by admin | May 25, 2021 | World
Washington : US President Donald Trump has said that he is not happy with a bipartisan border security deal reached by lawmakers in a bid to avert a government shutdown as the February 15 deadline is approaching.
“I can’t say I’m happy. I can’t say I’m thrilled,” Xinhua quoted Trump as saying to reporters on Tuesday.
However, the US President did not say whether he would sign or veto the deal, noting that he would hold a meeting to discuss it later.
He also said he did not believe there would be another partial government shutdown.
“We certainly don’t want to see a shutdown”, he said, adding that “everything” is on the table and he needs to look further into the details of the bipartisan deal struck on Monday night on spending and border security.
The temporary funding bill runs out Friday. Both the House and Senate will have to approve the legislation and Trump must sign it so as to avoid another government shutdown.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | Muslim World, Opinions
By D. C. Pathak,
President Donald Trump’s policy responses to the new global terror that arose out of a faith-based motivation range from an unequivocal denunciation of the countries that provided safe havens to Islamic radicals to an announcement of withdrawal of American troops from the two theatres of ‘war on terror’- Afghanistan and Syria. His decision on ending the deployment of US soldiers there is significantly rooted in his intrinsic aversion to the idea of US playing ‘the policeman of the world’ when others were not doing their bit – the businessman in him apparently getting the better of a supposed world statesman. Also, the US President was somewhere feeling the ‘comfort of distance’ and therefore seeking even some patchwork solution of a decidedly messy situation in Afghanistan so long as it reduced the threat of an attack from Islamic extremists on American soil.
It is ironic that Pakistan, criticised by the entire democratic world for harbouring terrorists on its soil and even reprimanded by Trump by way of the suspension of aid given to it earlier as an ally in the ‘war on terror’, is now likely to emerge as the biggest beneficiary of the US policy on Afghanistan. A half-baked truce struck by the US with the Taliban – in its impatience to see a phased withdrawal of American soldiers in Afghanistan in quick time – would be relished by the Pak army which had an intrinsic bonhomie with the radical outfit dating back to the victory of Afghan Jehad against the Soviet occupation. A Taliban-friendly dispensation in Afghanistan would tend to bring in Pakistan there and shut out India from its affairs.
A new situation is developing in Afghanistan posing an added strategic challenge for India. President Trump has no reason to remain stuck with the geo- politics of the Cold War- he already views Russia as a country at par with the European nations and regards China not so much as an ideological adversary as an economic rival. Although he had a visceral dislike of Islamic extremism- he ended the artificial divide between ‘good terrorists’ and ‘bad terrorists’ in relation to the groups active within Pakistan- he has changed the contours of the ‘war on terror’ by emphasising on the obligation of the Islamic countries – particularly members of the OIC chaired by Saudi Arabia- to come forth to counter radicalism for their own future interest, calling upon other countries having stakes in a peaceful Afghanistan to share the military burden in that troubled territory and gravitating towards a workable agreement between Taliban and the Ashraf Ghani government in Afghanistan for return of peace howsoever temporary.
The main point of assurance that the US Special Envoy for Afghan peace talks, Zalmay Khalizad, has sought from the Taliban leadership during the six-day long parleys at Doha in January is that no attack will be made on US targets. The Taliban has sensed an advantage in pursuing its prime objective of getting the US troops to leave Afghanistan in return for some kind of a cease-fire being announced by the former. The Taliban, which had an unalienable axis with Al-Qaeda, is now being acknowledged by the US in these talks as a rightful shareholder in Afghan ruling dispensation notwithstanding the history of its Emirate that had run the country from 1996 till 2001 with a brutal show of Islamic revivalism and gross fundamentalism.
The call of an ‘Afghan-led and Afghan-owned’ peace negotiation that India has actively supported is just a slogan yet as the Taliban leadership is being recalcitrant against the idea of talking to the Ashraf Ghani government and is merely aiming at securing withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan without having to surrender its own arms. Pakistan is not on best of terms with Ashraf Ghani and is candescently watching the American moves to tackle Taliban- confident that the latter’s presence in Afghan mainstream would only help Pakistan. Pak army has tried to project itself as a helpful mediator between US and Taliban. Both Russia and China have kept Pakistan on the round table on Afghanistan for their own reasons of keeping their periphery protected from Islamic militancy with the cooperation of Pakistan. All of this adds to the prospect of Pakistan ending up having a sway in Afghanistan to the great disadvantage of India – and India alone. So long as US presence was there in Afghanistan the process of reconstruction of the Afghan National Defence & Security Forces(ANDSF) could go on and India’s contribution to the development of that country also remain unhindered. Ashraf Ghani has his writ running only in half of his country and it is doubtful if the involvement of the Taliban in the government would work to his or India’s advantage. The Pak-Afghan belt is destined to become a cause of deeper concern for us in the time to come.
The ‘war on terror’ is fizzling out because the two presumptions on which it was launched following 9/11 failed more or less completely – the expectation that the ‘moderates’ in the Muslim world will combat the radicals at home and that the US funding would help to advance the cause of democracy there. Pakistan, the ‘frontline’ ally of the US in the ‘war on terror’, is a stark illustration of this failure with Prime Minister Imran Khan finally making it public that Pakistan committed a mistake in fighting ‘the American war’. As a stalemate sets in both in Syria and Afghanistan, Pakistan feels even more free to step up its proxy war against India.
The Pakistan army looks at the Islamic elements of all hues as its strategic assets. This is clearly in evidence in the escalation of cross-border terrorism in Kashmir and the new moves Pakistan is making to get the separatists in the Valley to back gun-wielding terrorists and stonepelters who were targeting security forces. The Pakistan Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) is also reaching out to the Khalistani elements operating outside of India to revive an anti-India movement. It is no surprise that Pakistan is trying to fish in the troubled waters of India’s domestic politics in the run-up to the General Election here. Internal security concerns of India are likely to aggravate because of the attempts of Pak ISI to spread radicalisation and create more sleeper cells of Islamic terror in different parts of the country. Pakistan may remain a major challenge for India’s security strategy in the months ahead.
(The writer is a former Director Intelligence Bureau)
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | World
Washington : US President Donald Trump on Wednesday announced that he has chosen David Malpass, undersecretary for international affairs at the US Treasury Department, as the US candidate for the next president of the World Bank.
Calling Malpass a “very extraordinary man,” Trump said in a statement at the White House that he launched a “broad search for replacement” for Jim Yong Kim, the former World Bank chief who abruptly resigned in early January and stepped down on Friday.
“I knew that David is the right person to take this incredibly important job,” Trump added, reports Xinhua news agency.
The president said that Malpass “has been a strong advocate for accountability at the World Bank,” and that “he has fought to ensure financing is focused on the places and projects that truly need assistance, including people living in extreme poverty.”
Malpass will have to be approved by the World Bank’s board of executive directors to lead the international development lender.
Following Trump’s remarks, Malpass, who has criticised the World Bank before, thanked the president for selecting him to lead “the world’s premier development institution.”
Highlighting the $13 billion capital increase and other reforms that the World Bank shareholders endorsed in April 2018, Malpass said, “With shareholders and dedicated staff, there is a great opportunity now to implement these constructive reforms that will lead to faster growth and greater prosperity.”
Candidates picked by Washington, the World Bank’s largest shareholder with 16 per cent of its voting power, have all ended up assuming the leadership post since the institution’s inception in 1944.
This long-held tradition has put the credibility of the organisation into question, given that emerging markets’ and developing economies’ total contributions to global economic growth have far outweighed those of the advanced economies in recent years.
Kim faced challenges from nominees from Colombia and Nigeria in the 2012 race.
Malpass’s skepticism about the role of the bank and multilateralism has raised concerns within the international development community over his merit, as the World Bank said in a statement in January that the candidates for president should have “a firm commitment to and appreciation for multilateral cooperation.”
Responding to those concerns, a senior Trump administration official said that Malpass, in his capacity as Treasury undersecretary for international affairs, have engaged consructively in a number of multilateral settings worldwide.
“I think it’s fair to say that David has been quite constructive in helping to reform and be effective in the existing multilateral order,” the official added.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | World
By Arul Louis,
New York : US President Donald Trump has proposed a new nuclear missiles treaty that has the potential to include India as he delivered the State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress.
Defending his decision to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty with Russia, he said in the speech Tuesday night, “Perhaps we can negotiate a different agreement, adding China and others, or perhaps we can’t” — in which case, we will outspend and out-innovate all others by far.
The INF treaty signed by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet Communist Party General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev banned land-based missiles of 1,000 to 5,000 kilometres.
Some of the Prithvi and Agni class missiles in India’s arsenal could fall under the ambit of such a treaty, as well as some of Pakistan’s Babur, Shaheen and Ghauri missiles.
Trump defended his decision to withdraw from the INF treaty saying, “Russia repeatedly violated its terms.”
His ceremonial speech which had been postponed last month in the middle of showdown over the funding in the budget for a border wall by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, had calls for unity across the political divide.
It did not have any direct references to India or region, except for US negotiations with the Taliban in Afghanistan “to reach a political settlement in Afghanistan.”
“My Administration is holding constructive talks with a number of Afghan groups, including the Taliban,” he said.
“As we make progress in these negotiations, we will be able to reduce our troop presence and focus on counter-terrorism,” he said.
But he added, “We do not know whether we will achieve an agreement, but we do know that after two decades of war, the hour has come to at least try for peace.”
Another matter of relevance to India was on trade, when he asked for support for Reciprocal Trade Act.
“If another country places an unfair tariff on an American product, we can charge them the exact same tariff on the same product that they sell to us,” he said.
(Arul Louis can be reached at arul.l@ians.in and followed on Twitter @arulouis)
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | World
Furloughed federal workers protest the partial government shutdown in the Hart Senate Office Building January 23, 2019 in Washington, DC. (Win McNamee / Getty Images / AFP)
By Arul Louis,
New York : After Republican and Democratic measures to end the partial government shutdown failed in the Senate, a sobered President Donald Trump and the Democratic Party leadership appeared to soften their positions and edge towards a reluctant compromise.
The voting in the two failed resolutions on Thursday were telling for Trump because six of his own party’s Senators crossed over to support the Democratic proposal while two Republicans voted against their party’s counter proposal.
As the shutdown enters its 35th day on Friday, 800,000 federal employees, both those working and those on temporary layoff, missed their second fortnightly pay and the essential government services were beginning to show signs of fraying.
The failed Democratic measure proposed by the party leader in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, would have approved funds to keep the government running till March 8 while negotiations continued on a compromise for financing the wall on the Mexican border that Trump demands.
The defeated Republican proposal included the $5.7 billion that Trump demanded for the border wall as well as his proposal to give a three-year reprieve for deportation for about 700,000 people who had come illegally to this country as children and about 300,000 who had received temporary asylum as their countries suffered natural calamities like the Nepal earthquake or violent unrest.
Two Republican Senators opposed it because it gave concessions to illegal immigrants, illustrating the difficulty for the two party’s leadership to reach a compromise because of the pull of the hardliners on both sides.
The failures were a setback for Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, who has been involved along with Vice President Mike Pence in behind the scenes talks with legislators to find a compromise.
Trump suffered a loss of face on Wednesday when he unexpectedly agreed to postpone his State of the Union address after repeatedly demanding that Speaker Nancy Pelosi allow him to speak from the House chamber.
Trump has been sticking firmly to his demand for the $5.7 billion to be included in the budget to build the border wall to deter smugglers and illegal immigrants, while the Democrats have opposed it with equal vehemence.
As a result, the country has not had a budget since December 22 resulting in a shutdown of all but the essential government services.
A high-tech border barrier, rather than a wall or steel fence, may hold the key to a settlement.
Some Democrats were reported circulating proposals for providing for border security as much as the $5.7 billion that Trump wants as long as the money is spent on high-tech defences and personnel and not for a physical barrier.
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham told the Senate that Trump would go in for a temporary measure to reopen the government for three weeks and negotiate a deal if it included some of his demand for the wall.
But Speaker Nancy Pelosi quickly shot it down as not a reasonable offer.
Trump still has an extreme option: declaring a state of emergency and having the Army Corps of Engineers build the barrier with diverted military funds.
He has spoken about it citing the crisis along the border where over 7,000 Central Americans who came in a caravan hoping to force their way into the US are camped out on the Mexican side, with another caravan of 8,000 on the way.
(Arul Louis can be reached at arul.l@ians.in and followed on Twitter @arulouis)
—IANS
