Five key watchpoints for the NATO summit
Leaders of the nations comprising NATO will meet for a two-day summit beginning on July 11, 2023.
The gathering in the Lithuanian capital, Vilnius, comes at a pivotal moment for the Western security alliance – it is seeking to expand membership and confront challenges ranging from the ongoing war in Ukraine to a perceived growing military threat from China.
No doubt NATO members will want to present a united front at the meeting. But on a number of key issues, not everyone is in agreement. Here are some of the issues likely to be discussed and debated during the leaders’ summit.
1. A pathway to Ukraine membership?
With war in Europe the obvious backdrop to the summit, much talk will be about Ukraine. NATO members have been aiding Kyiv individually, through the supply of arms and aid. And the military alliance has been assisting through nonlethal support, such as medical supplies and training.
But, as noted by Mark Webber, professor of international politics at the UK’s University of Birmingham, what many in Kiev really want is full membership: “The bigger prize for Ukraine, however, is NATO membership. That would bring the country within the collective defense provisions of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and, in effect, extend US – and UK – nuclear guarantees to Ukrainian territory.”
Webber noted that accommodating Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s request for “expedited” membership of the alliance will be difficult. “No one in NATO is arguing in favor of granting membership while Ukraine remains at war. Beyond that, the allies are divided.”
2. What about Sweden?
The NATO leaders’ summit will be the first at which the members present will include Finland, which joined in April. Fellow Nordic state Sweden is hoping to be next, perhaps even officially becoming the group’s 32nd member at the Vilnius meetup.
Sweden’s ascension had been held up by NATO member Turkey. Turkey’s recently reelected leader, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, had previous blocked the bid due to what he saw as the Swedish government’s reluctance to crack down on Kurdish “terrorists” being “harbored” in Sweden.
But on the eve of the Vilnius summit, it was announced that Erdogan had agreed to forward Sweden’s bid to the Turkish parliament for ratification.
Ronald Suny, a historian at University of Michigan, noted that Erdogan’s reluctance to allow Sweden and Finland entry represented domestic concerns – international pressure on the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, fits his agenda of suppressing Kurdish rights in Turkey. But it also highlights an underlying problem the alliance is facing:
“NATO is supposed to be an alliance of democratic countries. Yet several of its members – notably Turkey and Hungary – have moved steadily away from liberal democracy toward ethnonational populist authoritarianism,” Suny wrote.
“Finland and Sweden, on the other hand, fulfil the parameters of NATO membership more clearly than several of the alliance’s current members. As the US proclaims that the war in Ukraine is a struggle between democracy and autocracy, Turkey’s opposition to the Nordics who have protested its drift to illiberalism are testing the unity and the ideological coherence of NATO.”
3. The benefit of being a NATO member
But why would Finland, Sweden, Ukraine and any other country look to join NATO? John Deni at American University School of International Service explained that Article 5 of the alliance’s treaty calls for collective action should any member be attacked.
“Article 5 really is the heart and soul of the NATO alliance. It is the part of the treaty that says that if one member is attacked, then all of the other members will treat it as an attack on them all. In effect, it calls for a collective response once requested by any of the current 30 members of NATO and invoked by the entire alliance,” he wrote.
But that doesn’t necessarily mean that the US would have to mount a military response should an ally be attacked. “Article 5 was written in such a way that it allows each ally to decide for itself the best course of action to take – there is no prescribed response once the article is invoked,” Deni added.
4. The end of the neutral option?
As Finland’s and Sweden’s desire to join NATO shows, smaller nations traditionally seen as aspiring to neutrality are, in the words of University of Michigan’s Ronald Suny, “recalculating how they fit into this renewed division of the world.”
Suny noted that, with Finland’s entry into NATO and the now high chance of once-neutral Sweden joining it, other states are questioning “the efficacy of nonalignment in a polarized world.”
“In its place, we have the ‘NATOfication’ of Eastern Europe – something that Putin unwittingly accelerated and which leaves Putin’s Russia with less accommodating neighbors,” Suny wrote.
5. A cluster bomb controversy
A last-minute area of controversy emerged as NATO leaders prepared to gather in Vilnius: cluster bombs.
On July 7, 2023, the Biden administration announced that it would supply Ukraine with the controversial munition, which scatters bomblets across a wide area. The problem is not all NATO countries are in agreement with the US move.
Germany, the UK and Canada – which are among the 120-plus countries that have signed an international treaty banning the use of cluster bombs – have all already expressed their misgivings.
Robert Goldman, a laws of war expert at American University, explained that the White House had previously shown hesitancy over selling cluster bombs to Ukraine in part because of the “optics” and over concerns that “it may introducing a wedge between the U.S. and other NATO countries.”
Goldman explained that there is no law preventing the US from providing cluster bombs to the Ukraine or any other country.
“Nonetheless, providing Ukraine with cluster weapons could serve to destigmatize them and runs counter to international efforts to end their use. And that, in turn, could encourage – or excuse – their use by other states that may be less responsible,” he argued.
Matt Williams, Senior International Editor, The Conversation
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
King of the Big Stomach: Chinese eatery in trouble over dumpling-eating race
Getty ImagesChina is investigating a restaurant over a dumpling-eating contest that allegedly flouts anti-food waste laws.
Those who finish 108 spicy dumplings at the fastest time win a free meal and the title “King of the Big Stomach”.
But the viral challenge has “misled” people into ordering excessively, resulting in wastage, authorities say.
China enacted laws in 2021 to tackle what leader Xi Jinping described as a “shocking and distressing” squandering of food.
Two years on however, people are still adjusting to the regulations. After all, China is a country where hosts offering more food than their guests can stomach is regarded as a form of hospitality.
At least 34 million tonnes of food are wasted in Chinese restaurants every year, according to a 2020 survey conducted by China’s national legislature.
The eatery in Sichuan province is one of several under investigation for violating the laws.
A hotel in Fujian province is also being investigated over a contest last March that challenged participants to finish a 3kg burger in 30 minutes.
Eateries that “induce or mislead customers to order excessively to cause obvious waste” can be fined. Businesses can also collect a waste disposal fee from customers who leave large amounts of leftovers on their plates.
China also banned the livestreaming of binge eating and competitive eating. Many online accounts that feature such eaters have been shut down.
Some Chinese internet users have criticised the authorities’ recent investigations on restaurants as an overreach.
“Why is this an issue policed by the government? Must it be?” a user wrote on China’s micro-blogging platform Weibo.
“It would be better for the authorities to pay greater attention to food safety issues,” another wrote on video-sharing app Douyin.
Several local authorities and individual eateries have also laid down their own policies to support the crusade against wasted food.
For example, the Wuhan Catering Industry Association urges restaurants in the city to follow a system where groups must order one dish less than the number of diners.
Some restaurants even weigh customers before their meals to determine how much food they should be given.
Related Topics
-
-
20 August 2020
-
-
-
13 August 2020
-
Flood warning in Delhi as rains batter north India
Getty ImagesHeavy rains are continuing to cause havoc across northern India, claiming at least 20 lives since Saturday.
The bad weather – which is expected to continue into Friday – has downed trees, flooded homes and closed major roads in several states.
On Tuesday, Delhi was put on high alert for flooding as water levels in the Yamuna river rose to dangerous levels.
Officials have since relocated thousands of people living near the river banks to safer locations.
Residents living in other vulnerable areas have also been told to prepare to be evacuated if needed.
Traffic over a key bridge, which runs over the river, was cut off and schools are closed for a second day due to heavy rainfall.
Delhi’s Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal said the next two days would be crucial for the city, but added that his government was prepared to tackle any situation.
India’s weather department has warned that heavy rains are expected to continue in the region well into the weekend.
In the Himalayan states of Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand, teams of the Indian army and the National Disaster Response Force have been carrying out rescue operations after landslides and flash floods damaged roads and buildings.
In Himachal Pradesh, over 700 roads and key highways have been closed due to landslides.
Massive waterlogging was also reported in the states of Rajasthan, Punjab and Haryana.
Visuals showed people wading through flooded streets while vehicles lay submerged under water.
The Amarnath Yatra – an annual Hindu pilgrimage to a Himalayan cave shrine in Indian-administered Kashmir – has also been suspended for the fourth consecutive day after a national highway was damaged, leaving thousands of pilgrims stranded in nearby areas.
Seasonal monsoon rains, which last from June to September, are a lifeline for India but typically also cause deaths and destruction to property every year.
India has experienced increasingly extreme weather in recent years – the unrelenting rains come just weeks after an extreme heat wave gripped most of north India.
Many factors contribute to flooding, but experts say climate change caused by global warming makes extreme rainfall more likely.
BBC News India is now on YouTube. Click here to subscribe and watch our documentaries, explainers and features.
Read more India stories from the BBC:
US Congress needs to scrutinize foreign-aid spending closely
The United States has a long and noble tradition in international development. In 1961, the US Congress passed the Foreign Assistance Act, which reaffirmed “the traditional humanitarian ideals of the American people and renewed [their] commitment to assist people in developing countries to eliminate hunger, poverty, illness, and ignorance.”
But if it’s true, as many claim, that the US Department of State (DOS) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) have frittered away billions of taxpayers’ dollars on quixotic, far-fetched, and even harebrained initiatives, then it’s time for Congress to ax programs that are inconsistent with or irrelevant to the original intent under the Foreign Assistance Act, or contrary to the US government’s foreign-policy priorities.
The President’s Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Request for DOS and USAID is jam-packed with excess and dubious programs. It calls for “$63.1 billion for foreign assistance and diplomatic engagement, which includes $32 billion in foreign assistance for USAID fully and partially managed accounts, $3 billion (10%) above the FY2023 Adjusted Enacted level.”
Given the unprecedented size of the budget request, Congress must go over it during the markup process on Capitol Hill with a fine-tooth comb – or, better yet, a hacksaw – and eliminate funding for projects that are wasteful, ill-conceived, or contrary to American values, or which fly in the face of the recipient’s values. In any case, Americans have pressing needs at home that cry out for attention.
The Fiscal Year 2024 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill, released on June 22, “provides $52.5 billion for programs under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee.” This is a decent start.
A bank teller wouldn’t hand you a wad of cash just for the asking. You have to establish your bona fides as a client of the bank. Likewise, Congress should not dish out cash to any overzealous DOS/USAID ideologue who insists his or her pet program is vital to global stability or national security without presenting corroborating evidence that it is needed or that it will work.
Foreign assistance – Gordian knots
DOS/USAID development assistance fits, broadly speaking, into two categories: a) essential humanitarian aid to save lives, alleviate suffering and meet basic human needs, and b) advocacy and sponsored research, which, frankly, is often optional, ill-conceived, or possessed of a whiff of ideology. Some research projects – for example, those related to dual-use biological research – are potentially dangerous.
Advocacy programs are often brazen exercises in social engineering incompatible with (when not subversive of) the values and standards of the recipient nation. Moreover, not infrequently, they bankroll “market-oriented reforms,” a euphemism for concentrating economic power in the hands of entrenched elites while leaving everyone else for the most part high and dry. Or they aim to achieve utopian goals only in the distant future – if at all (and it’s probably better if they never do).
Having said that, Congress should unambiguously continue to support humanitarian activities such as international disaster assistance, food security, nutrition, sanitation, biodiversity, and medical aid. That’s the easy part.
The hard part is distinguishing between essential humanitarian aid that is in the national interest from what is not – and then excising the vast quantities of lard that surround most budget submissions. That which is ideologically inspired, that is, anchored in belief structures detached from science and reality, should come in for especially close scrutiny.
The size of the DOS/USAID budget request for 2024 is just under the average of the annual budget outlays for the Department of Defense for the years 1960-1972 (when the Vietnam War was on); it is more than the 2023 defense budgets of any one of America’s major allies, that is, of France, Saudi Arabia, Japan or Germany.
To be sure, most development professionals are hard-working, kind, and extraordinary individuals who are motivated by a spirit of service and compassion toward others, let there be no doubt. But they owe it to the US taxpayer and the world’s poor to pull the plug on failed projects and programs, especially the ones that are fruitless, have resulted in botched outcomes or were of dubious intent to begin with.
Foreign aid for advocacy re-examined
USAID’s mission is “to transform families, communities, and countries” across the globe. Fine, but from what, into what? And with what end in mind?
American institutions are informed by a specific idea of the human person who, as a rational, sensitive creature made of body and soul and possessed of fundamental rights and transcendent dignity, lives within a pre-existing, objective order that governs the cosmos.
This concept of the human person is reflected in the American Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
These convictions gave rise to the American spirit of enterprise, individual responsibility, tolerance, and good humor. Our spirit is optimistic, humane, and pragmatic and, until recently, rigorously non-ideological.
The alternative worldview – prevalent among agnostics, practical atheists, skeptics, and most of America’s cultural elites today – sees the human person as a psychologically challenged complex construction of atoms and electrical impulses descended from one thing or another after a long period of random mutations.
They cannot explain where consciousness and feelings come from and do not even try. Their vision is reductionist and pessimistic and, as a result, they tend to see development assistance as limited to a means of preventing social disorder, alleviating poverty, and mitigating human distress rather than as an opportunity to do just that and bring out the greatness in each human being.
Some aid programs aim at nothing less than changing long-standing social norms and attitudes in countries deemed insufficiently attuned to the interests of progressive humanity. This kind of thinking is captured, for example, in “Biden USAID’s Radical Gender Policy Is Exporting Cultural Colonialism” or “Biden Takes the Culture War to Hungary.”
Today’s orthodox worldview in the academy tends to limit the purpose of development to the attainment of bodily comfort (or at least to the minimization of discomfort) and the achievement of prosperity – perfectly worthy goals but ones which fall short of integral human development in a wholistic sense – or some other material goal such as harnessing natural forces in order to improve the human condition.
To limit the aim of foreign development assistance to such material considerations is to treat the endeavor as an exercise in experimental science or a kind of animal husbandry – with people as the animals.
Since US foreign aid affects people, families and countries, Congress must insist that USAID formulate development assistance policies that are secundum natura hominis, not contra natura hominis, that is, consistent with or, at least, not contrary to the nature of the human person and enhance the common good of society.
When engaging foreign countries, USAID must be careful not to export a reductive vision of the human person, which may inadvertently promote moral underdevelopment or be seen as part of a bid for geo-political dominance.
Aid programs in support of education can easily degenerate into a means of social indoctrination, no matter how high-minded the stated purpose, and be used to overrule a person’s conscience, regulate outcomes, and control the uncooperative.
Spotlight on performance
The Heritage Foundation, which has long cast a critical eye on US foreign assistance programs, highlighted the need for improved efficiency metrics and good governance to measure performance in its report “USAID 2017-2021: The Journey to Self-Reliance.” This report provides “a solid base from which to launch even bolder reforms while offering a future Congress a basis upon which to reshape foreign aid authorizations and appropriations.”
Congress should take a hard look at programs that have become bloated and/or undergone ideological drift. The pursuit of ideological pseudo-reality only undermines foreign aid’s exalted purpose, that is, to save lives, foster entrepreneurial spirit and self-reliance, alleviate distress, and foment a culture of life and the common good. As such, it disserves and betrays both those who need the aid and those who give it, namely the US taxpayer.
When deliberating on the DOS and USAID budget request and during markup, which has begun, Congress should insist that agencies:
- Explain the value proposition and assumptions of specific line-items in the proposed budget and set forth the expected outcomes within a realistic timeframe. Congress should challenge experimental programs and request that USAID spell out its criteria for prioritizing countries and allocating funding “to reform coalitions and policy priorities” under, for example, its “Dekleptification Guide ” (September 2022).
- Define unambiguously the meaning of words such as “prosperity,” “freedom,” “human rights,” “equity,” “democratic governance,” “health,” and “inclusion.”
- Disclose criteria for selecting partners, allocating funds, and determining the purpose of each proposed line item against benchmarks, timelines, and past achievements/failures.
- Identify redundancy in certain specific accounts, for example, USAID ‘s Pillar Bureaus, Transition Initiatives, Complex Crisis Fund, Economic Support Fund, Functional Bureaus and Offices, Prevention and Stabilization Fund, and Democracy Fund, to name a few.
- Check for inconsistencies in language and reasons for de-prioritizing formerly high-priority accounts. For example, if international religious freedom is one of the administration’s top priorities, the FY2024 request of $11.4 million (66% of which covers salaries, benefits, utilities and supplies) for the Bureau of International Religious Freedom seems paltry.
Moreover, as Representative Mario Diaz-Balart underscored on June 23 in his remarks at FY24 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Sub-Committee Markup, Congress must make sure that foreign assistance does not “leave countries unable to support themselves, more dependent on foreign aid and throw the door open for Communist China.”
Learn from Afghanistan
The economic component of foreign aid to Afghanistan was $39 billion, or 30% of its total outlay of approximately $91.4 billion between 2001 and 2021.
The report of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (July 2021) – “What We Need to Learn: Lessons from 20 years of Afghanistan Reconstruction” – unequivocally states that “the US government did not understand the Afghan context and therefore failed to tailor its efforts accordingly.”
Good intentions do not compensate for bad ideas or boundless ideological confidence.
John F Sopko, the author of the report, lamented the failure of aid policy in Afghanistan: “We [need] to determine why the effort to build a strong, sustainable Afghan state failed so dramatically and disastrously.” That failure had more to do with bad ideas than with poor management or a lack of resources. Congressional oversight should seek to prevent such failures in the future.
Listen to partners without preconditions
Foreign assistance initiatives must be in sync with the wishes and concerns of peoples and elected officials across the globe. If not, the US runs the risk of blowback. Here is just one example:
President Andrés Manuel López Obrador of Mexico, in a recent note to US President Joe Biden, slammed USAID: “I would like to briefly express to you that for some time the United States government, in particular the United States Agency for International Development has dedicated itself to financing organizations openly opposed to the legal and legitimate government that I represent, which is clearly an interventionist act, contrary to international law and the respect that should prevail between free and sovereign states.”
This sentiment is increasingly expressed by countries around the world.
The problem of concentration
USAID, with its small and shrinking partner base, has a concentration problem. Congress should require it to divulge the names of its top 25 implementing partners and, more important, the names of its subcontractors and how often they are engaged. Ditto the recipients.
Concentration has been a problem for years. According to USAID’s website (link recently deleted), “In FY2017, 60% of obligations went to 25 partners, and more than 80% of obligations went to just 75 partners. The number of new partners has decreased consistently since 2011 when the agency worked with 761 new partners; in 2018, it worked with 226 new partners.”
Congress should tell USAID to diversify its partner base and expand local empowerment even if this results in increased inefficiencies and workloads. USAID must dramatically expand direct assistance to worthy recipients in foreign countries, by-passing its Washington-based brokers.
Putting human development, humanitarian assistance first
To be sure, Congress should:
- Continue to support USAID’s humanitarian aid portfolio: water management, food security, sanitation, sustainable agriculture, small businesses and entrepreneurship, disaster preparedness, sensible environmental and biodiversity programs, non-intrusive health initiatives (such as malaria and HIV/AIDS care, improved nutrition for vulnerable children, etc) and the promotion of religious freedom and, generally, culture-of-life initiatives.
- Ensure that the programming in the 2024 Budget Request neither contradicts the principles embodied in the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act, the Declaration of Independence, and other key documents of the United States, or undermines the interests of, or otherwise antagonizes, partner countries that may regard the ideologies, attitudes or policies we would introduce as alien, deleterious or anathema.
- Insist emphatically that DOS/USAID focus on traditional humanitarian assistance and scale way back on the undesirable and intrusive aspects of its advocacy work. Such an approach will better reflect the original intent of foreign aid, the magnanimity of Congress and the generosity of the American people.
And, as indicated in the aforementioned appropriations bill, Congress should demand transparency by requiring “the public posting of reports and foreign assistance data on the Department of State and USAID websites so the American taxpayers can see how the funds are used” and who is receiving the funding.
In short, Congress must insist that DOS/USAID spend taxpayers’ money more wisely while giving us something we haven’t had in a long time: a foreign policy anchored in realism, common sense, and more respectful engagement with foreign countries, taking into account their unique needs, cultures, and sensitivities.
In this way, USAID will remain “the world’s premier international development agency and a catalytic actor driving development results” while demonstrating American generosity.
Why NATO is expanding its reach to Asia-Pacific region
Since Russia invaded Ukraine last year, NATO meetings and summits have been receiving significantly more attention compared to previous years. And there are several big-ticket items on the agenda at the summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, which begins on Tuesday.
The foremost issue is, of course, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s future military support to Ukraine in its ongoing war against Russia, particularly in the wake of reports of weapon delivery delays and the United States’ controversial decision to send cluster munitions to the Ukrainians.
The allies will also discuss Ukraine’s potential membership in the group. Ukraine is seeking an invitation and a roadmap eventually to join NATO, which the US and Germany, in particular, have resisted while an active war is occurring.
The members will also agree on the first major overhaul of NATO’s military plans since the Cold War and an increase in their individual defense spending. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg is looking for commitments from all 31 members to spend at least 2% of their gross domestic product on defense – something that was considered an aspiration rather than a baseline a decade ago.
NATO’s interest in the Asia-Pacific
The other invitees receiving considerable attention are four leaders from the Asia-Pacific region: Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, New Zealand Prime Minister Chris Hipkins, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol. The four will be in attendance for the second year in a row, after last year’s NATO summit in Madrid.
While NATO’s outreach efforts to the Asia-Pacific region are still in the infancy stage, they have generated some criticism in recent days. Former Australian prime minister Paul Keating called Stoltenberg a “supreme fool” for boosting the bloc’s ties with the region. And French President Emmanuel Macron is reportedly opposed to the opening of a proposed NATO liaison office in Tokyo.
With NATO so heavily focused on Ukraine at the moment, its interest in a region halfway around the world does raise some questions. Why are these four leaders becoming regular features at a summit for European and North American countries?
First, these countries have been among the most prominent members of the international coalition supporting Ukraine and sanctioning Russia. So their presence at a security conference where Ukraine will be discussed makes sense.
More important, though, the Indo-Pacific region featured prominently in NATO’s 2022 Strategic Concept, a key document that outlines the alliance’s values, purpose and role.
For the first time last year, the document referred to China’s ambitions and policies as a major challenge to NATO’s security, interests and values. It also specifically addressed the growing cooperation between China and Russia, which NATO sees as a threat to the “rules-based international order.”
As such, the Strategic Concept called the Indo-Pacific “important for NATO, given that developments in that region can directly affect Euro-Atlantic security”.
This makes the case quite clear for NATO to strengthen its existing partnerships in the region and develop new ones.
What these new partnerships will look like
Policy analysts have debated the merits and consequences of this expanded level of cooperation.
But despite hesitations among some commentators, the four Asia-Pacific countries named above generally want to move in the direction of stepping up their cooperation with NATO.
Indeed, if the Madrid summit served as an opportunity for the four Indo-Pacific partners to showcase their support for Ukraine and pledge stronger commitment to future collaboration with NATO, the Vilnius summit will serve as a benchmark to assess the progress that’s been made.
This is why, in the lead-up to the summit, NATO has been working to formalize its partnerships with the four countries.
Japan and Australia have been at the front of these efforts. Japanese media reported last week that Tokyo and Canberra have wrapped up negotiations with NATO on a new agreement called the “Individually Tailored Partnership Program” (ITPP). This program specifies the key areas of cooperation between each country and the NATO bloc.
New Zealand and South Korea are working to finalize their individual agreements with the alliance too.
The partnerships will largely focus on areas of global concern, such as maritime security, cybersecurity, climate change, outer space, and emerging and disruptive technologies (including artificial intelligence).
And from a defense standpoint, NATO and the four partners will aim to improve the “interoperability” of their militaries – the ability of different military forces and defense systems to work together effectively and coordinate their actions.
This might entail deepening the knowledge of one another’s military assets, improving the relationships between their soldiers and other military personnel, and expanding joint drills.
Why is this happening now?
The intensifying and deepening relations between NATO and its Indo-Pacific partners can be interpreted in two ways.
First, these partnerships form another important link in the expanding network of diplomatic and security ties between the US, its Western allies and the Indo-Pacific region. They complement partnerships like AUKUS and the Quad.
Beyond this, we can also view these agreements in the context of NATO’s evolving outreach with the rest of the world over the past couple decades.
Previously, NATO’s collaborations with Indo-Pacific countries involved pooling resources for security operations in non-NATO members, such as the Balkans in the 1990s and Afghanistan in the 2000s.
Nowadays, strengthening these partnerships is seen as a vital part of responding to the new challenges and threats posed by Russia and China.
Of course, this does not mean we will see NATO military equipment or troops permanently stationed in the Indo-Pacific region. Nor would it be realistic to expect the Indo-Pacific countries’ military contributions to Ukraine to lead to a more permanent setup in Europe.
Similarly, while all of this is aimed at intensifying security cooperation among US allies in the Indo-Pacific, this is in no way a prelude to the creation of a NATO-like collective defense pact in the region.
However, given the complexities of the current tensions with Russia and China, there is a clear need for greater coordination and cooperation among a larger group of countries. These new partnerships can be effective in addressing everything from disinformation and maritime security to cyber-defense and competition in space.
Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin would obviously prefer these partnerships to slow down. Indeed, China has criticized the proposed NATO liaison office in Tokyo as an attempt to “destroy regional peace and stability.”
China and Russia might even find some comfort in seeing the clear differences among the four partners as to their desired level of engagement with NATO.
However, all four Indo-Pacific countries can agree on one fundamental fact – they expect to see more competition with both China and Russia in the future, not less.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
BNM announced winners of the AML/CFT Hackathon 2023
Participants from regulatory bodies, law enforcement, financial institutions, undergrads
Calls for relevant stakeholders to explore digital tools prototyped & combat financial crimes
Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) has announced the winners of the Anti-Money Laundering/Counter Financing of Terrorism Hackathon 2023. The Hackathon was launched in April and attracted over 660 participants from 140 teams, representing more than 20 countries from the…Continue Reading
Who is Chinese tycoon who owns troubled Reading FC?
Reading Football Club is in turmoil. It faces a winding-up petition over unpaid tax, a league charge of failing to pay players on time and it’s fallen to the third tier of English football.
The siblings are now one of northern China’s wealthiest families, with a love of football said to have been swelled watching Manchester City in the early 2000s.
But they are rarely heard from in the UK, staying out of the public eye even as Reading FC struggle on the pitch and the club deals with what it says are “significant financial challenges”.
While they took over the club as a duo, Dai Yongge is now referred to as Reading’s sole owner.
The firm he heads, Renhe Commercial Holdings, was a family business empire built off the back of developing underground air raid shelters into shopping malls.
Building in that way helped the firm legally avoid regulations and taxes applied to retail developments above ground, the company itself said in a filing to the Hong Kong stock exchange.
Their first underground centre opened in 1992. By 2016, the firm had a network of 23 malls.
It was so successful that in 2014, Dai Xiuli was named by Forbes as one of the richest women in the world, with an estimated fortune of $1.2bn (£715m).
That proved a pivotal year for brother and sister. In it Dai Xiuli was divorced from her then husband, British maths teacher Tony Hawken.
She also made an apparent decision to step back from the family business. Forbes reports that she transferred her controlling stake in Renhe to her brother as a free gift.
Two years later, despite a downturn for the business, Mr Dai and his wife Zhang Xingmei still enjoyed an estimated $931m (£656m) fortune.
A restructuring saw the firm adopt the new name China Dili Group and focus on running agricultural markets.
In 2021, Dili Group said it donated 16.2m Chinese yuan (£1.8m) to Wuhan, the city at the centre of the Covid pandemic, although it did not operate a market there.
Watching Sun Jihai at Manchester City
The Dais interest in football is reported to have blossomed years earlier when Dai Xiuli lived in England.
Her love of the game is reported to have swelled watching Chinese defender Sun Jihai play for Manchester City in the early 2000s.
By 2007 the Dais had taken over Chinese club Shaanxi Chanba, relocating it first to Guizhou in 2012 and then to Beijing in 2016.
Sun Jihai even signed for the club – renamed Beijing Renhe – towards the end of his playing career. But by 2021 Beijing Renhe had been entirely dissolved as a business.
The Dais had already turned their attention to English football.
In 2017, they made a failed attempt to buy Hull City. The Reading takeover was completed in May of that year.
“One of my first priorities will be to visit the development site for the new training ground,” Dai Yongge told the club website back then.
“We also intend to revisit stadium extension plans with the vision of creating world-class facilities at the club.”
However, their six-year stewardship has been an “unmitigated disaster”, according to Reading fans group Sell Before We Dai.
The campaign group cites the club’s “excruciating financial losses” – £146m in the five years to June 2022, according to Companies House – as well as the English Football League charges.
Reading have issued £82m worth of shares since the 55-year-old tycoon took control of the club, according to Companies House.
After last season’s relegation to English football’s third tier, Royals chief executive Dayong Pang told fans he was “confident” the club would “fully correct the mistakes that were made many years ago”.
In a statement, he added: “As a club, financially we continue to face a number of significant challenges and our owner, Mr Dai, is working very hard to resolve those issues to ensure the future of Reading Football Club is stable, successful, progressive and positive.”
The BBC has contacted Reading and their owner Dai Yongge for comment, but they are yet to respond.
Additional reporting by the BBC’s Zhijie Shao in Hong Kong.
Follow BBC South on Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram. Send your story ideas to [email protected].
Wang Yi to represent China at ASEAN, raising questions over Qin Gang whereabouts
JAKARTA: China’s top diplomat Wang Yi will attend an international gathering of foreign ministers in Indonesia this week, sources said, raising questions over the whereabouts of Chinese foreign minister Qin Gang who has not been seen for more than two weeks. The three sources familiar with the matter declined toContinue Reading
Road closed in wake of Lat Krabang bypass collapse
Police on Tuesday closed the inbound side of Luang Phaeng Road in Lat Krabang district, where a section of elevated road under construction collapsed on Monday evening killing two people and injuring 12 others.
A concrete span about 100 metres long fell from a height of 20 metres onto Luang Phaeng Road between the Luang Phaeng branch of Lotus and Jorakay Noi police station.
Officials said it would take 3-4 days to clear away the debris – shattered concrete, reinforcing bars and steel supports.
It was initially thought that the giant steel crane that lifted the concrete segment toppled over and the huge span fell onto traffic below. The investigation was continuing.
The incident happened about 6pm on Monday. Two people were killed, an engineer and a construction worker.
Twelve people were injured, many vehicles were crushed, a building was damaged and several power poles were toppled.
The fallen span is part of an elevated road costing 1.6 billion baht being built between Onnut and Lat Krabang under contract to the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration.
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.