Asia (Page 2,465)

Vladimir Putin is in the news again, since Tucker Carlson did the unthinkable and went to Moscow to interview him. This has proved to be a media sensation on Elon Musk’s X, a remarkably popular gesture, but has also therefore incurred a lot of criticism.

Carlson has been accused of lack of patriotism and servility to tyrants, and worse things, typically by people who have never shown any courage or resource themselves.

Indeed, Tucker’s interview is primarily an opportunity for American media figures to say nasty, moralistic things about Putin and Russia.

Once upon a time, Putin was penning op-eds for The New York Times, back when American liberals pretended to be civilized and, therefore, to take interest in the self-understanding of their adversaries. Then Donald Trump was elected president of the United States, years of Russia hoax hysteria followed, and now, too, the war in Ukraine.

Madness has replaced intelligent curiosity and, accordingly, the massive facts of politics and war have been forgotten or buried under propaganda. But Tucker today is just the intelligent liberal of 10 years back.

Intelligent patriotism, indeed, requires understanding what’s happening in the world. The first important thing to notice is that the US has backed Ukraine against Russia, only to lose.

In moments of madness, opinions about the “ruble being reduced to rubble” were expressed by President Joe Biden, who may or may not be compos mentis nowadays. But the US has failed to create either an economic or a political alliance against Russia.

Nobody, in short, will fight, except a Ukrainian army that has proved tactically impotent and strategically mad in attempting to retake the Donbas, the far east of the country. Failure after two years, since it portends defeat, should chasten arrogance.

The pro-war media and politicians, far from having earned any right to question Tucker’s patriotism, should tell the American people what they’ve achieved, at what cost, for what purpose, and what they plan to do next.

Any answer to these questions requires a basic understanding of Putin and Russia that America’s public deliberation entirely lacks. I offer a sketch of such an understanding in three points.

Fantasy and paranoia

First, the fantasy of Putin as a thug or KGB figure of cruelty or a warlord bent on invasion has to be abandoned. This is nonsense fit only for a Hollywood blockbuster. The conduct of the war has proved that Putin is not particularly interested or competent when it comes to invading even a weak, corrupt country like Ukraine.

Further, there is nothing important about the war that is specifically traced to Putin. He has no strategic or tactical preferences; the Russian military would have fought the same way without him, as it has in the past; and pretty much any other Russian leader would have done the same in his place.

Second, we must begin to think about Putin as an “economist” of remarkable ability. Not only was the ruble not reduced to rubble, but Russia seems to have suffered no serious economic problems after two years of war.

Maybe the war decisions the US has made in order to hurt Russia have hurt the West more instead, especially regarding energy. To speak very quickly, Putin is the best thing to have happened to Russia since the czar foolishly got himself ousted and slaughtered with his family a century back. Since then, Russia has not had as much peaceful prosperity as it has had since 2000, when Putin took power.

It may be intolerable to liberals to respect the accomplishments of a despot, though that’s narrow-minded.

And perhaps contempt for Russian poverty blinds elites to the staggering historical accomplishment, despite the immediately available comparison with the economic and social catastrophe that was ’90s Russia, which liberals helped along with some enthusiasm. But it’s never smart to mix moralism and contempt when we’re talking about an important power.

Third, we must begin to learn politics again, and Putin will teach us at a cost we can afford to pay, indeed have already paid.

The US is very wealthy and has enough military might to take care of itself; but there is no need to waste those advantages. We can have no alliance with Russia, but America apparently cannot defeat Russia, and therefore should not have tried.

Further, we must stop with the media and think-tank hysteria. Putin has proved he’s no danger to NATO by his weakness and a very limited victory in the east of Ukraine, which could have been prevented with less suicidal strategy.

Russia is a country of old men, and wars are fought by young men. Russia is also poor compared with Europe, to say nothing of the US, and war is very expensive.

More important, Putin is 71 and has a succession crisis on his hands, not dreams of overwhelming Poland.

Let us admit these facts and plan accordingly. Let us stop with the moralism and put an end to a war we’re losing everywhere in the West, not just in Ukraine – let’s regain sanity, clarity about the dangers we’re facing and some seriousness about foreign policy.

Two years of slaughter is enough.

Continue Reading

On a quiet morning on February 5, children in Deemaw Soe Township, Karenni state, attended school as usual. Despite fierce fighting throughout the state, no recent conflict in the area suggested an attack was looming.

Then, beginning at 10:15am, the Myanmar military deployed a series of air and ground attacks that directly targeted children at two schools. The bombardment went on for at least an hour. 

According to a statement released by the Karenni Human Rights Group (KnHRG), a community organization dedicated to reporting on the current situation on the ground in eastern Myanmar’s Karenni state, the junta fired at the two schools deliberately.

Daw Si Ei school was hit by a series of bombs, including one weighing 225 kilograms. Four young boys between the ages of 12 and 14 were killed. The second attack on Loi Nan Pa claimed the life of one man. Between the two air strikes, up to 32 people were injured, including those under the age of three. At this writing, two remain in hospital in critical condition. 

In photos that surfaced in the aftermath of the attack, the backpacks of children were seen covered in blood and debris. The air strikes and artillery shells fired at the schools were unquestionably intentional.

In response to the increasing loss of bases and territory throughout the country, the military has targeted those with the least protection and with no ability to retaliate with weapons.

On the same day as the air strikes, seven internally displaced persons (IDPs) were killed by the junta in Shadaw Township, Karenni state, after being forced to be human shields. Among the victims were two women with disabilities, a pregnant woman, three children, and a man.

The ongoing terrors have led to widespread uncertainty, with more than 80% of the Karenni population forcibly displaced. At least 350,000 out of the 420,000 total population are seeking refuge in temporary shelters, according to the interim government of Karenni state.

Most recently, on Children’s Day, which was marked on February 13, junta forces fired artillery toward villagers along the border of Shan and Karenni states. Three women were killed, and several others were injured. One of the victims was a young girl who was fatally struck when she was coming home from school.

The deceased also include a 30-year-old mother and a 50-year-old woman. Among those injured were an elderly woman who was weaving peacefully when her home was hit, causing her to lose a leg. 

The military’s strategy is rooted in cowardice and a complete disregard for the rule of law and the protection and promotion of human rights. While these brutal tactics are not new, the number of hostilities against civilians is increasing. Reports by Action on Armed Violence (AOAV) reveal an alarming rise of 114% in attacks by the military junta in 2023.

Inaction abroad

The junta’s constant disregard for human rights is emboldened by the lack of consequences they face from the international community. Despite United Nations Security Resolution 2669, adopted in December 2022 in response to the escalating human-rights situation, it appears the international community refuses to adhere to the agreement.

The inadequate response by the UN Security Council prompted the Special Advisory Council-Myanmar to state: “It is simply not good enough for the Security Council to issue toothless statements and defer to an even more toothless ASEAN. The junta must face justice for its deplorable acts.”

A report released last year by four Karenni civil-society organizations, including KnHRG, titled “How Can We Survive in the Future” found serious violations of international human rights and international humanitarian law committed by junta forces.

These included indiscriminate and targeted attacks on Karenni civilian populations, murder and mass killings, widespread destruction of civilian property, forced displacement on a massive scale, arbitrary arrest and detention, torture and cruel treatment, sexual violence, and using Karenni civilians as forced labor and human shields.

“The Burmese military can commit atrocity crimes with impunity because the international community does not hold them accountable, even though it has a legal and moral obligation to do so,” the report read.

The report included calls for a referral of the situation in Myanmar to the International Criminal Court, which would provide a pathway to justice and reparations for the thousands of victims since the attempted coup.

The military is not hiding its crimes. The atrocities are being committed in broad daylight. Photo, video, and satellite evidence repeatedly confirm the junta is the leading culprit behind the mass and ongoing human-rights violations. We cannot look away from these grave injustices.

The cycle of impunity, while all too familiar for Karenni people, must never be normalized. Yet despite calls from civil-society organizations for the UN and Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to end their engagements with the junta, the head of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) met with junta representatives in Naypyidaw while the military bombed schools.

Such engagements do nothing but normalize the junta’s behavior and further embolden the regime’s ability to terrorize civilians. The people of Myanmar have repeatedly rejected the coup, and in response, every day, more lives are lost.

Dialogue by the UN and ASEAN, combined with handshakes and photo-ops with the military junta, has not changed anything. Genuine and meaningful engagement must be with the pro-democracy stakeholders who know what it means to risk everything, not the generals in their abysmal record of violating human rights. 

The current situation in Karenni state and throughout Myanmar demands a compassionate and coordinated response. There is a growing need for emergency humanitarian funding as thousands of people in temporary shelters and IDP camps face water shortages and a lack of access to work, education and justice. 

The military has sought to protect its interests by denying the rights of Myanmar’s ethnic peoples for decades and waging wars in the name of “peace.” Without meaningful prospects for accountability, lasting peace for the Karenni people is impossible.

Continue Reading

Former president Donald Trump has long made it clear that he deeply resents NATO, a 75-year-old military alliance that is composed of the United States and 30 other countries, including Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany and France.

Trump escalated his criticism of NATO on February 10, 2024, when he said that, if he is elected president again in November 2024, the US would not defend any member country that had not “paid up.”

Trump also said that he would encourage Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin, “to do whatever the hell they want” with a NATO member that was “delinquent” in paying for its defense.

NATO is the Western world’s foremost defense organization. It is headquartered in Brussels. The central idea behind NATO’s existence, as explained in Article 5 of NATO’s 1949 treaty, is that each NATO country agrees to defend any other NATO country in case of an attack.

NATO has no standing army and relies on member countries to volunteer their military forces to carry out any operation. So all NATO countries agree to spend 2% of their annual gross domestic product on military defense in order to support NATO.

Some countries, including the US, UK, Poland, Finland, Greece and the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania devote more than 2% of their GDP to military defense. About half of NATO’s members, including Germany, France, Norway, Spain and Turkey, spend less.

NATO leader Jens Stoltenberg said in a written statement on February 11 that Trump’s suggestion “undermines all of our security, including that of the US, and puts American and European soldiers at increased risk.” Other political leaders also criticized Trump’s comments as highly dangerous.

As a scholar of history and international affairs, it is clear to me that Trump does not seem to understand the many advantages the US gets from being part of NATO. Here are three major benefits for the US that come with NATO membership:

1. NATO gives the US reliable allies

Militarily and economically, the US is a hugely formidable power. It has the largest nuclear arsenal on earth and continues to be the largest economy in the world.

Yet, without its allies in Asia, and above all without those in Europe, the US would be a much-diminished superpower.

NATO provides the US with a leadership position in one of the strongest military alliance networks in the world. This leadership goes well beyond the security realm – it has profound and very positive political and economic ripple effects. For instance, most Western countries purchase their arms and military equipment from the US.

Russia counts among its most important allies controversial regimes known for human rights violations – such as Iran, North Korea and, to some extent, China. The US considers economically strong countries including Canada, Germany, France, Italy and many other established democracies as its friends and allies.

NATO has invoked Article 5 only once – immediately after the US was attacked on September 11, 2001. America’s NATO allies were ready to come to the aid of the US – and, for good or for bad, many subsequently participated in the United States’ war in Afghanistan.

2. NATO provides peace and stability

NATO provides a blanket of protection and mutual security for all its members, helping explain why the vast majority of countries in central and eastern Europe clamored to join NATO after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Today, Ukraine continues to push for NATO membership – although its application to join appears unlikely to be granted anytime soon, given the military commitment this would create for the alliance.

Russia fought short wars in recent years with Moldova and Georgia and also an earlier one with Ukraine, prior to 2022, but Putin has not invaded neighboring countries that are NATO members. Invading a NATO country would bring the entire alliance into a war with Russia, which would be a risky gamble for Moscow.

Despite international concern that Russia’s war in Ukraine could spill over into neighboring NATO countries, like Poland and the three Baltic nations, it has not yet happened.

3. NATO has helped the US get stronger

The Soviet Union’s military alliance, called the Warsaw Pact, required the USSR and its satellite states in central and eastern Europe, including East Germany, Poland and Hungary, to join. NATO, on the other hand, is a voluntary military alliance, and countries must go through a demanding application process before they are accepted.

The United States’ current presence in Europe – and Asia – has not been imposed by force. Instead, US troops and influence in Europe are generally welcomed by its allies.

By joining NATO and accepting the military leadership of Washington, the other NATO countries give the US unprecedented influence and power. Norwegian scholar Geir Lundestad called this an “empire by invitation.” This informal empire has deeply anchored the US and its influence in Europe.

A split in opinion

President Joe Biden has repeatedly said that under his leadership the US would “defend every inch of NATO territory,” speaking primarily in the context of Russia’s war on Ukraine.

Biden has repeatedly warned Putin that he would face the consequences if Russia attacks a NATO member.

For Trump, however, transatlantic solidarity and mutual defense appear to count for nothing. For him, it seems to be all about the money and whether or not NATO countries spend 2% of their GDP on defense.

And despite Putin having begun a terrible war of aggression against Ukraine in February 2022, Trump has continued to voice his admiration for the Russian leader.

Trump does not view Putin’s Russia as an existential threat to the US-led global order. And thus he does not seem to realize that the US and its European allies need protection from Putin’s Russia, the kind of protection offered by NATO.

NATO’s existence gives the US strong and reliable allies, provides Washington with great influence in Europe and makes sure that most of Europe remains stable and peaceful.

Klaus W Larres is a professor of history and international affairs at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

In a speech delivered at the Supreme People’s Assembly in January, North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong Un, stated that reunification with South Korea was no longer possible and that their neighbor should now represent the “primary foe and invariable principal enemy.”

This amounted to a rare foreign policy pivot by Pyongyang, which consistently aimed for reunification of the peninsula since it was divided in the armistice that ended the 1950-1953 war.

Pyongyang’s new position towards the South has been widely interpreted as evidence of warmongering on the part of the North. The South, by contrast, is almost always portrayed as a benign neighbor and an unwilling target for threats of aggression. But it’s not as simple as that.

When it comes to North Korea’s foreign policy shifts, political developments and public opinion in the South play a key – if often understated – role. Pyongyang must also consider domestic factors when making statements about peninsular relations.

Politics in South Korea

Relations with the North are one of the most contentious issues in South Korean politics. Changes in power between political parties can often result in policy pivots in Seoul from hostility to reconciliation and back to hostility. Efforts towards friendlier peninsular relations are known as the “sunshine policy” in Seoul.

South Korea’s presidential system limits presidents to a single five-year term. This means that presidents interested in improving relations with Pyongyang only have a few years to make progress before leaving office.

For continuity to be guaranteed, the incumbent president is reliant upon their successor being similarly minded and possibly even part of the diplomatic team in a junior or advisory role and so already known to North Koreans.

These circumstances are difficult to manufacture though. Meaning that most of what is agreed by the South during friendlier times amounts to minor or temporary bridge building, which is a considerable frustration to the North.

For example, Pyongyang and Seoul made strides towards better relations during the recent five-year presidency of Moon Jae-in between 2017 and 2022. This led to the landmark moment in April 2018 when the two leaders met at the Demilitarized Zone along the 38th parallel.

Each leader stepped into the other’s country. Indeed, at the subsequent press event, Kim spoke – albeit clumsily from notes and with his head down – of the two Koreas as “one nation” and of his personal desire to see reunification. Moon made similar utterances of further cooperation.

Moon’s efforts towards dialogue with the North – without receiving from Pyongyang any concrete commitments to denuclearization in return – were widely criticized as weakness by his opponents.

It was one of the main reasons his democratic party lost the 2022 presidential election. Critics even referred to Moon’s efforts as the “moonshine policy” in reference to the illegal homemade liquor guaranteed to induce intoxication.

When it comes to the South’s attitude towards the North, it’s important to realize that weapons manufacturers engage in sophisticated and well-funded lobbying efforts around the world. These are usually accompanied by mainstream news and social media campaigns and think tank reports, reflecting a vested interest for some in keeping tensions high for financial gain.

In the aftermath of Moon’s presidency, the new administration of Yoon Suk Yeol of the People Power Party (from 2022 to the present) has taken a much tougher stance on North Korea. He has demanded “denuclearization first”, before any warming of relations. Yoon has also been critical of the South’s military capacity to deal with North Korean aggression and has pledged to increase spending on technological advancements.

To this end, the fluctuating position of the South towards the North, alongside the limitations to progress caused by its political system, ought to receive greater recognition as a contributing factor to Pyongyang’s decision to declare the prospect of reunification to be dead.

Domestic concerns in the North

North Korea is one of the most militarized societies in the world. This occurs in two ways. First, on account of the number of people whose livelihoods are attached to a thriving military in one form or another. And second, in terms of the important cultural space that the military takes within public life.

The North Korean military is widely revered and adored inside the country. The state-controlled mainstream media do not criticize the military, although they will acknowledge when missile tests, for example, are unsuccessful. Evening entertainment on North Korean television is regularly an assembly of military choirs or military personnel completing assault courses and other athletic challenges.

Public holidays such as September 9 (the anniversary of the founding of the Republic in 1948) are usually accompanied by military pageantry and news of a substantial military development – like the successful test of a nuclear bomb on September 9, 2016.

Estimates are that around 20% to 25% of North Korea’s GDP is taken up by military expenditure, with more spent by the state manufacturing military prestige through popular culture media content and the broadcasting of pageantry.

By comparison, most Western European countries spend between 1% and 3% of GDP per annum in peacetime on military matters and there is greater cultural space for a range of views on the military.

Therefore, it should be acknowledged that Kim Jong Un faces domestic pressures if he is to preserve the power of his family’s dynasty. He must be seen to act decisively and he must have a prestigious military announcement for high-profile speeches on national holidays.

This is a situation that he inherited from his father and grandfather. But he has shown no sign of wanting it to change.

Colin Alexander is Senior Lecturer in Political Communications, Nottingham Trent University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading