor, even if the U.S. were willing to fight on the island republic’s side. In a propaganda blast on April 8, China’s regime said Taiwan “won’t stand a chance” if it decides to invade the island. This Chinese self-perception of overwhelming strength is extraordinarily dangerous, of course.
It is, therefore, time to reestablish deterrence. As Joseph Bosco, a Pentagon China desk officer in the George W. Bush administration, told Gatestone this month, “Given the dramatically changed circumstances, different words are needed now.”
Unfortunately, Beijing is not hearing them. True, the U.S. and Japan issued a joint leaders’ statement mentioning Taiwan — the first time that has happened since 1969 — during the visit of Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga to the White House on April 16, but the words were milquetoast. At this moment, the failure to adopt appropriately robust language only adds to the perception of American weakness and underlines concerns expressed by Bosco, now a prominent China analyst, and others.
What to do? Biden should publicly declare the United States is ditching strategic ambiguity and adopting “strategic clarity,” in other words, Biden should issue a clear declaration that America will defend Taiwan. Beijing has dared the president to say that; he must respond.
Moreover, we have already passed the point where just declarations and warnings will suffice. The Biden administration has yet to impose costs on China for aggressive actions jeopardizing America’s security and that of allies like Japan. Chinese leaders, while hearing the mild warnings from the Biden administration, must be asking one question: “Or what?”
As China threatens Taiwan, Russia threatens Ukraine. Moscow in recent weeks has reportedly massed an estimated 85,000 troops near its border with that former Soviet republic, now an independent state. The concentration of Russian forces there is the highest since 2014, when Moscow annexed Crimea.
That year, Russia-backed soldiers took control of much of the Donetsk and Luhansk portions of Ukraine’s Russian-speaking Donbas, and Moscow began issuing passports to a half million people in the Donetsk and Luhansk “People’s Republics.”
Vladimir Putin in 2019 said that Russia reserved the right to protect ethnic Russians outside Russia. This month, Dmitry Kozak, deputy head of Russia’s presidential administration, said his country might intervene to “defend” its citizens. If it did, he suggested, Ukraine would not survive because it would not be “a shot in the leg, but in the face.”
The American response has not been adequate. Russians perceive Biden as feeble. “In Putin’s game of brinkmanship, Biden blinked first,” said journalist Konstantin Eggert to the BBC, referring to the American president proposing a meeting to his Russian counterpart. Biden’s “nerves,” he said, “had failed him.”
That assessment may be correct. In the face of threats directed at Washington by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, the U.S. Navy did not, as many had expected, send two destroyers through the Bosporus into the international waters of the Black Sea. Politico reported that “two U.S. officials familiar with the plans” said the cancellation was due to American concerns about inflaming the Russia-Ukraine situation.
Gregory Copley, president of the International Strategic Studies Association, told Gatestone that Turkey announced Washington’s intention to sail into the Black Sea before a decision had in fact been made. Especially in light of Ankara’s announcement, the ultimate decision to stay away made it look as if the U.S. had backed down. Significantly, Ukraine was disappointed by the decision.
Copley, also editor-in-chief of Defense & Foreign Affairs Strategic Policy, points out China and Russia usually test new American presidents, as do other states. What is different this time is the seriousness of their provocations.
The Dragon and the Bear appear to be coordinating moves, as they have for some time. At the very least, each is acting with an eye to what the other is doing. Once one of these aggressors makes a move, the other large state, taking advantage of the situation, will almost certainly follow. Biden also has to be concerned about Moscow or Beijing acting through proxies Iran and North Korea.
China’s communist regime has a history of engaging in belligerent acts — most notably the 1962 invasion of India during the Cuban missile crisis — while others are distracted by faraway events. Consequently, war could break out on both ends of the Eurasian landmass at the same time.
All the elements for history’s next great conflict are now in place.
Islamist terrorist formations – global, transnational and Pakistan-based – despite relentless efforts over decades to create turmoil in India’s hinterland, have failed to gain any noticeable traction. In fact, the last major attack (resulting in three or more fatalities) by Islamist terrorists, outside Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), was recorded on January 2, 2016, when 14 persons, including the six attackers, died in an attack on the Pathankot Airbase in Punjab. No major attack has been recorded outside J&K since then (data till April 18, 2021).
Libya’s transitional government on Saturday welcomed a U.N. Security Council decision to deploy international monitors to watch over a nearly six-month-old cease-fire in the conflict-stricken country.
The Government of National Unity also urged the council to help get mercenaries out of the oil-rich country, as it heads toward December elections after a decade of fighting and upheaval.
The U.N. Security Council unanimously approved Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’ recent proposal for up to 60 monitors to join an existing political mission in Libya.
The monitors would arrive in an “incremental deployment … once conditions allow,” according to the council’s British-drafted resolution. The council also urges all foreign forces and mercenaries to get out of the country, as was supposed to happen months ago.
The vote, announced on Friday, was conducted by email, due to the coronavirus pandemic; the results were announced at a brief virtual meeting.
The interim government, which took power last month, expressed its willingness to facilitate the work of the U.N. monitors.
It also said it would would provide “all financial and logistic” capabilities to the country’s elections authority to hold a “fair and transparent” vote on Dec. 24.
Libya has been plagued by corruption and turmoil since a NATO-backed uprising toppled and killed longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi in 2011. In recent years, the country was split between a U.N.-supported government in the capital, Tripoli, and rival authorities based in the country’s east.
Each side was backed by armed groups and foreign governments. The U.N. estimated in December there were at least 20,000 foreign fighters and mercenaries in Libya, including Syrians, Russians, Sudanese and Chadians.
In April 2019, east-based military commander Khalifa Hifter and his forces, backed by Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, launched an offensive to try and capture Tripoli. His 14-month-long campaign collapsed after Turkey and Qatar stepped up their military support of the U.N.-backed government with hundreds of troops and thousands of Syrian mercenaries.
The cease-fire agreement, reached in October, called for the foreign fighters and mercenaries to leave within three months. No progress was made in that regard.
The cease-fire deal has dramatically reduced civilian casualties, but the U.N. has continued to document killings, forced disappearances, sexual violence, arbitrary arrests, hate crimes and attacks against activists and human rights defenders in Libya, U.N. special envoy Jan Kubis told the council last month.
The September pullout will change the calculations of the Afghan negotiating parties and could lead to a recharged civil war.
President Joe Biden formally announced on Wednesday that the United States will withdraw troops from Afghanistan by September 11 of this year, the 20th anniversary of the al-Qaida attacks that led to the U.S. overthrow of the Taliban. The decision comes a month after U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken looked to jump-start the moribund intra-Afghan peace talks in Doha, Qatar with a sweeping set of proposals. Although the withdrawal would mean an end to America’s longest war, the implications for Afghanistan’s hard-won progress are immense and many fear the possibility of a rejuvenated civil war after U.S. troops leave.
A woman embracing her husband after his return from a deployment to Afghanistan in 2014. David Goldman/AP.More than 2,400 American service members were killed in Afghanistan and more than 20,000 were wounded.
What exactly am I supposed to tell these mothers that their sons died for? What was it all for? It remains unclear if the more than 2,400 US troop and personnel deaths, US$2 trillion and 20 years achieved anything truly lasting on the ground in Afghanistan.
It had to be symbolic, and was represented as such. Forces of the United States will be leaving Afghanistan on September 11 after two decades of violent occupation, though for a good deal of this stretch, US forces were, at best, failed democracy builders, at worst, violent tenants.
In his April 14 speech, President Joe Biden made the point that should have long been evident: that Washington could not “continue the cycle of extending or expanding our military presence in Afghanistan hoping to create the ideal conditions for our withdrawal, expecting a different result.” As if to concede to the broader failure of the exercise, “the terror threat” had flourished, being now present “in many places”. To keep “thousands of troops grounded and concentrated in just one country at a cost of billions each year makes little sense to me and to our leaders.”
Washington’s decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan by 11 September spells an end to the U.S. military deployment but not peace. Crisis Group expert Andrew Watkins anticipates that negotiations will likely stall and Afghans will fear an intensified civil war as the U.S. role evolves.
What’s new in the Biden announcement that the U.S. will withdraw all troops by 11 September? Why was the announcement made now?