Moves (Page 24)

Who speaks for Syrians now that President Bashar al-Assad’s concept has come to an end after 50 years of brutal royal rule?

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, which led the opposition improve that toppled Assad under the command of Abu Mohammad al-Golani, is one organization making a significant say to that position.

But what does the organization represent? And who is al-Golani? The Conversation turned to Sara Harmouch, an analyst on Islamist violent parties, for answers.

What is Hayat Tahrir al-Sham?

The Syrian civil war, which started in 2011 as a famous revolt against the Assad regime, is where Hayat Tahrir al-Sham is from.

The organization was founded as an outgrowth of the Nusra Front, Syria’s established al-Qaida online. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham was immediately praised for its fight effectiveness, commitment to international jihadist ideology, and support for tight Islamic rule in the Muslim world.

The Nusra Front officially ended relations with al-Qaida in a 2016 move by adopting the new title Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, which means” Front for the Conquest of the Levant.”

It merged with a number of other Arab parties the next year to be Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, or the” Organization for the Independence of the Levant.”

This marketing aimed to walk away from al-Qaida’s international jihadist plan, which had limited the group’s charm within Syria. It allowed Hayat Tahrir al-Sham to focus on problems specific to Syria, such as local governance, financial troubles and humanitarian assistance.

Despite these changes, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham’s fundamental philosophy is still rooted in jihadism with the main goal being to overthrow the Assad government and establish Muslim law in Syria.

Who is al-Golani? How main is he to the team’s success?

Abu Mohammed al-Golani was born Ahmed al-Sharaa in 1982 in Saudi Arabia.

Al-Golani spent his early centuries in Damascus, Syria, after his family returned from Saudi Arabia in 1989. His ideology career began in Iraq, where he joined soldiers aligned with al-Qaida after the 2003 US-led war.

In 2011, under the path of Iraqi extremist and then-al-Qaida in Iraq head Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, al-Golani was tasked with establishing the Nusra Front in Syria.

Within the Syrian civil war, the party quickly developed into a formidable power.

It was under al-Golani’s command that Hayat Tahrir al-Sham sought to present itself as rational, less focused on global terrorism and more on governance concerns in the region of Idlib, Syria’s largest insurgent enclave.

This change in strategy is a result of al-Golani’s effort to change the perception of his as a jihadist head into a more politically viable determine in Palestinian politics.

Al-Golani’s change toward a more logical approach, especially post-2017, has been crucial in helping Hayat Tahrir al-Sham power territories and proclaim itself as a local governing pressure.

His latest actions, such as adopting a more reasonable image and engaging in conventional public service, reflect al-Golani’s key role in the defense and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham’s political evolution, which both support the organization’s efforts to regain legitimacy both locally and internationally.

How did the organization rise to power in Syria?

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham used a variety of tactics to maintain control over the lands it controlled, including establishing management systems that could provide security and services while promoting their legitimacy in the eye of local populations.

The team’s leaders came to the conclusion that it needed to win over the international community in order to reduce international criticism and properly collaborate with the broader Arab innovative motion. They were trying to expand and get more territory.

Working with different Syrian actors was a part of this effort to create a more appealing entry for international observers and potential allies. To do that directly, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham brought some groups within Syria under its power. Locally and abroad, it reshaped its image through open relationships campaigns, such as engaging in social solutions.

Idlib, which was the last big fortress for various rebel groups since 2017, has been the dominant power there since Hayat Tahrir al-Sham retakes control of Aleppo after government forces retake control of the city in December 2016.

Despite reports of human rights violations, the organization has since strengthened its grip in the area by acting as a quasi-governmental body, providing legal services, and overseeing native matters, such as collecting responsibilities on commercial trucking and controlling highways.

In recent years, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham’s advertising has focused on defending Syria’s individuals from the Assad government. This has improved the organization’s standing among local people and different rebel parties.

In an effort to further shine its picture, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham ramped up its public relations work, both at home and abroad. For instance, it has partnered with global media and charitable organizations to discuss and document aid deliveries to the regions it governs.

By demonstrating this, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham gained some local support, establishing itself as a proponent of Sunni Muslim pursuits.

In addition, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham strengthened its military might by creating professional forces capable of carrying out coordinated and proper attacks. They did so by creating a military academy, restructuring its units, and establishing a more conventional military structure. The latest advancement appears to be evidence that this method has worked.

What does the US consider of the group and al-Golani?

Al-Golani and the Nusra Front have been designated as separate international criminal organizations by the US for a while.

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham was included in the US State Department’s expansion of this title in May 2018. As a result of these classifications, the team and its users face legal restrictions, travel bans, resource freezes and bank restrictions.

Also, the State Department’s Benefits for Justice system is offering up to US$ 10 million for details on al-Golani.

However, it has been reported that the US is considering dropping the$ 10 million bounty on the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham leader, while the UK is considering dropping the organization from its terror list.

What happens if al-Golani emerges as a post-Assad head?

Initially, we should notice that these are very first time, and it remains unclear what Syria will look like post-Assad.

However, based on my years of study of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and Muslim record, I’m willing to make some educated guesses. Generally, Islamic empires have used different governance frameworks to push their expansion and administration, which may tell Hayat Tahrir al-Sham’s approach to mirroring these powerful strategies.

Second, I believe al-Golani will make an effort to establish a true spiritual management, positioning himself as a leader whose piety and adherence to Islamic principles are in line with the general opinion of the populace.

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham may add more depth by highlighting the significance of Sunni Islam in Syria’s express features and incorporating spiritual legal practices into the country’s rules.

Successful management may be a pillar of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham management, just as it has been established on a localized level. In Idlib, for instance, the group established methods for taxes and society wedding. This is crucial for fostering trust, particularly among recently underrepresented groups.

Also, by allowing some independence for areas within Syria, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham may lessen the risk of unrest, balancing tight Muslim law enforcement with Syria’s cultural and ethnic diversity.

In general, we might anticipate a governance system that aims for a blend of traditional Islamic governance and modern statecraft, attempting to unify and stabilize the diverse and war-torn nation, under the leadership of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and al-Golani.

However, the group’s contentious status and history of militant activities could present significant difficulties in gaining widespread international support and recognition.

Sara Harmouch is a PhD candidate in public affairs, American University

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

Continue Reading

Tensions are high in the fiercely contested South China Sea, which the approaching US leader could intensify or ease in the event that he decides to go after Donald Trump’s subsequent inauguration.

Once more, the Philippines and China are at odds with one another over the long-distanced Scarborough Shoal, with their sea forces dangerously close to a near-clash in the contested waters.

Chinese coastguard ships fired water cannons and side-swiped a ship from the Philippines ‘ Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources ( BFAR ), which is tasked with surveying and securing Philippine fisheries resources in the country’s exclusive economic zone ( EEZ ). &nbsp,

The near-clashes also involved a dangerous encounter between a Chinese navy vessel and Philippine coastguard counterparts, which, according to Philippine official sources, faced, “blocking, shadowing and dangerous maneuvers” from the People’s Liberation Army-Navy ( PLAN ) vessel.

China’s Coast Guard maintained that its actions were “professional, uniform, reasonable and lawful” and immediately shifted the responsible by maintaining” the duty lies entirely with the Spanish side”.

According to the Chinese beach guard,” China imposed controls on Spanish ships that attempted to enter the territorial waters of China’s Huangyan Dao [Scarborough Shoal ]”. &nbsp,

The most recent tragedy was quickly downplayed by notable Chinese authorities. According to the Global Times state spokesperson, Ding Duo, a deputy director of the Chinese National Institute for Maritime Law and Policy,” The Philippines is trying to fuel the South China Sea issue by continually creating trouble so as to generate fresh discourse materials for the mental war of building the” China threat “rhetoric.”

China’s maritime forces simply conducted routine operations and “necessary control measures” to defend the Asian nation’s maritime claims based on the so-called “nine-dash line,” a sprawling map that an international court at The Hague rejected as “illegal” in 2016 under the auspices of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea ( UNCLOS).

China rejected the 2016 judicial tribunal decision, which lacked an enforcement system.

” We consider that a steep increase on the part of the People’s Republic of China”, Jonathan Malaya, a Philippine National Security Council director, told the media, underscoring the growing feeling of concern in the Philippines.

The Philippines even cautioned that it reserves the right to take more drastic measures in response. Vice Admiral Jose Ma Ambrosio Ezpeleta of the Spanish Navy, for his part, has suggested that the country could use its own “gray area” strategy to combat China while doubling down on conventional military prowess with allies.

The Philippines ‘ important supporters were quick to show support and, consequently, condemn China’s latest actions.

Another alarming record of harmful actions by Chinese warships against Asian vessels close to Scarborough Shoal. Such steps raise conflicts and the risk of misunderstanding. ]Britain ] urges adherence to International Law and underlines the primacy of UNCLO S”, the UK Ambassador to Manila, Laure Beaufils, said on her X account.

Japan ‘s&nbsp, adviser to Manila, Endo Kazuya, criticized China’s “use of ocean gun and obstructed tactics undermine the health of ship and crew” and reiterated that” Japan upholds the rule of law and opposes any steps which increase conflicts”.

” Risky behavior against PCG and BFAR boats undermine Indo-Pacific stability and security. ]Germany ] recalls UNCLOS and the 2016 arbitrary award and calling for the value to international law”, German Ambassador Andreas Pfaffernoschke, who has overseen a major rise in bilateral security ties in the past year, wrote on his X accounts. &nbsp,

However, US Ambassador MaryKay Carlson criticized China’s “unlawful usage of water guns and dangerous manoeuvres” that” stricken a Spanish sea operation on December 4 and put lives at risk. She reiterated that the US will support a rules-based get in the area alongside its convention allies.

The Philippines ‘ most recent joint naval exercises with Japan and the US in the South China Sea coincided with these new conflicts. The training brought up the Spanish Navy send BRP Andres Bonifacio and a C-90 little aircraft, a US Navy P-8A Poseidon aircraft and Japan’s Murasame-class battleship JS Samidare.

According to the AFP and US Indo-Pacific Command, their most recent training are “in accordance with international law and with due consideration for the protection of transportation and the rights and interests of different says.” &nbsp, The allies emphasized the need to “uphold the right to&nbsp, freedom of navigation&nbsp, and overflight]and ] other lawful purposes of the sea and international airspace”.

It’s no obvious what is simply driving China’s latest activities. However, some experts believe that the Asian power is trying to create favorable conditions and a certain level of dominance before confronting the incoming Trump 2.0 administration, which may decide to use a more aggressive or transactional strategy based on the forces ‘ balance.

As Kyiv and Moscow work to design the terms of any upcoming “peace deal” under Trump, a similar, but more perilous scramble has already been occurring in Ukraine.

China even seems troubled with Manila’s foreign policy way in recent years under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr, most notably his administration’s decision to network, if not attain, the US state-of-the-art Typhon weapon system, already positioned in a northern Philippine province facing Taiwan.

In a recent editorial, the state-backed China Daily accused the Philippines of provocation, saying,” The mid-range missile launch system, which is capable&nbsp, of firing both Tomahawk cruise missiles and the SM-6 surface-to-air and surface-to-surface missiles, is aggressive in intent as it puts not only&nbsp, southern Chinese military bases within range, but also the Taiwan Strait, and a large part of the South China Sea”.

For the Philippines, on the other hand, the status quo is increasingly unsustainable. It is currently considering the use of naval assets for routine patrol missions, a powerful move that could stoke new tensions and entice China’s much larger navy to use forcefully.

Vice Admiral Ezpeleta has also discussed the potential use of unconventional tactics to better defend Philippine claims.

” We have to support the actions of our white ships, such as our coastguard. Another]method ] is we have to enhance our maritime domain awareness”, the navy chief said at a recent Senate hearing.

” I would also like to point out that one of the ways to leverage is to make friends with our allies or our like-minded navies. We have a lot of efforts, especially in our modernization, let’s say for deterrence purposes”.

The Philippine naval chief declined to provide more information about the country’s upcoming actions. The Philippines might consider using physical force without weapons to avenge harassment by Chinese marine forces, similar to India, which has been engaged in numerous clashes with Chinese forces in disputed territories in the Himalayas.

It might also think about deploying more auxiliary forces as well as receiving more assistance from civil society organizations in the disputed areas.

Additionally, a greater reliance on drones, large transport ships, and fast patrol boats is likely to be considered in order to support Philippine resupply missions that China has previously harassed in disputed waters. It is also known that the option would be to welcome direct joint patrols and an expanded over-the-horizon American military presence.

Ultimately, however, the Philippines will likely rely on support from its major allies, most notably the US. In fact, Manila is anticipated to press the incoming Trump 2.0 administration for more assurances of the mutual defense treaty in the event of a crisis as well as the transfer of high-tech weapons systems like the Typhon.

Philippine authorities are determined to hold the line until Trump is in charge to stop China from occupying the territory Manila claims as part of its EEZ.

Follow Richard Javad Heydarian on X at @Rich Heydarian

Continue Reading

Editors seeking a tale typically concentrate on answering the “five Ws,” but in South Korea that has often been challenging.

That was undoubtedly the case during a time of military rules in the 1970s and 1980s, when the military-backed authorities had all the means to terrify Asian editors. Federal officials were known to use wiretaps to spie on international journalists, and they even blackmailed some of them after being caught in honey traps with sexual partners.

The nation has become more transparent since it first became a republic in 1987, and a shoddy coup attempt by President Yoon Suk Yeol failed before any judges from the coup plotters ‘ group may prevent the world from learning the fairly completely compiled responses to four of the five W questions regarding the incident: the who, the what, the when, and the where.

It appears that Yoon colluded with some members of the military by appointing General Park An-su, the chief of staff of the Republic of Korea Army, to be in charge of military rules. But, in the National Assembly in Seoul on Tuesday ( December 3 ), with soldiers in battle gear trying to get in and shut down the country’s parliament, Yoon’s own civilian party leader turned on the president.

Yoon had stacked the defense with loyalists. but he hadn’t protected his civil side. He had decreed military laws, but his order was rejected in congress.

We’re still waiting to see if the public and his quick boss, Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun, who are reportedly held responsible by the leader for poor advice, resign, and how the whole situation ends up having an impact on the president’s reputation, who is apparently very unhappy halfway through a five-year elected term.

Some people will feel justified in joke describing the situation as a ludicrous returning to 1980s politicians from responses to those four Ws. As Karl Marx said: First moment drama, next day comedy.

But in reality we don’t hear quite enough to be certain that’s a good judgment. The second W, or “why,” is what has been lacking in this story thus far. Yoon did it for what reason?

Begin with the description he gave in his televised statement announcing martial law on Tuesday night in Seoul:

I therefore declare crisis martial law to protect a liberal South Korea from the dangers posed by North Korea’s communist troops and to stop anti-state groups from plundering people’s freedom and happiness.

This give the president the benefit of the doubt and believe, for the moment, for purposes of figuring things out, that he was advised to do so by his troops.

Retired US Marine Colonel Grant Newsham, who frequently writes for Asia Times about military issues, says in an message that he is” curious to know why he did it and why the army went down.” In response to Yoon’s mention of” challenges posed by North Korea’s socialist causes, Something specific? If not, not a good move”.

Let’s find out why the defense minister and the army under General Park continued to support Yoon’s plan until National Assembly lawmakers stood up and voted to reject the presidential order.

First, there is, indeed, a history here. The military-backed regime rolled back in the 1970s and 1980s by using an alleged heightened threat from North Korea as a pretext for grabbing power.

One of the two authors in the article you’re reading, who is asking today if the Seoul Hilton concierge is still holding his gas mask and helmet in preparation for the following round, was directly involved in this situation.

The North did not resist the temptation to move militarily south in large enough units to be found after the assassination of South Korean President Park Chung Hee on October 26, 1979, at a time when there was great conflict in the South. Some of the reports coming out of Seoul to the contrary were pure lies created by the forces supporting ailing Major General Chun Doo-hwan’s ultimately successful power grab.

South Korean government officials were caught red-handed by reporters from the Baltimore Sun Tokyo bureau in fabricating a report that claimed Northern plans to invade the South appeared to be taking off.

Prime Minister Shin Hyon-hwak claimed that a” close ally” had informed the government that North Korea’s infiltration-trained Eighth Army Corps had been a long distance from intelligence surveillance in a briefing with South Korean journalists on May 10, 1980. The unit might show up in South Korea, perhaps between May 15 and May 20.

At the time, South Korea had only two” close allies”, the United States and Japan. Thus it was a simple matter to check, and to report in the Sun the next morning, that neither ally had provided this information.

Instead, the Japanese said the South Koreans had been trying to peddle the “intelligence” to them, claiming it came from China – a country that certainly was not a close ally. A Japanese source blatantly stated,” The South Korean inquiry appeared to be something of an advertising balloon.

With this historical background, it should have been no surprise on early on Wednesday when the military announced that no unusual North Korean movements had been detected after the South Korean special forces soldiers assigned to enforce martial law had left the premises and the mission had been abandoned.

What do you believe Kim Jong Un will accomplish? asks Stanford’s Daniel Sneider, whose Asia Times byline is familiar to you, dear readers. ” Sit tight and enjoy the show, I imagine”.

In fact, Kim Jong Un of North Korea doesn’t believe it’s time to act now that the recent events on Seoul’s streets don’t sound remotely sufficient.

Korean Military Academy loyalists dispute the claim that North Korean forces even actively participated in the Gwangju uprising a little later in May 1980, when Seoul’s streets were on fire.

They contend that Chun and his sidekick Roh Tae-woo, both of whom were honorable KMA graduates and later became president, would not have oppressed the populace in the manner that those two and their special forces subordinates were, and that doing is said to have contributed to the uprising.

History as guidance has its limits. Before the soldiers who enforce martial law stood down at the National Assembly, Sneider noted in an email that” we will have to see how much of the army follows the orders.” ” This is not 1979 or 1980″. &nbsp,

Moving on, and again giving Yoon the benefit of the doubt, note that, in the president’s justification for martial law, he tied North Korea to “anti-state” elements at home.

Yoon has been a significant critic of pro-North groups who he believes are attempting to politically overthrow South Korea with some success. We all seem to be at odds with South Korea and its allies that this is a serious issue. The Asia Times has long been making it known.

However, it is not a new problem. Moon Jae-in’s five-year noticeably pro-North presidency immediately preceded Yoon’s taking up residency in the Blue House. And Kim Jong Un did not occupy South Korea at the time.

We are not aware of the evidence if the issue has reached the certifiable Fifth Column stage and needs to be recognized as an emergency that warrants the establishment of a new military dictatorship.

One more element of this subject might be involved here. Very likely, there was no measurable, more significant threat from North Korea. The entire world was furious at the deployment of North Korean troops to Russia, allegedly even to the Kursk frontline, so Yoon made the perfect hints at one.

Oh, and add one more thing: Yoon and the military may have intended to stop Trump from speaking with Kim again. What does the not-quite new background tell us about Yoon’s motivation to pull the martial law stunt at this specific time, though?

Here we must get into purely domestic politics. Yoon has a history of fighting with his own party leader Han and rules against an opposition majority in parliament. With a tight budget, the opposition wants to stifle him, and they’ve got to go after his wife on corruption charges as well.

Meanwhile, apparently the drill is to take a leaf out of ancient South Korean 1970s and 80s history, hype the North Korean threat and rule by decree. Yoon’s move had some potential success, as the president had stacked the military against rebellious anti-North Korean sympathisers. But the venture failed.

Where do we go from there in this argument? Even deeper into domestic politics, probably. Stay tuned for that.

” This is an act of political suicide”, says Newsham. ” Yoon did a shoot, ready, aim sort of thing. He’s right about pro-NK and pro-CCP elements in the opposition. But, man, this doesn’t look good. Hard to put the egg back together. It’s not difficult to imagine a few parties who can benefit from this turn of events if one is a chess player.

Uwe Parpart&nbsp, is publisher and editor-in-chief of Asia Times. Follow him on X @uwe_parpart

Associate Editor Bradley K. Martin covered the democratization movement in South Korea for Newsweek and the Baltimore Sun before moving on to the Baltimore Sun. Follow him on X @bradleykmartin

Continue Reading