Limited unity: the loopholes in NATO’s mutual defense vows – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

The future presidential election’s results will have significant effects on how the United States and its allies interact with one another.

While Joe Biden, the president’s main supporter, has long criticized the US’s membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization ( NATO ), despite the fact that the president has a firm belief in the worth of the transatlantic alliance.

In February 2024, for instance, Trump said that if he were reelected leader, he would show Russia to perform “whatever the devil they want” against NATO people who are “delinquent” in never having invested enough in their own defense skills. Foreign policy analysts interpreted that as an offer for Russia to strike these NATO nations.

In September 2022, six weeks after Russia’s complete- level conquest, Ukraine applied to add NATO. Staff from NATO’s 32 member states in North America and Europe may then take into account Ukraine’s possible membership when they meet in Washington in July.

The idea that NATO requires its members to move in and provide protection in the event that another part of the ally is attacked is at the heart of policy discussions involving alliances like NATO.

We as political experts who research the impact of global organizations like NATO, believe it is crucial to comprehend that empire agreements are actually more versatile than people think.

In reality, it is possible for the US and other European nations to avoid engaging in a fight that involves a NATO member without having to violate their alliance agreements. In some circumstances, the NATO agreement’s speech has provisions that allow member nations to avoid participating in conflicts with other members.

Three rows of people stand on a blue platform, with the words 'NATO' and 'London' behind them.
Donald Trump and various NATO head of state are slated to meet in England in 2019. Photo: Steve Parsons / Pool

What does Article 5 actually indicate?

Article 5 of the NATO Treaty is a significant agreement that nations signal when they join the group. According to this definition, an “armed harm” against one NATO member in Europe or North America” shall be regarded as an attack against them all.”

NATO nations agree to aid the nation that needs assistance in the event of an attack, including through” the use of military force, to recover and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”

However, the convention does not provide a crystal clear definition of what an “armed attack” really entails.

This was important in February 2020 when Turkey requested a NATO conference and demanded that NATO intervene militarily in response to Russian and Syrian forces ‘ attacks on its place, which resulted in the deaths of 33 Turkish troops during the Syrian civil war.

NATO allies made the decision to not use force to defend Turkey, arguing that the level of hostility toward it was n’t sufficient justification for an “armed attack.”

Various rules that make up the law

Each nation is also make its own decision regarding how to behave, regardless of whether NATO members choose Article 5 to apply to a particular circumstance. That is, while NATO does own managerial team based in Brussels, there is no central NATO power that specifies what each nation must perform.

A small fighter airplane is seen in the sky, over a city and rivers below with a clear blue sky behind it.
An F- 15 Eagle fly a battle air patrol goal over New York City on Nov. 6, 2001 Photo: US Air Force

Instead, each region tells NATO what it is – and is not – prepared to accomplish.

Following the September 11, 2001 strikes on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center outside of Washington, NATO members just fully invoked Article 5.

13 NATO member states sent warrior plane to aid the US in its airstrikes from mid-October 2001 to mid-May 2002.

However, the majority of NATO friends opted not to send troops to Afghanistan to aid the US in its fight against the Taliban. Some NATO allies ‘ failure to take action was not viewed as breaking the treaty and did n’t spark a significant debate, and the nations that did so were not punished by or expelled from the alliance.

Additionally, the NATO treaty makes some geographical exclusions. The United States and other NATO members were able to avoid the issue by using the fact that the empire only applies to the North Atlantic region as a justification for Argentina’s conflict with the United Kingdom ( a NATO member ) over the Falkland Islands in 1982.

Would public judgment power the president’s hand?

Some social experts contend that voters will demand that their leaders declare war on an alliance they support. Given that no foreign court has the authority to enforce the convention, this implies that what really binds the members of an alliance are the aspirations of the public regarding what it means to be an alliance.

We made the decision to create an experiment to see if presidents may use empire hole vocabulary to justify keeping the US out of a conflict involving an ally as part of our investigation into how the American public views international legal responsibilities.

We conducted two survey-based investigations in 2022 and 2023 that involved asking almost 5, 000 American people to acquire a hypothetical situation in which a powerful neighbor attacks a US alliance.

Some respondents were informed that the alliance treaty’s provisions may prevent the US government from having to deploy troops to defend the troubled ally, whereas others were given no such details.

Although the study did not specifically mention a particular alliance, we did so in a way that matched the terminology used in agreements like NATO’s. The respondents were then asked to share their opinions about sending US troops to defend the enemy alliance.

Our findings revealed a significant difference between those who were informed about the freedom in the alliance convention and those who were not. Respondents from both groups were typically less likely to come up in defence of an ally when they were informed that the empire agreement did not necessarily call for the US to take troops.

This suggests that political rulers can persuade a sizable portion of the electorate that it’s okay to leave an ally in a time of need.

Therefore, it is crucial for both sides to understand that alliance commitments are not quite as legally and politically bound as the conventional wisdom suggests when it comes to policy discussions about US plan toward its ally partners and whether it does accept fresh members like Ukraine.

Emory University professor of social science Dan Reiter and State University of New York associate professor of political science Brian Greenhill

This content was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original content.

Continue Reading

China’s GDP troubles point to need for bolder reform – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Due to Asia’s largest economy’s unsteady state, China’s home crisis is once more in the news for all the wrong reasons.

One of the catalysts that helped China become a global superpower was the country’s estate boom. Xi Jinping is currently facing the most difficult problem of his ten years as Chinese president due to the cover slump.

According to data from May, Xi’s inner circle had hoped that the government’s stimulus efforts to date were n’t gaining the support they had hoped. After falling 3 % in April, new home sales decreased by roughly 4 % last month. It’s the worst work for the business in roughly 10 years. &nbsp, Property investment&nbsp, is over 10 % since the start of the time compared to the January- Does period a year ago.

This data additionally supports the property industry’s continued dominance of growth this year, according to Lynn Song, ING Bank’s chief greater China economist, adding that Beijing if “ring some alarm bells.”

The Third Plenum conference scheduled for this month is set to be illuminated by all of this in a better than ever light. This meeting takes place every five times to examine big-picture reform ideas.

The event was actually scheduled for October 2023, but it was postponed due to uncertainty in the physical economy. However, the meet is a fantastic opportunity for Xi to rekindle his reformist momentum and discuss how steps can be taken to stop the property crisis.

At the moment, says Fitch Ratings analyst Brian Coulton, “domestic desire has weakened in China as the&nbsp, property&nbsp, industry decline worsens and personal intake growth remains sluggish. However, exports have rebounded, which has helped true GDP, and governmental policy is being relaxed. Negative pressures are, nonetheless, widespread”.

An apostrophe is required for all the engines currently propelling China.

The ultra-long special sovereign bonds Beijing began selling in May have the potential to support the country’s gross domestic product of 1 trillion yuan ($ 138 billion ). The goal is to achieve China’s 5 % yearly growth target by reducing public debt and funding for equipment.

According to scholar Louise Loo at Oxford Economics, “unconvincing onshore action speed outside of the “new” companies in May suggests that the current increase in house and fiscal stimulus has not yet improved buyer and investor sentiment.”

The physical sector, however, is even more questionable, yet if mainland exports are on a break. In spite of the escalating US-China trade tensions, overseas shipments increased by 7.6 % year over year at their fastest rate in more than a year.

According to Tatiana Orlova, an economist at Oxford Economics,” We anticipate that the Chinese trade value recession will provide a valuable tailwind in the battle to bring emerging market inflation back to destination.”

Problem is, the international scene is awash in winds. In the US, the Federal Reserve’s reticence to relieve means the “higher for more” time for provides may persist indefinitely. At the same time as the Bank of Japan is considering a rate increase, Tokyo is avoiding recession once more. Europe is muddling along as Germany stagnates.

What’s urgent is a renewed effort to rebalance growth engines and incentives. Short- term stimulus is plenty needed, as evidenced by the marked downshift in mainland&nbsp, demand.

Many people anticipate Beijing to increase its efforts since April to encourage businesses and households to upgrade outdated machinery with government subsidies, with an emphasis on automobiles.

” The upcoming implementation of the trade- in replacement scheme will positively impact household and business demand, hopefully inducing demand- led inflation somewhat” ,&nbsp, says Kelvin Lam, an economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics.

The main point will be however, how Xi and Premier Li Qiang’s plans to speed up structural upgrades are to be discussed.

” The Third Plenum may conclude with a pledge of comprehensive reform in areas spanning the private sector, manufacturing, innovation, social security, economic management and more”, says Mark Williams, chief Asia economist at Capital Economics. That may give rise to significant change, but the Party believes that it has engaged in comprehensive reform for the past ten years.

Carlos Casanova, economist at Union Bancaire Privée, adds that “while nobody can know the scope of reforms ahead of time, we expect to see changes to&nbsp, housing&nbsp, sector policies. More cities are announcing a complete end to macroprudential restrictions on investment properties. The central government has so far remained silent, suggesting a more formal pivot during the summer. Stay tuned for more”.

That “more” could include Beijing going further than it has to date to help highly indebted property developers, regardless of “moral hazard” risks.

In order to maintain growth at 5 %, Xi’s top priority in 2024 is encouraging consumers to spend more and save less. That entails boosting incomes and creating stronger social safety nets to encourage spending. It implies developing more reliable capital markets so that the typical Chinese can invest in both stocks and bonds, not just real estate.

Until now, Beijing’s extreme focus on juicing consumption time and time again is counterproductive, many economists say. It makes China vulnerable to boom-and-bust cycles that necessitate urgent attention at the expense of reinvigorating the economy. And China’s heavy reliance on exports leaves the economy vulnerable to Washington ‘s&nbsp, trade- sanction antics.

Part of the strategy is accelerating and broadening China’s evolution as a high- tech powerhouse, development experts agree. And indications are, this is precisely the pivot Xi and Premier Li Qiang are making as 2025 approaches.

Xi’s” Made in&nbsp, China 2025″ vision has Beijing investing aggressively in making China the dominant power in 5G, electric vehicles, semiconductors, artificial intelligence, renewable energy and other dominant “future” industries. &nbsp,

Yet unless China tends to cracks in its economic foundations, boom- bust cycles will remain a challenge for Xi’s inner circle. Lau notes that a robust increase in domestic demand will require bold actions to address” the current economic malaise” in the real estate sector and rising local government debt levels.

” The&nbsp, property&nbsp, sector is a major problem”, says&nbsp, Wei He, &nbsp, economist at Gavekal Dragonomics. Policymakers announced new support measures in the middle of May, but the lack of improvement in daily sales figures suggests that they will almost certainly need to do more to restore consumer confidence.

Odds are, He says, “policymakers may opt to wait, at least for now. They are not complacent about economic growth, as the Politburo’s call in April for more support demonstrated. However, they may not feel any urgency either because real GDP growth is likely running above the full-year target of around 5 %.

To be sure,” that prospect is unwelcome to market participants”, He adds. Equity and commodity markets have slowed since late May, according to the statement from the Politburo meeting, which started in late April.

There are no obvious catalysts for a change in market sentiment until further policy support is found, he asserts, or the upcoming Third Plenum results in an unexpectedly market-friendly outcome. ” Unless the economic data worsen, policymakers may keep markets waiting”.

Follow William Pesek on X at @WilliamPesek

Continue Reading

Heatwave crisis bearing down on developing Asia – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

In April 2024, intense temperature hit South and Southeast Asia, affecting nations like India, the Philippines, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Myanmar. These temperature waves greatly impacted some of the world’s most densely populated areas, taking a big toll on health, the economy, and knowledge.

Tens of millions of people faced risky warmth in May and June. India experienced its longest heat storm possibly, which started in the middle of May. In northern India, temperatures rose above 45 degrees Celsius ( 113 degrees Fahrenheit ), with some areas exceeding 50 degrees Celsius ( 122 Fahrenheit ). The official figures for May, which were reported in March and May, are 56 heat-related deaths, but the actual figure is likely higher because remote murders are frequently not reported.

Myanmar has faced extraordinary high heat in some districts, including Magway, Mandalay, Sagaing, and Bago groups. Cambodia has recently experienced its highest temperatures in 170 years, reaching up to 43 degrees Celsius ( 109 Fahrenheit ).

In northern Thailand, temperatures soared above 44 degrees Celsius ( 111 Fahrenheit ), while Bangkok saw temperatures exceeding 40 degrees Celsius ( 104 Fahrenheit ). In 2024, Thailand‘s summers, which usually runs from late February to later May, was 1–2 degrees Fahrenheit greater than the previous year, with precipitation below normal.

Through May 10, 2024, at least 61 citizens in Thailand died from sunstroke, compared to 37 incidents throughout the whole past time.

The prolonged heat has caused problems in work performance and education. Specialists in the Philippines imposed a two-day suspension of in-person classes in order to instruct thousands of individuals to stay at home. More than 47 000 people schools were directed by the Department of Education to switch to internet instruction.

Local and global aspects play a significant role in intense heat. Geographically, reduced vegetation and ground water contribute to higher temperature. Urban regions, with their cement and asphalt areas, keep temperature, creating what is known as the urban heat island effect. Also, weather patterns and fog cover play jobs in regional temperature versions.

Globally, El Niño activities and climate change amplify intense heat episodes. Since May 2023, El Nio situations have increased the amount of heat in the atmosphere, causing global warming even more. Therefore, parts like South and Southeast Asia knowledge more regular, extended, and intense heat waves.

The central and eastern exotic Pacific Ocean experience unusually hot ocean surface temperatures, which are a conditions occurrence known as El Nio. Every several times, it occurs sporadically and has an impact on global weather patterns.

Increased ocean temperatures during El Nio cause changes in the meteorological circulation, which can result in heavy rain in some places and severe drought in another. It even influences the flight stream, altering wind patterns worldwide.

In South and Southeast Asia, El Niño generally correlates with hotter and drier conditions, worsening heat waves and extending dry times. These issues pose serious obstacles to crops, which result in lower crop yields and increased risk of wildfires.

El Niño and La Niña are essential to the El Niño- Southwestern Oscillation ( ENSO ) pattern, a natural occurrence causing substantial year- to- year climate variations on Earth.

But, human- induced culture change is today affecting this cycle. Reports indicate that that issue is increasing the incident and power of extreme El Niño activities, multiplying their effects such as droughts, floods, heat waves, and altered storms patterns.

According to climate models, extreme El Nio events could occur every 10 years rather than every 20 because of global warming. This increased frequency might lead to more severe weather-related disasters occurring globally.

Due to their limited resources and ability to deal with climate change, Global South countries face a significant challenge. These countries are especially vulnerable to the unpredictable weather patterns brought on by climate change because of how heavily rely on agriculture as a major economic pillar. Consequently, they often experience crop failures, food insecurity, and heightened poverty levels.

Economically, the impact is substantial. According to projections from the World Bank, over 140 million people will be internally displaced by climate change-related causes, including water scarcity and agricultural productivity, by 2050, in areas like Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Latin America.

Socially, climate change worsens existing inequalities within these countries. The poorest populations, despite contributing minimally to global greenhouse gas emissions, bear the brunt of climate- related disasters such as floods and droughts. This exacerbates health issues, displaces communities, and sparks competition over essential resources like water and land. In addition, these nations struggle to manage the rise in the number of illnesses related to climate change, which adds to the complexity of the situation.

Heat waves pose a serious threat to low- income communities, worsening existing health and economic disparities. These areas frequently have inadequate infrastructure to deal with high temperatures, such as poorly insulated homes and limited cooling options.

Due to human activities, the urban heat island effect, which makes urban areas hotter than rural areas in the area, further exacerbates the issue. As a result, cooling costs rise, putting financial strain on many low- income families during heat waves.

The health impacts on these communities are significant, with more hospitalizations due to heat- related illnesses like dehydration, heat exhaustion, and potentially fatal heatstroke. Rapid treatment is a challenge when faced with limited access to medical care during heat emergencies. Moreover, existing health conditions prevalent in these areas, such as respiratory and heart diseases, worsen under extreme heat.

Economically, heat waves disrupt the livelihoods of low- income workers who rely on outdoor jobs or work in non- climate- controlled environments. Financial instability is caused by shortened work hours due to illness or caregiving obligations.

Heat waves present significant risks to vulnerable populations in third- world countries, particularly women, the elderly, and children, exacerbating their health and socioeconomic challenges. Women who work in agriculture are frequently exposed to heat-related illnesses because of limited access to medical care and outdoor work.

The elderly, with age- related health issues and reduced mobility, are at increased risk of heat stress complications, compounded by insufficient cooling infrastructure. Further affecting children’s development and future prospects in these areas is the prolonged heat waves, which can cause school closures and obstruct educational opportunities.

Third-world countries are faced with the harsh realities of escalating climate change and severe heat waves, while developed countries enjoy the comforts of modern life. These communities grapple with extreme temperatures that disrupt daily routines, endanger health, and undermine economic stability.

The disparate distribution of resources clearly shows how much more people with limited resources and the ability to adapt to change the world are affected by global temperatures.

Pranjal Pandey, a journalist and editor based in Delhi, edited seven books that cover a variety of topics for LeftWord. On NewsClick, you can read more about his journalistic contributions. in.

Published with the permission of Globetrotter.

Continue Reading

Why Gaza gets more attention than Xinjiang – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Condemnation of Israel’s invasion of Gaza has dominated the media, mobilized civil society organizations to launch&nbsp, demonstrations, and drawn reprimands from world leaders.

United Nations Secretary- General António Guterres has &nbsp, called&nbsp, the death and destruction in Gaza “unprecedented” .&nbsp, On June 10, the foreign ministers of the BRICS countries&nbsp, similarly criticized&nbsp, the “unprecedented escalation of violence” in Gaza and” Israel’s continued blatant disregard of international law” .&nbsp,

The UN increasingly approved a request for a charitable cease-fire in December 2023. The UN General Assembly voted 143 to 9 to request on May 10 that Palestine be upgraded from an spectator to a member state. ( The US voted against both measures. )

This contrasts with the country’s reaction to another situation of “blatant reject” for the individual rights of a conquered people: China’s cruelty of Uighurs and other Muslim minority peoples in Xinjiang Province. &nbsp,

In October 2022, by a vote of 19 to 17 ( with 11 abstentions ), UN member states&nbsp, blocked&nbsp, the UN Human Rights Council ( UNHRC ) from debating the issue of PRC government policy in Xinjiang. &nbsp, Of the 19 states that voted against discussion, nine are Arab- bulk and two others are almost third Muslim. &nbsp,

Two characteristics of today’s world political landscape explain why Xinjiang versus Gaza has a comparatively lower level of global visibility and anger:

  • the philosophical border between the Global South and the governments, and
  • China’s capability to use its economic and diplomatic leverage to advance Beijing’s foreign policy objectives.

The severe and widespread abuse of Rohingya and other Muslim minority in Xinjiang by the Taiwanese government&nbsp, is&nbsp, well–documented. Beijing’s finish that political Islam was radicalizing Uighurs to support separatism and carry out criminal acts in China led to the assault.

The Chinese government’s response includes the large confinement of&nbsp, one to two million &nbsp, Muslims, usually on&nbsp, flimsy pretexts. &nbsp, There are many claims of forced labour, murder and torture of detainees. Additionally, the Taiwanese authorities uses a variety of means to end fundamental Muslim practices and beliefs.

There is&nbsp, evidence&nbsp, of unusually large numbers of incidents of Rohingya in confinement. The number of mortality caused by PRC authorities is likely to be in the thousands, and it could be significantly higher than the number of Palestinian fatalities in the Gaza battle. &nbsp,

However, an important distinction is that the Hamas government in Gaza has a right to investigate and also increase the number of Palestinians killed in the conflict, whereas the Chinese government has no right to conceal the incidents of imprisoned Uighurs. &nbsp,

Love for the Uighurs fits into the already-established goals of industrial governments. These governments have a decade-old project to promote democratic values worldwide and to put pressure on authoritarian regimes to adhere to international laws, treaties, and agreements based on democratic norms. &nbsp,

They have developed methods to monitor and report bad habits from authoritarian states, and they anticipate it. &nbsp, They view the PRC as a routine human rights offender. The discovery of widespread Uighur persecution by American human rights activists and journalists starting around 2014 was only the most recent instance of a well-known design.

On the other side, there is a similar philosophical model. Love for the Palestinians comes easily from a long-standing series of conflicted Arab claims regarding the state of Israel’s alleged illegal employment of Palestinian territory and Western imperialism.

Concerning distinct problems toward America, there are anger over US military actions in the Middle East that were intended to serve US interests, hate over US assistance for Israel, and perceived US animosity toward Islam. These Araab state have no similar concerns toward China.

In summary, the industrial democracies are the opposite of the Global South, who has long been primed to condemn Israel but no China.

Prior to the start of the conflict in Gaza, this disparity was now evident in the UN, where World South says outnumber the democracies. &nbsp, In 2022, the UN General Assembly passed 15 ( nearly identical ) &nbsp, resolutions&nbsp, condemning Israel, but none condemning human rights violations in China.

In July 2019, 22 nations sent a notice to the UNHRC condemning China’s widespread prison of Muslim minority in Xinjiang. An descriptive fight occurred. &nbsp, All were liberal democracies and US friends or tight security partners.

A diverse group of 37 nations wrote a dissentioning letter to the UNHCR a few days later. &nbsp, The second letter&nbsp, expressed&nbsp, “firm opposition to appropriate places ‘ exercise of politicizing human rights issues, by naming and shaming, and formally exerting pressures on another countries”, and demanded that “relevant countries … desist from employing false charges against China”.

Except for the Philippines, therefore led by the pro- China President Rodrigo Duterte, the members of the following letter were non- governments from the Global South, plus North Korea and Russia.

China has effectively honed its ties to the Global South countries in thwarting condemnation of PRC crimes in Xinjiang. The obvious reason is that these institutions care more about facilitating access to Chinese markets and investments than advocating for oppressed minority within China, many of whom have poor human right records themselves. &nbsp,

Given the significance of religious cooperation as a power in international affairs, as demonstrated by the aid of Muslim communities around the world for their co-religious counterparts in Gaza, Beijing’s failure to push on its do in Xinjiang is particularly unsatisfactory.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP ) is fundamentally hostile toward religion, including Islam. &nbsp, Even in the 1980s, when the Chinese government was far more tolerant toward religion than it is today, the Party’s Document 19&nbsp, described&nbsp, religion as a “primitive” holdover of pre- socialist history that” will eventually disappear from human history” and specified that” a Communist Party member cannot be a religious believer”.

Later, the Chinese government would &nbsp, view&nbsp, religion through the harsh lens of” the three evil forces of terrorism, extremism and separatism” .&nbsp, More recently, PRC propaganda replaces the term “extremism” with “religious extremism“, implying an unwillingness to passively wait for religion to “disappear” .&nbsp, &nbsp,

Under Xi Jinping, the rollback of civic space for religion has grown. Xi’s policy aims to keep a controlled version of Islam as a showpiece while preventing its spread and making sure it supports the Party’s social and political goals. In new&nbsp, regulations&nbsp, enacted this year, the Chinese government requires that religious instruction must be “patriotic” and religious texts interpreted “in a correct manner”.

Religious structures must incorporate Chinese ornamentation and architecture. &nbsp, In practice, government authorities have for several years&nbsp, removed&nbsp, the minarets and domes from mosques throughout the country, a physical manifestation of the Communist Party doctrine that religion should have Chinese characteristics – meaning fealty to the party, not some foreign- based clergy, as the ultimate authority. &nbsp, In the case of many other mosques, particularly in Xinjiang, the government has simply&nbsp, destroyed&nbsp, them.

The Muslim world should accept no of this, not the outright persecution of Muslim Chinese, not the distortion of religious teachings into cheerleading for the Chinese government, and not the attempt to usurp Muslim leaders ‘ ecclesiastical authority from outside of China.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation ( OIC ) has 57 member countries, 48 of which have Muslim- majority populations. &nbsp, The organization ‘s&nbsp, stated&nbsp, purpose is&nbsp,” to assist Muslim minorities and communities outside the member states to preserve their dignity, cultural and religious identity” .&nbsp,

The Chinese government led a government-managed tour of parts of Xinjiang in August 2023, taking delegates from the OIC there. &nbsp, Beijing apparently achieved its presumed objective. &nbsp, According to various media&nbsp, reports, the delegates had nothing but praise for PRC government policy in Xinjiang. &nbsp,

A Pakistani delegate claimed the tour would “help address the misconceptions attached to the region” as evidenced by” the prosperity and development of China’s Xinjiang under good governance.”

To join China’s Belt and Road Initiative, all but three OIC member states signed agreements. &nbsp, To augment its economic leverage, Beijing employs several diplomatic tactics to win over Muslim countries. Beijing specifically praises the non-intervention of nations in each other’s internal affairs and claims to be a champion of the Third World. &nbsp,

Many Arabs view China as a benign outside power that only wants mutually beneficial trade and investment, and is therefore a welcome counterweight to US dominance even though they are angry with the US.

China has cultivated&nbsp, media partnerships&nbsp, in the Middle East in which Arab countries disseminate Chinese propaganda. &nbsp, Consequently, &nbsp, media in these countries&nbsp, often amplify the Chinese narrative on Xinjiang, treat Western allegations about human rights abuses as propaganda or avoid reporting the allegations altogether.

In an&nbsp, interview&nbsp, with a Saudi newspaper in 2019, for example, PRC Foreign Minister&nbsp, Wang Yi served up Beijing’s spin, saying China’s management of “terrorist organizations” in Xinjiang “is&nbsp, essentially in tune with Saudi Arabia’s counter- terrorism and de- radicalization efforts” and “has been welcomed and supported by people of all ethnic groups in Xinjiang, including the Muslim community” .&nbsp,

The PRC government uses the Chinese Islamic Association to further its position that China is a welcoming and legitimate host of Muslim communities. &nbsp, The PRC government also&nbsp, sponsors conferences&nbsp, in Muslim countries that bring in Chinese Uighurs who speak in support of Beijing’s narrative. &nbsp, While destroying mosques in China, the Chinese&nbsp, built one&nbsp, in Algeria.

These efforts help to stop Muslim societies from imposing their own national leaders ‘ support for the Uighurs.

The authoritarian bloc of China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran is the group of states that most explicitly rejects criticism of Xinjiang and also supports Hamas. &nbsp, Anti- Israel and more general anti- Semitic messaging from China has &nbsp, increased dramatically&nbsp, since the beginning of the Gaza war. &nbsp,

On the other hand, the countries that most strongly support Israel and the Uighurs are the&nbsp, Western&nbsp, liberal democracies, including the US, the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Australia, which see the authoritarians as potential military adversaries.

Tragically, human rights are one of the many ways that the new cold war divides the political landscape, with some countries caring about oppressed populations but not others.

Denny Roy is a senior fellow at the East- West Center, Honolulu.

Continue Reading

Multinational corporations make the war go round – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Shortly after the start of the Israel-Hamas War and the start of the massive loss of Gaza in October 2023, McDonald’s managers in Chicago discovered themselves unintentionally implicated in the fight.

Local masters of McDonald’s franchises are given considerable autonomy over earnings and procedures, and franchisees had begun taking edges. McDonald’s in Israel made headlines for providing free meals to Israeli troops in social media, leading to millions of dollars being pledged to Palestinians in Gaza by McDonald’s companies across the Middle East.

McDonald’s has since made an effort to cut down on criticism of the franchisees and sort its way out of the discussion. In April 2024, McDonald’s Corporation announced it would get up 225 of its cafes from Alonyal Limited, the Israeli company that manages McDonald’s in the country, for an undisclosed amount.

The deal, which will be finalized over the coming months, may keep McDonald’s active as the business attempts to recover the company’s lost regional sales and stock prices.

The event demonstrates how multinational corporations with distributed operations and international footprints can quickly become embroiled in conflict. Although McDonald’s top executives did not intend to support either Israel or Palestine, profit incentives have often prompted businesses to support various sides in conflicts, generally in more significant ways.

Western weapons companies directly and indirectly supplied both edges with arms during the Iran-Iraq War between 1980 and 1988, profiting from the shifting help of the American government for Iraq and Iran throughout the conflict.

But, as foreign corporations have expanded their global operations in response to the growing globalization and strains on the US-led global order, they are now faced with maintaining business relationships with both US and nations that conflict with American interests.

Additionally, these companies are becoming more entangled in fueling opposing attributes of civil wars within various countries, directly and indirectly, in ways that can enhance or rise violence.

The conflict in Ukraine has shown how foreign companies have fallen short of the demands of any one authorities, including the US, when it problems with their financial objectives.

Despite Russia’s annexation of Crimea and incitement of a proxy war in Ukraine’s Donbas region in 2014, many Western companies continued operating in both countries, providing the Soviet government with tax revenue, technical skills, products, and staff knowledge, easing the Soviet government’s efforts to support its war efforts.

However, some Western businesses had to choose between cooperating with restrictions by leaving Russia and maintaining access to lucrative government contracts and a 145-million-person client industry following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

However, other businesses remained in the country, citing expensive exit costs, while the majority of them departed due to public pressure and sanctions. Others who formally or delegated their intention to operate in Russia have proven to be essential to the Kremlin’s ability to lessen the impact of sanctions.

Meanwhile, even China, Russia’s most important partner, had its largest commercial drone company, DJI, emerge as the largest drone provider for both Russia and Ukraine, showing the powerful allure of profits and how international markets allow the flow of products to war zones regardless of geopolitical alliances.

Western businesses have been subject to increasing pressure to sever ties as the tensions between the West and China have also increased in recent years. US tech giants like Google, IBM, and Cisco have come under fire for aiding the development of China’s security capabilities, albeit ostensibly for domestic use.

In 2019, NBA officials ‘ remarks regarding China’s response to pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong drew severe financial consequences for the organization’s operations there, and the White House criticized businesses that had “kowtowed to the lure of China’s money and markets.”

Beijing continues to try to prevent conflict by requiring foreign companies to separate their domestic governments from their national governments on divisive issues or at least ensure neutrality. Many US businesses already have higher domestic revenues in China than domestically, and they are not willing to ignore the second-largest economy and consumer market in the world.

Despite the fact that many multinational corporations have historically relied on the US to govern their operations during the last few decades of neoliberal globalization, many have since rethought their positions.

Some multinational corporations appear to have been encouraged by this dynamic, in addition to globalized supply chains and markets, believing that they can support multiple sides in geopolitical conflict with relative impunity while their goods and services will likely find their way to desired destinations and partners regardless of government orders.

Companies appear more willing to try to maintain ties with the US while also maintaining and fostering ties with nations that are hostile, than to march in lockstep with it.

This approach runs the risk of aggravated geopolitical tensions and undermines the coherence of the US-led global order because multinational corporations ‘ profit motives diverge from their foreign policy goals.

Importantly, as globalization has advanced, multinational corporations have become increasingly involved in civil conflicts and regions with fragile governance. By supporting rebel groups and governments, they have in some cases actively heightened tensions.

One of the biggest agricultural companies in the world, Chiquita Brands International S. à. l., acknowledged paying money to both the FARC rebel group and right-wing paramilitary groups in Colombia in the 1990s and 2000s to ensure the safety of operations.

This pattern of businesses supporting multiple sides in conflicts is especially perceptible in Africa, frequently to gain access to resources. Shell and Chevron have paid insurgent groups in Nigeria to protect their oil and gas interests while also providing the country with tax and development funds.

Similar to this, mining companies like Afrimex ( UK) Ltd. and Trademet SA, both of which have contracts with the DRC government.

Chinese miners are alleged to have paid Nigerian militant groups to access the country’s mineral reserves while also operating with the government.

In Myanmar, various Chinese and Thai companies have engaged in covert negotiations with ethnic armed groups that control areas rich in natural resources.

Mining, logging, and agricultural companies also paid “revolutionary taxes” to the New People’s Army ( NPA ) and other insurgent groups in the Philippines, including companies like Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company and Philex Mining Corporation, prompting public disapproval by Filipino officials.

While serving contracts for the US military, the Louis Berger Group, an engineering consultancy, paid the Taliban and other groups in Afghanistan to guard supply convoys and construction projects.

Indirectly, banks and payment processing networks are assisting or obstructing the funding of alleged terrorist and criminal organizations. The FinCEN Files, which were released in 2020, also revealed how banks like Standard Chartered PLC handled millions of dollars for Arab Bank customers despite Arab Bank being held accountable in 2014 for knowingly giving money to Hamas.

Private military and security companies ( PMSCs ) are also playing a significant role in the expanding direct and indirect roles of corporations in conflict zones, particularly in those areas with weak state enforcement. Other private actors frequently work with these companies to protect investments and personnel, but they have a natural propensity to manage and prolong conflicts rather than resolve them.

Across Africa in particular, PMSCs are present to serve private interests as well as governments. Concerned about the ability of multinational corporations to quickly shift their support between opposing sides as their strategic interests change, possibly playing a much bigger part in fostering and prolonging conflicts, has become a result of PMSC usage.

Governments, of course, regularly support rival actors in conflicts. Competing political factions, shifting interests, political expediency, economic motives, desperation, and a desire to promote instability.

Syrian rebels supported by the Pentagon engaged in combat during the Syrian Civil War. In addition, the Syrian government was funding other rebel groups to fight IS while also paying the Islamic State ( IS ) to return its own stolen oil and natural gas.

However, the risk of corporations actively supporting more than one side in conflict zones and staking up their own spheres of influence is concerning, much like the Dutch East India Company, which established its own military and trade monopolies.

There are still waning hopes that multinational corporations will choose more skilled sides in interstate disputes, but there is little that can prevent them from stoking the pressure on non-state actors to fuel and prolong intrastate disputes as long as it serves their financial goals.

As their ability to shape conflicts appears to be expanding, urgent action is required to strengthen the regulation and accountability of PMSCs and multinational corporations operating in conflict zones.

John P. Ruehl, an Australian-American journalist who lives in Washington, DC, writes for the Independent Media Institute about world affairs. He contributes to several other foreign affairs publications as well as contributing to Strategic Policy. His book,” Budget Superpower: How Russia Challenges the West With an Economy Smaller Than Texas”, was published in December 2022.

Independent Media Institute authorized republishing this article.

Continue Reading

Philippine BrahMos missile base drops a sea gauntlet on China – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

In response to rising tensions with China in the South China Sea, the Philippines ‘ structure of its first BrahMos anti-ship weapon basic highlights a strong military modernization move.

However, the move’s success is imperiled by inadequate intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance ( ISR ) and air defense capabilities, potential logistical challenges and the complexities of regional geopolitics.

At the Naval Station Leovigildo Gantioqui in Zambales, Western Luzon, the Philippines is building its first BrahMos anti-ship weapon foundation, according to Naval News, which was released this month. The center, which is facing the tense South China Sea, is expected to house the hypersonic cruise missiles that India acquired in a location US$ 375 million deal in 2022, according to Naval News.

The Philippines ‘ purchase of three Icbm missile batteries, according to the report, was India’s first international sales of its highly regarded system, piqued interest from other regional countries like Vietnam and Indonesia, both of which have relations with China in the South China Sea.

The new weapon center has a high-bay service for weapon maintenance and council, as well as a protected magazine bunker for storage, according to satellite imagery. The center, which is carefully positioned to attack target up to 290 to 300 kilometers away, includes the disputed Scarborough Shoal occupied by China, will be run by the Philippine Marine Corps Coastal Defense Regiment.

The Naval News report adds that the BrahMos state’s smart nature allows for flexible implementation to various fire places, enhancing the country’s southern defence capabilities.

According to the report, the Philippines may soon issue follow-up orders for the BrahMos because the Philippine Army has expressed an interest in purchasing the system, leading to a potential wider adoption of innovative defense technology by the Spanish armed forces.

Although the Philippines ‘ purchase of BrahMos represents a major step in modernizing its defense, it may not be as effective as its military planners and regional analysts anticipate.

To take way, the Philippines needs to see much. The Philippines might not be able to use the full spectrum of the BrahMos weapon without long-range ISR features, and its ability may be limited to the range of its other ISR resources, which are measured in only lots of kilometers.

Although it may be apparent that the state lacks over-the-horizon ( OTH) sensor given that capability is typically limited to big military powers, it is unmistakable.

Although the Philippines has a few Hermes and ScanEagle robots, they are small, slow, and prone to powerful Chinese anti-air threats.

The US may contribute to the Philippines ‘ weak ISR capabilities, as evidenced by the BRP Jose Rizal frigate’s use of its MQ- 9A Reaper drone in support of a sinking exercise ( SINKEX ) last month that involved a decommissioned Chinese-made oil tanker, but those drones may perform poorly against China’s air defenses given that they were unable to survive even basic air defenses by Houthi rebels in Yemen.

The Philippines also does not work focused flying alert and control ( AEW&amp, C ) aircraft, having only a motley fleet of Beechcraft King Air C- 90, BN- 2A Islander and Cessna 208 flights. Compared to aircraft such as the E- 7 Sentry or P- 8 Poseidon, these planes are barely capable of maritime ISR tasks.

The Philippines might not require sophisticated ISR abilities to use its Brahmos missiles because Scarborough Shoal is a fixed target with a known location. The Philippines could easily be targeted by the contested and strategic feature, which would put an end to a small but significant portion of China’s revised” 10-dash line” in the South China Sea.

Command and Control ( C2 ) presents a significant challenge for its military, which raises questions about how to integrate these various ISR assets into a successful kill chain even if the Philippines had all of these assets and fired its BrahMos missiles at a simple target like Scarborough Shoal.

The Philippines, which has long struggled to develop credible air defense capabilities, may also find it difficult to defend its new BrahMos missile base from missile and drone attacks. &nbsp,

The Philippines has relied only on a small fleet of a dozen FA-50 light fighters since the 1990s because it has n’t been able to acquire multi-role fighters ( MRF ) since then. Only a fraction of those aircraft’s capabilities are comparable to those of more advanced ones like the US-made F-16 and the Sweden’s JAS 39 Gripen.

While the Philippines maintains two bases of Israeli-made SPYDER surface-to-air missiles ( SAM ), it will have to decide whether to use those limited resources to protect crucial infrastructure and densely populated areas over military installations like its new BrahMos base.

Restocking BrahMos missiles may be a problem for the Philippines because of the country’s limited stockpiles in the event of a protracted conflict in the South China Sea.

The Philippines must rely on India for resupply because it is unable to produce BrahMos missiles. China might attempt to impose a naval blockade of the Philippines in the South China Sea and another blockade in the Philippine Sea, which would sever US supplies and reinforcements from Guam.

Such hopes may be overly optimistic while the Philippines attempts to use “extended deterrence” guarantees from the US by hoping that an attack on its BrahMos base will trigger their long-standing 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty ( MDT ).

In a May 2024 article, the US government acknowledged that the 1975 US interpretation of the 1951 MDT forbids Scarborough Shoal from US treaty obligations despite pro-active rhetoric from US officials. Scarborough Shoal may have a marginally important impact on US interests and not worth a significant conflict with China due to the partially divided US interpretations of the 1951 MDT.

Similarly, in a December 2023 HK 101 article, Zheng Zhen writes that while tensions with the Philippines are certainly on China’s agenda, they are not Beijing’s main concern in the South China Sea, which it views as a conflict mainly with the US. Zhen goes on to say that China’s main issue with the Philippines is preventing it from trying to persuade the US to support its territorial claims.

In an article for Carnegie China this month, Li Mingjiang and Xing Jiaying make reference to some Chinese officials ‘ belief that China’s “gray zone” strategy is the best way to end hostilities with the Philippines. They claim that using these tactics will help avoid the worst-case scenario of a direct military conflict while also advancing China’s territorial claims.

However, Li and Xing note that in the event that the Philippines chooses to use military force or to recruit US allies in order to counteract China’s actions, Beijing could use overwhelming military force to retaliate and defend its response as self-defense.

According to them, this could cause the Philippines to lose even more of its attributes in the South China Sea, including Scarborough Shoal, in comparison to China.

Continue Reading

US no longer needs a physical political capital – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

US national candidates enjoy gushing about their plans “on moment one” if they are elected. &nbsp, Donald Trump is no exception.

Still they frequently omit to mention how they might apply the almost unlimited discretion a president enjoys when it takes the oath of office, which they must do on the first day of office, and how they seem to forget about it. Trump is no exception in this regard, either.

President is completely to decide where he’s inaugurated, where he works

A president’s oath of office is not required by the US Constitution or any other federal legislation, significantly less at the Capitol building’s western access. No provision of the Constitution or any federal legislation, including the legal provisions titled” National opening ceremonies,” which are codified at 36 US Code book 5, is required that there be an inaugural address, parade, or basketball, much less that any such address, parade, or ball take place in the District of Columbia. &nbsp, These are all simple practices.

Wherever previous leaders have taken the oath of office, not just in Washington, DC, has been the case. In New York or Philadelphia, the first two US president, George Washington and John Adams, took the oath of office. &nbsp, On November 22, 1963, Vice President Lyndon Johnson took the political oath of office in an aircraft taking him and former leader Kennedy’s lady and nevertheless- hot corpse from Dallas, Texas, to Washington, DC.

Vice-presidents who have been elected president have always preferred to have their annual parades or balls as their funeral ceremonies have always been their predecessors.

Additionally, no provision of the US Constitution or current federal statutes mandates that a leader run from the White House or anywhere else in the District of Columbia. &nbsp, An senior palace is provided for his pleasure, but he had use it just as much as he may wish to apply it. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who had smallpox, passed away in his office in Warm Springs, Georgia, energizing from the comfort offered by that spa. Additionally, he constructed and used the first national retreat that received funding from the federal government, which President Eisenhower renamed Camp David. &nbsp,

Lyndon Johnson’s Texas house was called” the Texas White House” because it was frequently operated from there as leader. In addition to Nixon in California, the younger Bush in Texas, and Joe Biden in Delaware, later leaders have spent a lot of their time in office away from Washington, DC. &nbsp,

Biden deserves praise for leading that migration by example because the Covid scares US workers who increasingly work completely from home, a result of an exodus from America’s culturally disenchanted, misruled, and crime-ridden cities.

Why does Trump not been inaugurated or operate in Washington, DC if he is elected?

There are powerful causes why Donald Trump, if elected to a second term as president this November, may either take the oath of office in Washington nor run out of Washington.

Second, Trump’s enemies have consistently demonstrated that they will try to sue him in federal court for any crime for which they can come up with a plausible justification. It would be foolish for Trump to believe that they will stop being thus inclined after or even during a second term as president.

Alleged federal crimes are tried by judge in the physical locations where they reportedly were committed.   Washington, D.C., is where all alleged national crimes are tried in  

Yet, in both of the most current national elections, a much smaller percentage of voters in the District of Columbia cast ballots for Trump than in any of the 50 US states. The DC numbers were 4 % in 2016 and 5 % in 2020. Washington, DC, for example, is more angry to Trump than any other city in the country. &nbsp,

Thus, for Trump further to continue to issue himself to the risk of test by courts of occupants of Washington, DC, would be folly. And if he is elected to a second word, he must not do so. He can serve as chairman wherever he pleases. &nbsp, He had not set foot in the District of Columbia at any time during his next term. &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp,

Next, Trump has consistently promised to “drain the marsh” since 2016– the marsh being Washington, DC, which was until the 1920s a pathogenic swamp that Western diplomatic services saw as a hardship posting. &nbsp, Although Trump’s best vague promise to drain the swamp means different things to different people, it is frequently taken as a promise either to make the national bureaucracy more adaptable to the people, or to minimize its size and power, or both. &nbsp,

In terms of emotional resonance,” Drain the swamp” is unquestionably the political slogan most favored by Trump supporters, far outperforming” Make America great again.” &nbsp, One can hardly overstate the extent to which American populists have come to loathe Washington– not just the federal bureaucracy but the town itself.

Washington’s continued dominance of an increasingly oligarchical polity is partially attributable to this. The Washington, DC, area has been one of the biggest winners in recent years as the distribution of income in the United States has become markedly more uneven.

Of the six richest counties in the US as measured by median household incomes in the 2020 census, four are suburbs of Washington, D. C: Loudoun County, Virginia, the richest county in the US, Fairfax County, Virginia, the fourth- richest, Howard County, Maryland, the fifth- richest, and Arlington County, Virginia, the sixth- richest. Silicon Valley, California is one of the second and third richest counties in the US. In contrast, only Fairfax and Howard, two of the six US cities with the highest median household incomes, were included in the 1990 census.

Washington now is reminiscent of Versailles in the 1780s, but Washington elites do not suggest that the rest of the country eat cake. Instead, they feed it a constant diet of lies, which contribute to populists ‘ growing dislike of Washington.

The FBI, CIA, and media lies about the 2016 election’s Russia cover-up, the systematic distortion of the events at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, and the systematic gross overstatement of the health risk caused by an infectious disease that killed less than half a percent of the population and killed chiefly those already close to death, accompanied by a massively devastating and highly coercive response to that disease, as well as palpable lies concealing its likely origin in a Chinese laboratory funded in part

Edifices in Washington that only a few years ago were generally revered as symbols of freedom and of hope, such as the Capitol and the White House, are now loathed by populists as symbols of tyrannical lackeys of a parasitic oligarchy concerned chiefly to maximize its access to cheap foreign labor at the expense of US workers, either by unrestricted trade with poor countries, or by unrestricted immigration from poor countries, preferably by both. &nbsp,

Meanwhile, a so-called “left” who is no longer interested in differences in wealth or income but is only interested in differences in race or gender despises the Washington Monument, Jefferson Memorial, and Lincoln Memorial as shameful tributes to the dead white men who either owned enslaved Africans or would have preferred to send them back to Africa in order to free them. &nbsp, &nbsp,

During Trump’s first term as president, there was little progress in draining the swamp.  Trump’s continued growth and the federal budget deficit increased in large part as a result of his lack of effective control of the Republican Party, which he was only starting to turn into a workers ‘ party. &nbsp, However, Trump’s control over his party has grown since 2020, and the prospect that he might make serious progress on draining the swamp in and after 2025 terrifies Washington.

Moving federal agencies out of Washington, where they form a large parasitic concentration of bureaucrats with their own local institutions and culture, and disperse them among the people whom they ostensibly serve, to prevent them from being politically or culturally dominant anywhere, is one way to drain the swamp, which is increasingly preferred by Trump supporters. Those who support this argue that it should be used as a supplement to ceasing to hire bureaucrats, making them easier to fire, or cutting their budgets, and not as a substitute for those actions. &nbsp, &nbsp, &nbsp,

Trump can best express in his nomination-related acceptance speech that he will take the oath of office somewhere far away from the District of Columbia. Why should anyone believe that Trump will fight hard in matters of substance if he ca n’t come up with the will to take the oath of office somewhere else? It would be largely symbolic, but it would be costless.

To promise publicly never to set foot in Washington during his second term – save, perhaps, to free its political prisoners in person early in his term of office – would be a more substantive and more convincing way of conveying seriousness about draining the swamp.

The ideal second Trump inauguration

How could Trump promise to create his inauguration in a way that will increase the support of his base and persuade the electorate’s many who are never-elected to support him as a fat-cat politician?

Trump could promise to take his oath of office, deliver his inaugural address and host at least one of his inaugural balls in whichever state gives him the highest percentage of its popular vote. Folks in Utah, Oklahoma, and West Virginia who support Trump but do n’t bother to cast ballots because they know he’ll win their states by a landslide will have a reason to support him, namely, to have his inauguration held in their home state. That would tend to increase Trump’s popular vote total.

Trump also could and arguably should promise publicly:

  • to pardon all of the January 6 prisoners “on day one” of his second term,
  • to bring them back to Washington at his expense and as his guests on day two,
  • on day three to don an orange jumpsuit and lead those former prisoners, all clad in orange jumpsuits, in marching from the DC Department of Corrections jail where they all were – and many still are – incarcerated, to Union Station, there to board a train that will take them all out of Washington to wherever Trump wants to hold an inaugural celebration with them, and
  • never to visit Washington while President. &nbsp,

That parade on day three would be, quite literally, the Washington inaugural parade to end all Washington inaugural parades.

No longer does America require political capital physically.

About 300,000 people attended Trump’s inauguration in January 2017. &nbsp, That was a small crowd relative to those that had attended recent previous inaugurations. Trump overstated the size of the crowd when asked about its size, and he continued to do so even when there was conflicting evidence.

Instead, Trump could and should have pointed out that 300, 000 was an amazingly large crowd for an inauguration held in a town in which almost no one had voted for him.

Trump could and ought to have questioned why a town that was so different from the rest of the country should continue to serve as the nation’s political capital. &nbsp,

Trump could and should also have seized that opportunity to ask why, or to what extent, a country with 21st– century information technology needs a physical political capital. The answer is: It does n’t. &nbsp,

No longer does America require political capital physically.. England and France still need London and Paris, which are commercial, financial, intellectual, technological and cultural capitals as well as political capitals. But America no longer needs Washington, which is merely a political capital. Washington is a dinosaur, as technologically obsolete as the New York Stock Exchange. 

The best way to create a liquid market for financial securities was a century ago, when you could build the biggest room possible, cram it as many young men as you could, and connect those young men to the outside world via telegraph and phone. &nbsp, That is no longer the case, most trading of financial securities is now electronic and has no single physical location. That is why the American Stock Exchange is closing, and why seats on the New York Stock Exchange used to be for a fraction of what they were forty years ago.

The majority of government tasks, including nearly all of those involving government management, are based on information exchanges, which are no less convenient than making bids or offers to sell financial securities.

All Trump need do, to drain the swamp, is to show us that we no longer need Washington, that a large physical capital has been rendered obsolete by electronic information and communication technology. He could best accomplish that by never visiting Washington during his second term in office. If Trump finds that too outrageous, he could at least hold his inaugural address outside the Beltway. Even that costless symbolic gesture would not soon be forgotten, keeping Donald’s name on the lips of schoolchildren long after one Big Mac too many has raised him to his reward.

Continue Reading

China-Philippines one step closer to armed conflict – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

MANILA – It has been almost a quarter since China implemented fresh sea rules for the South China Sea, and yet another significant event involving Philippine and Chinese sea forces has erupted in the contested waters.

Following a collision on Monday ( June 17 ) between their ships over the Second Thomas Shoal, a feature that houses a de facto Philippine naval base aboard the stalled BRP Sierra Madre vessel, the two countries have exchanged accusations.

A Asian resupply vessel was allegedly rammed and town by the country’s joint task force overseeing the region’s waterways in the South China Sea, which is known by Manila as the” West Philippine Sea,” according to the Philippines ‘ joint work force.

According to Manila, Philippine service members suffered “bodily damage” while Spanish vessels sustained damage, which raises the possibility of an armed conflict between the two neighbors.

The Armed Forces of the Philippines must reject China’s reckless and dangerous actions in the West Philippine Sea, according to Philippine Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro’s passionate speech. ” China’s activities are the true impediments to peace and stability in the South China Sea”, he added, underscoring a fresh nadir in diplomatic relations.

China, for its part, accused the Spanish supplies vessel of “deliberately and frighteningly” approaching a Chinese ship, which caused a modest collision following the latter’s “illegal intrusion]” into Chinese-claimed waters, a charge Manila has refuted as “deceptive and misleading” after months of intimidation and violent actions by Chinse maritime forces in the area.

The possible involvement of the United States, which has a reciprocal security agreement with Manila, is what makes the conflict between the Philippines and China so concerning.

In a statement released in a public forum, the US State Department squarely attributed China for its most recent “provocations” following a number of incidents and situations over the Next Thomas Shoal in the last year alone.

“]Chinese ] vessels ‘ dangerous and deliberate use of water cannons, ramming, blocking maneuvers and towing damaged Philippine vessels, endangered the lives of Philippine service members, is reckless, and threatens regional peace and stability”, a US State Department statement said.

There is no justification to believe that the conflicts may immediately end. Beijing has mandated the Taiwanese Coast Guard to detain suspected intruders in the so-called nine-dash line for up to 60 days without trial under recently imposed maritime guidelines.

The Philippine Coast Guard responded by deploying two vessels&nbsp to police Philippine-claimed waters in particular the Scarborough Shoal, which is located only over 100 nautical miles from Asian coasts and about 345 coastal yards from the Second Thomas Shoal.

By all evidence, both sides are digging in. The Philippines has doubled down on both its political speech and military exercises with European allies because it is a significantly weaker party physically.

Earlier this year, the Philippine defence chief accused China of trying to “bully” Manila “into distribution” or “appeasement” through an extremely muscular “gray zone” strategy in the South China Sea, which he said involved extreme tactics that fall just short of military confrontation.

He went so far as to identify the Asiatic power as an “existential concern” to the Philippines, underscoring the level of anxiety in Manila.

The Philippines is strengthening its deterrence capabilities while regularizing high-stakes drills with allies to strengthen its strategic position. The Philippines ‘ first BrahMos anti-ship missile base is beginning to form at a naval facility close to the disputed waters, according to recent satellite imagery.

Following India’s delivery of the highly praised supersonic missile defense system earlier this year, the US-based anti-ship missile acquisition project, which cost the country$ 375 million, took off.

This has coincided with America’s growing deployment of increasingly sophisticated weapons systems for major drills in the Philippines, including the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System ( HIMARS ) as well as the US Army’s new MRC/Typhon system, which is capable of firing Tomahawk and SM- 6 missiles.

With the introduction of the US Army’s Joint Pacific Multinational Readiness Center to the Philippines this year, the two sides are also getting ready for a potential full invasion by an external power as well as a significant contingency in Taiwan.

In the Philippines, there is growing concern about the possibility of granting the Pentagon permission to install a number of sophisticated missile defense systems on designated Philippine bases in accordance with the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement ( EDCA ), particularly those that face both Taiwan’s southern shores and the westernmost reaches of the South China Sea.

Meanwhile, the Philippines has also stepped up its multilateral naval drills with like- minded powers. The US, Japan, and Canada recently joined them for a two-day drill in the South China Sea to reiterate” the four nations ‘ commitment to bolstering regional security and stability.”

For a two-day drill in the Philippines ‘ exclusive economic zone ( EEZ ) in the South China Sea, BRP Andres Bonifacio, Canadian frigate HMCS Montreal, Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force destroyer JS Kirisame, and US guided missile destroyer USS Ralph Johnson were present.

The US Indo-Pacific Command stated in a statement that” cooperation like this represents the centerpiece of our approach to a secure and prosperous region where aircraft and ships of all nations may fly, sail, and operate wherever international law allows.”

Although these exercises improve interoperability between the Philippines and its allies and promote military modernization, they do little to counteract China’s “gray zone” actions in the long run.

China’s increasingly assertive attitude toward the Philippines is most likely a result of its worries about Manila’s growing military ties with Western powers, who want to have more access to military installations in the Southeast Asian nation.

The Biden administration has made it clear on numerous occasions that a “armed attack” on Philippine public vessels in the South China Sea would immediately force bilateral mutual defense agreements to be in force.

But there has been no effective response so far to China’s gray zone approach. Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. stated earlier this month that any Philippine service member’s death would be “very close to what we define as an act of war.”

However, he was hesitant to say whether any casualties brought on by China’s “gray zone” tactics would be treated with American military intervention.

The US has n’t yet stated what it would do in response to any Chinese “gray zone” tactics that could cause the deaths of Philippine naval officers. In consequence, both China and the Philippines are caught in a risky strategic conundrum, whereby each side is encouraged to push the envelope while hoping that no real war breaks out.

Follow Richard Javad Heydarian on X at @Richeydarian

Continue Reading

How Putin projects as a modern-day Peter the Great – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Gazprom, a Russian energy company, is alleged to have been specifically hit by sanctions imposed as a result of the conflict with Ukraine. According to an internal document obtained and made public by the Financial Times, the company is unlikely to be able to retrieve gas sales lost since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine for at least ten years.

However, Alexey Miller, the chairman of Gazprom, appears to be working on his company’s location St. Petersburg Lachta Center skyscraper’s construction of an 82-meter magnificent column. The column did honor Sweden’s victory in the First World War, which saw Russia declare itself for the first time an empire.

Due to its king, George I, who likewise held the position of being in charge of Hanover, Russia spearheaded a coalition that included much of what would eventually become Poland, Germany, and Britain. One of the most important historical figures of the time, Charles XII of Sweden, was in a fight with Peter I of Russia, also known as” the Great.”

The Treaty of Nystad, which gave Russia and Sweden the power to establish an empire, was signed on September 10, 1721, and it granted Russia and much of what is presently Finland. The emperor had established the empire in St. Petersburg in 1703 at the mouth of the River Neva on the Baltic Sea, and it would continue to do so until February 1917 and the eradication of Tsar Nicholas II.

But Vladimir Putin’s passion for the project could be said to represent his personal goals and objectives for Russia in the twenty-first century under his leadership. The Russian leader wants to highlight a number of similarities in his portrayal of himself as a contemporary Peter the Great.

The first is his association with Peter I as a great military leader and the Great Northern War as a formidable martial triumph. In light of Putin’s claims that Ukraine is an intrinsic part of Russia, it’s worth noting that the victory over Sweden in the Great Northern War paved the way for the absorption of Ukraine into what would later become the Russian kingdom by overthrowing a rival great energy and wreaking havoc there.

Over the past 80 years, the major accomplishment of Russia’s war has been the Great Patriotic War, which is known in Russia as the Great Patriotic War. However, the government wants to present Russia’s record as a triumphant parade, so it will pick and choose victories that are appropriate for its contemporary narratives.

In line with my partner Geoffrey Hosking‘s observation in 2017, Putin wants to appear as a member of a lineage of outstanding Russian officials. This attitude brings to mind tsarist political and military may and the realization of security through the development and averment of fresh power.

It is not difficult to understand the implications for today. The foe main military powers, particularly Sweden, represented in the form of the Great Northern War as a signal of Russian rebellion against the West. Putin has referred to the Great Northern War as a conflict between Russia and the West over Ukraine.

Between 1708 and 1709, Hetman ( military commander ) [Ivan Mazepa] established an alliance between several thousand Hetmanate cavalry, a sizable Zaporizhian Cossacks, and the forces of Swedish King Charles XII. At the Battle of Poltava ( 1709 ), Russian forces under Peter I resurrected this alliance.

Modern-day- time emperor

Peter the Great’s part in all of this is also capable of reply. In recent years, the second king has become somewhat popular in Russia. For a writer, this is a curious advancement because, on one level, there is an apparent contradiction here. Peter was quite open to using American technologies to modernize the Russian state; St. Petersburg, his city, was frequently referred to as Russia’s “window on the West.”

He was also a powerful leader who won military battles against another formidable adversaries and developed state dominance.

A trio of statues of leaders are displayed in Putin’s Kremlin chamber, where he greets foreign tourists and displays them as emblems of his own accomplishments. One of these is Peter I. Peter, which has also been used openly as a framework for Putin’s comparison of recent behavior in Ukraine with earlier battles against Sweden. Speaking of lands as” Russian estates,” Putin refers to the north wars as reclamations of land that was actually Russian.

Eventually, the commemoration of royal- era champions is striking. In 2011 Putin was reported to had told his ministers to give “at least a week’s wages” each to finance a monument of Pyotr Stolypin, a tsar- era statesman and administrator who is one of Putin’s social heroes. The memorial was erected in Moscow’s Freedom of Russia Square the next time.

Putin attended a service to pay tribute to the murder of Grand Duke Sergei Aleksandrovich, the next Russian tsar, who had been killed by a criminal weapon in February 1905. A copy of the king’s memorial bridge, actually erected in 1908 and removed by the Bolsheviks in 1918, has been installed. Putin characterized the situation as a celebration of Russia’s historical and cultural roots.

These memorials all fit Putin’s desire to emphasize the country’s confidence and identity. It’s a program that closely relates to his invasion of Ukraine and emphasizes his role as a contemporary representative of Russia’s royal brilliance.

George Gilbert is Lecturer in Modern Russian History, University of Southampton

This content was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original post.

Continue Reading

Time for an AI arms control agreement? – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Strategic security is seriously impacted by AI’s growing reputation on the field. The reported use of AI for targeting in the continuing conflict in Gaza does raise alarms and spur even greater efforts to be made to regulate and control weapons.

It is only a matter of moment before similar issues become apparent in the Indo- Pacific, where some states are violently raising their military spending&nbsp, despite financial difficulties. The case of Gaza illustrates how in an environment where there are no restrictions on the development and use of military AI, Indo-Pacific says may be bystanders.

Using AI to target individuals

In a recent&nbsp, report, &nbsp, 972 Magazine – an online publication run by Israeli and Palestinian journalists – drew on anonymous insider interviews to claim that the Israel Defense Forces ( IDF) have been using an AI- based system called” Lavender” to identify human targets for its operations in Gaza. Worryingly, the identical report claimed that “human workers often served simply as a” rubber mark” for the computer’s choices”.

The IDF clarified in a statement that it does not “use an artificial intelligence system to identify criminal operatives or attempts to predict whether a person is a terrorist” in response to these assertions.

But, a&nbsp, report&nbsp, by&nbsp, The Guardian&nbsp, has cast doubt on the IDF’s response by referring to film footage from a meeting in 2023 where a reporter from the Army described the use of a resource for destination recognition that bears similarity to Lavender.

Given how forces continue to look at how to incorporate AI to enhance existing skills and create new ones, it is a major problem that we lack the ability to independently verify the accuracy of claims made by any area.

Unfortunately, current efforts to regulate military AI and limit its proliferation appear unlikely to catch up, as well, at least in the short term. Even though&nbsp, 972’s exposé has garnered global attention, it will not have a tangible impact in terms of encouraging arms control for AI. Major powers that lack incentives to impose limits on the proliferation of military AI still have the power to make progress on that front.

This will become even more complicated by the difficulty in separating the governance of military AI from other issues, such as conflicting claims over the South China Sea and tensions relating to Taiwan and North Korea, in the context of the Indo-Pacific.

According to complex political and security calculations, the chances of the Indo-Pacific powers making significant progress on these issues will wane and the chances of dialogue will wane.

AI on the battlefield and human control

It should come as no surprise that militaries are pursuing AI despite well-known concerns about its potential for errors and biased output. States are effectively unrestrained when deploying these technologies, even if they have committed to their responsible use, because there is no international law or arms control regime that regulates or prohibits military AI.

Another crucial factor in determining responsible military use of AI is whether its application merely automates a task according to well-defined rules or allows for decisions to be made autonomously. It is crucial to assess the degree of autonomy when AI-based systems can make autonomous decisions by determining the level of human involvement in the decision-making process.

For responsible military AI, it is crucial to have human control over the decision-making process of autonomous AI-based systems. However, as the Lavender example demonstrates, without a legally binding arms control regime it is quite meaningless to develop verification and enforcement mechanisms.

Additionally, these are still voluntary frameworks aimed at developing norms despite a recent increase in dialogue between states on responsible military AI, such as through platforms like the Responsible AI in the Military Domain ( REAIM ) Summit and US-led, Political Declaration, on Responsible Military Use of Artificial Intelligence and Autonomy.

Indo- Pacific participation in these platforms is still quite uneven – for example, India has not signed the REAIM&nbsp, Call to Action&nbsp, or the US Political Declaration. Participation by ASEAN member states has also been limited, with the exception of Singapore.

Arms control for AI

Armes control is a difficult task, as history has already demonstrated with nuclear weapons. Beyond major powers wanting to avoid restrictions on the military use of AI, there are many  barriers  in place of major barriers when it comes to developing an arms control regime for it.

These include a number of procedural difficulties that would make reaching consensus a very difficult task and a time-consuming process. Regrettably, trust between major powers – between the US and China in particular – is also in short supply at present.

The ongoing effort to stop the proliferation of lethal autonomous weapon systems ( LAWS ) at the UN demonstrates many of these obstacles. More than 120 states have been a part of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons since 2014, which has since been the subject of discussions on LAWS. An open-ended group of governmental experts ( GGE ) was established in 2017 and has since met regularly.

Although the GGE agreed to a set of&nbsp, 11 guiding principles&nbsp, on regulating LAWS in 2019, it has struggled to overcome divergence among major powers over the need for a new, legally binding instrument. At its most recent meeting in March 2024, the GGE on LAWS already encountered&nbsp, disagreement&nbsp, over how to interpret its recently revised mandate to conclude a legally binding instrument by 2026.

Lavender’s impact

The report on Lavender by 972 Magazine has probably been the most important outcome, highlighting the dangers from military use of AI and the potential difficulties that an arms control regime for AI will have to deal with.

Given the chaotic urgency of war, the implications are particularly concerning because AI-based systems can quickly increase a military’s ability to identify and kill targets beyond what human personnel tasked with oversight can realistically assess.

Any arms control system focused on LAWS would only cover some, if not all, of the use of AI because it blends into the background of military hardware and software. Instead of a lethal autonomous weapon system, lavender would be categorized as an AI-based decision-support system.

When existing efforts focused solely on LAWS have already struggled to reach a meaningful conclusion even after a decade of discussion, this poses an additional obstacle to the development of an arms control regime for AI aimed at covering a wider range of applications.

There is a significant risk that advances in regulation and governance of civilian AI will leave behind efforts to build up military AI, despite the historic and resolution on AI that was adopted without a vote by the UN General Assembly in March 2024.

Even the European Union’s landmark AI Act passed earlier this year has a&nbsp, national security exemption, which highlights the difficulty posed by AI’s inherently dual- use nature for governance.

A question mark also remains regarding the participation of the private sector in a upcoming arms control regime for AI. In contrast to nuclear weapons, which were primarily developed through state-led initiatives, AI’s development and applications were fueled by the private sector.

Even though states have been eager to establish their legal authority over tech companies through legislation in recent years, it is unclear how they would impose restrictions on civilian technology and applications used in the military. If anything, the conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine have demonstrated that private tech companies have played a key role in contemporary warfare, whether willingly or not.

Indo-Pacific nations who are determined to stop the spread of military AI should concentrate on strengthening the broad base of state and governance capacity in addition to US efforts already underway.

This is a particularly lucrative market for the EU, which has consciously chosen the Indo-Pacific as its area of focus. The EU would have little chance of gaining from capacity building, especially among states in South and Southeast Asia, which are still in their early stages of thinking about military AI.

Manoj Harjani&nbsp, ( [email protected]. Sg ) &nbsp is the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore’s Military Transformations Program’s coordinator.

This article was first published by Pacific Forum. It is republished with permission.

Continue Reading