Syrian Kurds force Westâs hand on detained ISIS fighters
The Kurdish-led administration in the autonomous region of northeastern Syria appears to have had enough. The sprawling region, roughly the size of Slovakia, is home to 10,000 detained ISIS fighters, making it the largest concentration of jailed terrorists in the world, according to the US State Department.
The ISIS fighters hail from dozens of countries – including the US, Canada and the UK – and have languished in jail cells for years despite calls from the administration, officially known as the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES), to have their home countries repatriate them.
The administration’s military, the US-allied Syrian Democratic Forces, played an integral part in the fight against ISIS, or Islamic State.
Last month, the AANES revealed its plan to prosecute 2,000 of the foreign ISIS fighters, hoping to clear some of the backlog. The decision was prompted by the international community’s refusal to assume responsibility for their own citizens.
News of the move came as a surprise to diplomats, who were not previously informed about the authorities’ intended course of action.
The sudden announcement and reported swift implementation of the plan have raised concerns – including doubts that local authorities will be able to handle complex legal proceedings while ensuring due process. Furthermore, the level of international cooperation remains uncertain, leaving the fate of foreign fighters in limbo.
The foreign fighters have been detained in makeshift cells since 2019, alongside more than 10,000 foreign women and children who are currently held in camps.
Not only has the AANES been burdened with the monumental task of securing so many detainees in inadequate facilities, it has faced criticism for holding the prisoners without charges.
Complicating matters further, there is also the larger group of ISIS members from Syria and Iraq being held in detention facilities or camps, putting additional strain on the region’s limited resources.
West reluctant to act
The AANES has persistently called on countries, particularly those in the West, to repatriate their citizens. However, the states have been hesitant, citing a potential political backlash. There are also fears that their existing counterterrorism laws may not guarantee sufficient long-term prison sentences, as well as the risk of radicalization within their own prison systems.
As an alternative, the AANES has proposed an international tribunal to prosecute ISIS members. However, this has also been opposed, with the fighters’ home countries expressing concerns that a tribunal could ultimately lead to the large-scale repatriation of their citizens.
The recent decision to act unilaterally was made made immediately after the anti-ISIS coalition summit held in Saudi Arabia on June 8. In its statement, the AANES emphasized the court proceedings would be open to human-rights organizations, journalists, and the general public.
The AANES also said only the prisoners – not their families – would be subject to trial, and lawyers would be provided. Those convicted would serve sentences in local prisons, while those found not guilty would be released.
The push for trials was driven by various factors. One of the primary objectives is to apply pressure on the international community to address the problem. The unexpected manner in which the news of the trials was delivered served to bring the issue into the spotlight.
Moreover, the announcement aimed to garner more support from the countries involved to better assist the local authorities in managing the burden of foreign fighters and their families. This objective is clearly reflected in the administration’s statement, which emphasized the need for positive engagement and support from the international community during the trial process.
While the move has the potential to generate momentum and secure more support, it is unlikely that the concerned states will readily endorse the plan. One obstacle lies in the fact that the trials lack a legal basis, as the AANES does not have international recognition. Also, the legal system in northeastern Syria is inadequately equipped to ensure proper due process.
Additionally, conducting public trials could heighten security risks and create an environment conducive to prison breaks or attacks. Besides, the trials themselves will not address the underlying problem.
Because of the probable lack of extradition, foreign fighters, whether they are convicted or exonerated, will likely be unable to return to their countries of origin. This is why the US has determined the only solution is for states to repatriate their citizens.
Anticipating a potential negative reaction, the AANES has announced the trials will commence imminently, despite the lack of international support. However, several weeks have already passed without any concrete actions being taken, suggesting that negotiations are ongoing to persuade the AANES to reconsider its position.
Regardless of the outcome of these talks, it is imperative for the international community not to remain idle and simply hope the problem will vanish on its own. It is vital to prioritize the rights of those detained and ensure they receive fair trials as soon as possible. Equally important is for the victims of ISIS to feel justice is being served.
Disregarding these needs will not only hinder the healing process for communities impacted by ISIS but also carry the risk of further destabilizing the country and the broader region.
This article was provided by Syndication Bureau, which holds copyright.
Follow Haid Haid on Twitter @HaidHaid22.
Special Operations Group: Australia policeman’s book pulled after doubts over accuracy
Victoria PoliceA memoir by a former elite Australian police officer has been pulled from sale following questions over its accuracy.
Released two weeks ago, Special Operations Group recounted Christophe Glasl’s time as a member of the force.
It told of murders, drug busts and the response to the Port Arthur massacre – Australia’s worst mass shooting.
But Victoria Police say Mr Glasl was not at Port Arthur and have cast doubts about his version of other events.
Mr Glasl – who is described on LinkedIn as a self-employed author – has not responded to the allegations. He has been contacted for comment.
Publisher Hachette Australia said it had come to its attention that some of the content in the book is “inaccurate”.
“We have taken the decision to withdraw this book from sale immediately while we undertake further review,” a spokeswoman said in a statement.
It has also removed mention of the book from its website.
Hachette had previously promoted Mr Glasl’s book as a “raw, behind-the-scenes look” at what went on in the Special Operations Group (SOG) – “where solidarity, camaraderie and loyalties were undermined by bullying, bastardisation, drug use, lies and betrayal”.
“It is… a gripping account of major jobs he attended: fatal shootings, a triple murder, a 100-million-dollar drug bust and the Port Arthur massacre, to name just a few.”
But in a statement, Victoria Police – where Mr Glasl is said to have worked for 16 years – raised questions about the accuracy of the book, including Mr Glasl’s claims about incidents he attended.
Of particular concern was a chapter focusing on his “claimed involvement” in the “resolution” of the Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, the police force said.
The Australian newspaper reported Mr Glasl has told his publishers that he was not in Tasmania on the day of the massacre and that he had always intended his account to be third-hand.
In April 1996, 35 people were killed when gunman Martin Bryant opened fire at a former penal colony and tourist attraction.
The mass shooting prompted a radical overhaul of the nation’s gun control laws.
A Victoria Police spokesperson told the Sydney Morning Herald that only 10 Victorian SOG members went to Tasmania that day.
“To confirm, the former member was not part of the SOG deployment to Port Arthur nor was he even in Tasmania at the time,” the statement said.
Related Topics
-
-
4 October 2017
-
Underage driver who bought car sharing account and ferried passengers for money given probation
SINGAPORE: An underage driver was sentenced to probation on Tuesday (Jul 11) after he bought a car sharing account and began ferrying passengers for cash. The 17-year-old was only caught after he was stopped at a police roadblock, where he was found without a driving licence. The teenager, now 19,Continue Reading
Thailand’s monarchy looms over battle for prime minister: Analysis
But the battle over who gets the job could lead to weeks or even months of deadlock thanks to the votes of a 250-seat Senate, appointed by a junta, that could block the election-winning progressive alliance from securing its choice in a combined vote of both chambers. The system wasContinue Reading
Foxconn: Apple supplier drops out of $20bn India factory plan
ReutersApple supplier Foxconn has pulled out of a $19.5bn (£15.2bn) deal with Indian mining giant Vedanta to build a chip making plant in the country.
The move comes less than a year after the companies announced plans to set up the facility in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s home state of Gujarat.
Some analysts say it marks a setback to the nation’s technology industry goals.
However, a government minister says it will have no impact on the country’s chip making ambitions.
Taiwan-headquartered Foxconn told the BBC that it will now “explore more diverse development opportunities”.
The firm also said the decision was made in “mutual agreement” with Vedanta, which has assumed full ownership of the venture, but did not give details on why it withdrew from the deal.
“We will continue to strongly support the government’s ‘Make in India’ ambitions and establish a diversity of local partnerships that meet the needs of stakeholders,” Foxconn added.
New Delhi-based Vedanta said it had “lined up other partners to set up India’s first [chip] foundry”.
“The surprise pull-out of Foxconn is a considerable blow to India’s semiconductor ambitions,” Paul Triolo from global advisory firm Albright Stonebridge Group told the BBC.
“The apparent cause of the pull-out is the lack of a clear technology partner and path for the joint venture,” he added. “Neither party had significant experience with developing and managing a large-scale semiconductor manufacturing operation.”
However, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, India’s Minister of State for Electronics and Information Technology, said on Twitter that Foxconn’s decision had “no impact on India’s semiconductor fab[rication] goals. None.”
Mr Chandrasekhar added that Foxconn and Vedanta were “valued investors” in the country and “will now pursue their strategies in India independently”.
The Indian government has been working on strategies to support the chipmaking industry.
Last year, it created a $10bn fund to attract more investors to the sector, in a bid to become less reliant on foreign chipmakers.
Prime Minister Modi’s flagship ‘Make in India’ scheme, which launched in 2014, is aimed at transforming the country into a global manufacturing hub to rival China.
In recent years, several other firms have announced plans to build semiconductor factories in India.
Last month, US memory chip giant Micron said it would invest up to $825m to build a semiconductor assembly and test facility in India.
Micron said that the construction of the new facility in Gujarat will begin this year. The project is expected to directly create up to 5,000 roles, and another 15,000 jobs in the area.
Related Topics
-
-
14 September 2022
-
Trial opens for 50 Vietnam officials over rescue flight bribes
HANOI: More than 50 officials went on trial in Vietnam on Tuesday (Jul 11) for alleged corruption over repatriation flights during the COVID-19 pandemic, a scandal that has seen several senior ministers fired. The case is part of a major anti-corruption drive that led to President Nguyen Xuan Phuc’s suddenContinue Reading
Heavy rain in southern Japan leaves up to six dead, 3 missing
TOKYO: Torrential rain over Japan’s southwestern island of Kyushu triggered floods and landslides that left up to six people dead and rescuers searching for three missing, officials said on Tuesday (Jul 11). The Japan Meteorological Agency downgraded the special warnings for heavy rains, issued on Monday for northern parts ofContinue Reading
Nursing homes brace for haze by stocking up on air purifiers, monitoring vulnerable residents
Nursing homes told CNA that they will work closely with the authorities to ramp up measures if needed, such as suspending outdoor activities and increasing water intake for residents.
HAZE SHELTERS TO PROVIDE REFUGE
ECON Care Residence on Henderson Road, for instance, has designated haze shelters fitted with air filters and exhaust fans to provide refuge for the most vulnerable residents.
The air filtration system in the shelters circulates fresh air in a closed loop, meaning that air purifiers are not required in these rooms and can be used in other areas of the nursing home.
“When the haze situation worsens, for example, when the PSI (Pollutant Standards Index) level goes above 150, that’s when we will start to utilise the haze shelters,” said ECON Healthcare Group (Singapore)’s chief executive officer Ong Hui Ming.
“Typically we will care for seniors with chronic diseases, lung diseases and respiratory conditions in the haze shelter.”
Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-Jin apologises for using unparliamentary language
SINGAPORE: Speaker of Parliament Tan Chuan-jin has apologised for using unparliamentary language during a parliament sitting in April this year.
According to a reddit thread, Mr Tan had muttered “f****** populist” after he called for Member of Parliament (MP) Vikram Nair (PAP-Sembawang) to respond to MP Jamus Lim (WP-Sengkang).
“I had to listen to the recording as I did not recall the occasion,” Mr Tan said in a Facebook post on Tuesday (Jul 11).
“Based on the clip it appears that I had a reaction to a speech made in the chamber,” he added.
Mr Tan said that when he listens to speeches made, he like everyone else, “form views on them”.
He added that what was said were his private thoughts which he had muttered to himself and not to anyone.
“However I should not have expressed them aloud or in unparliamentary language, and I apologise for that,” Mr Tan said.
Mr Tan also said that he has spoken to Mr Lim and apologised to him, to which Mr Lim “has kindly accepted”.
COFA renewals key to US defense of Pacific
How does a great power get itself defeated? Sometimes it does too much – as in America’s 20-year effort to turn Afghanistan and Iraq into countries more to its liking.
And sometimes it does too little – as is happening in the Central Pacific. That is where Chinese influence has gradually eroded what Washington thought was a solid, almost guaranteed presence.
Some background
First a little background. Three contiguous island nations – Republic of Palau, Federated States of Micronesia, and Republic of Marshall Islands – occupy an area about as large as the continental United States. They also make up a huge corridor in the middle of the Central Pacific.
They make up strategic geography by any standard. Indeed, after World War II, they (along with what would become the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands) were declared the only “strategic trust territories” by the United Nations. And they were assigned to the United States for administration.
Starting nearly 40 years ago, as they became independent, each of the three entered into a “compact of free association” (COFA) with the US. These countries are now known collectively as the Freely Associated States (FAS).
These complex COFA agreements are currently being renegotiated. They provide the three countries with financial and other assistance — including the right of their citizens to live and work in the United States. The amounts and types of assistance are periodically renegotiated.
Through the COFAs, Washington also undertakes responsibility for the three nations’ defense. That includes the right to prevent any foreign military presence in each of the COFA states. This, many strategists assume, is in “perpetuity.”
And that was supposed to be that.
Why are these Important to the United States?
Without control of this terrain, America’s defense posture in the Indo-Pacific becomes untenable, if not impossible. And preventing the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from seizing Taiwan would be nearly impossible as well.
As a former US Navy intelligence officer puts it: “If we lose the Freely Associated States to the PRC, then you can kiss Taiwan goodbye.”
However, over the last 30 years (some would say longer) the PRC has insinuated itself into the commercial and political systems of each FAS nation. It is now to the point that American control is no longer thesure thing it was once thought to be.
There is no reason the FAS nations cannot cancel the COFA agreements. Or, for that matter, just declare that they no longer consider the deals to be valid and are withdrawing.
And China has got a blank check or three ready in case they should do so. In fact, it is encouraging them. If this happens the United States has no good options – and “sending in the Marines” is not a good option.
Where do the negotiations stand?
The financial and service components of the COFAs must be signed by at least the Federated States of Micronesia and Marshall Islands. (Palau is a year later.) And then they must be passed by the US Congress by September 30, 2023.
If they are not, services like weather forecasting, the post office, education programs, and much, much more run out of money. This can be quite serious. For example, the Federal Aviation Administration is one of the services. If that stops running, normal flights can’t operate.
So far, Marshalls hasn’t signed. But Palau and Micronesia have signed, and those agreements are heading to Congress. While the Senate seems supportive, the question is, will they pass the House of Representatives?
One would think a look at the map – and remembering a little history about World War II – would make even the most skin-flint of politicians reach for the checkbook and allocate whatever funds are necessary to keep the FAS nations on side.
It is the best bargain the United States has ever had.
A critical foundation in the Central Pacific
The COFA’s are best viewed as a maintenance fee and a foundation for the US presence in the Central Pacific. And that comes with the right to exclude foreign militaries from the FAS territories. Sort of like buying health insurance.
The amount of money needed to renew the COFA deals is also a pittance – around $7.1 billion, spread out over three countries and twenty years. Said in another way, that’s under $117 million per country per year (and a chunk of that goes back to US services).
Not convinced? That cost is literally less than half a day’s worth of Medicaid and Medicare fraud.
What would be the cost of having to defend properly or having to occupy the FAS to forestall Chinese influence?
A lot more than that.
The Risks of Passing This Up
But can’t the US Navy just do more with what it has and “spread a bit” to cover the region?
The laws of physics intrude here. As noted by a senior retired US Navy officer who served in the Pacific for several decades:
We had to balance the limited resources against the threat from the PLA Navy in the East China Sea and South China Sea, North Korean missile launches and maritime aggression, normal training and readiness requirements, and pop-up contingencies like a HADR event….
And then you add on this topic (for a region the size of the USA) and you begin to understand the frustration of many who serve in the FDNF (Forward Deployed Naval Force)… And it also explains why most of the officers on the 7th Fleet staff went to work early and stayed late… It seemed as if the “tasking” would never end…and we had to keep doing more with less.
The US Air Force would tell you something similar.
The US government has simply got to pay up – or it risks defeat in the Indo-Pacific. And that means defeat everywhere.
What would losing defense access given by the COFAs cost the US?
Here is a back-of-the-envelope calculation of what it would cost to cover or properly control the area the US currently has access to under the COFAs in the absence of those agreements.
Of course it’s a rough estimate of some initial costs, and it’s limited only to a very, very narrow military lens, so it may be more and it may be less. But you’ll get the idea.
1. More ships
You’d need more Navy ships. Say 20. That would give you 7 that you could keep on station or moving around the area. And remember that the area is the size of the continental United States. It depends on type of ship ,of course, but you’d do well to have something that can fight since the PLA Navy may be on the scene.
Cost: $40 billion.
2. Submarines
You might need another submarine to handle the area? So maybe two or three subs. And don’t forget extra submarine tenders.
Cost: $10 billion or more.
3. Aircraft
You’d need additional aircraft – patrol, surveillance, combat – to deploy in the area.
Cost: $2 billion.
3. Ground troops
Having a battalion of ground troops in each of the countries to keep things in order is another important part of the task.
Cost: $2 billion.
4. Facilities and support
Military construction would be necessary in the region. This would be needed to allow our occupying force to have facilities to live in and to operate from:
Cost $2 billion.
5. Surveillance systems
We would also need surveillance systems and hardware to cover the area.
Cost: $2 billion.
6. Missiles and defense hardware
Air and missile defense hardware systems needed to defend US troops in the area would be another expense:
Cost: $2 billion.
7. Seven years operating costs
Then there are operating costs over seven years for all of the above.
Cost: $10 billion.
8. Support for the FAS
Another cost would be that of running the FAS governments, societies, and economies for which we are now responsible.
Cost: $3 billion.
9. Goodwill lost
There is also the value of “goodwill” lost to the United States by virtue of having to become an occupying force. And that would happen in an area where we were once well-regarded. It would be a political warfare win for the PRC.
Value: almost priceless. But let’s say $10 billion in cost to the US. It’s also the equivalent of a $10 billion handout to the Chinese.
Total loss: $20 billion.
10. Regional allies and friends
Another cost is the value of the United States’ regional allies – Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines, Australia. And others who may not be allies but are watching closely to see if America is serious about defending its interests. And looking after its partners and resupply lines.
They won’t just see this as America “wavering” but rather “withdrawing.” Indeed, we may find they become far less cooperative as they seek to hedge their bets.
Cost: It’s hard to quantify, but say $10 billion – conservatively.
Where that puts us
And here we are at $103 billion.
But there’s more: In the event a fight is required to keep or retake the FAS, the costs skyrocket. As we saw in Afghanistan where we were blowing $45 billion a year.
When you add in the cost of long-term veteran care, the price tag on the Iraq War is north of $3 trillion.
As one observer put it, that amount
will not fund a single day of full scale war in COFA let alone the Pacific. [There would be a] Minimum of $2 billion in direct costs per day. And $3.5-5 billion per day when you factor in market/industry losses.
A $5 increase in a barrel of oil increases US Navy/Marine Corps fuel bill by $1.05 billion USD per year for peacetime consumption. (Which is a fraction of our wartime guzzle.) What do you think will happen to the price of fuel, food etc on day one of the war? Massive inflation and rationing at home. Very costly indeed.
And if Taiwan is lost because of what happens in the FAS, the blow to America’s position in the Indo-Pacific ー not to mention its prestige, position and perceived reliability globally ー will be immense. This will have demonstrated that US military power could not keep 23 million Taiwanese free. United States financial and economic power could not either. Nor could America’s nuclear arsenal.
The cost of this and having most of Asia turn red overnight will be a lot more than the $350 million that’s being argued over with the COFAs.
Squandering opportunities
Squandering this opportunity to renew relationships that have existed since World War II and to yield vital terrain that was paid for in American blood would constitute diplomatic, legislative and moral malfeasance.
It’s not like we haven’t seen this before.
In the early 1990’s the US balked at the Philippines‘ request to increase our annual rent on military facilities by $116 million per year. (In current dollars, that is three Joint Strike Fighters).
This was a bargain we passed on and China took notice. If we had remained, the Spratlys, Mischief Reef and Fiery Cross Reef would most likely be reefs today. Not Chinese military bases.
Congress is once again in danger of giving the expression “penny-wise and pound-foolish” a new meaning.
Grant Newsham is a retired US Marine officer and former US diplomat. He is the author of the book When China Attacks: A Warning To America. Find his testimony before the US Congress on YouTube. This article was originally published by JAPAN Forward and is republished with permission.