by admin | May 25, 2021 | Opinions, World
By Saeed Naqvi,
With the suddenness of revelation, withdrawal from Syria and “drawdown” from Afghanistan have been announced by Donald Trump. In the past, such announcements were followed up with a tidy pattern: Two steps forward, one step back. But this time debate and hesitation have been foreclosed. Witness the way Defence Secretary James Mattis is being shown the door because he finds himself not on the same page as the President.
Pundits will have difficulty digesting the proposition that President Trump is setting out to do in Syria, Afghanistan, the Mexican border, Russia, what he had promised during the election campaign right up to its closing days in November 2016. He suddenly turned up in Baghdad to signal his disapproval of the mess his predecessors made of that expedition. Some cameos will be forgotten in the rush of news that must be expected.
I have followed Syria closely since August 2011 when I found myself in President Bashar al Assad’s office in Damascus. His adviser, Bouthaina Shaaban, knitted her brows when I pointed out the ease with which US Ambassador Robert Stephen Ford, along with his French counterpart, were driving around Hama, Homs, Daraa, all centres of agitation, meeting anti-Assad insurgents. “Just shows how penetrated we were,” Shaaban said. The past tense is important.
Like colour revolutions elsewhere, the initial ignition was amplified by the global media to mobilise opinion in the region and beyond. An article by James Glanz and John Markoff in the New York Times gave graphic descriptions of the technology designed by the Obama administration to bypass state communication controls and to deploy “shadow” Internet and mobile phone systems that “dissidents can use to undermine repressive governments”. Did I hear someone wail that Russia interferes in other countries?
Against this backdrop, let me fast forward to Trump’s interview with Jake Tapper of the CNN just before the elections. “Where do you think have billions of dollars’ worth of arms — and cash — gone in the course of our involvement in Syria? To the extremists, of course: I believe so.”
Trump was right. Obama’s Defence Secretary Ashton Carter made several humiliating Syria-related announcements. His face in the lower mould, Carter announced that the $500 million project to train “rebels” in Syria was discontinued because arms reached groups the US intended to fight.
That the US intelligence agencies were mixed up with militant groups became more or less clear in subsequent leaks. An admission that Obama made to Thomas Friedman of the New York Times in August 2015 when the rise of the ISIS was the big story is revealing. Friedman asked Obama why he had not bombed the ISIS when it first reared its head. The interview was given in August 2015. Obama minced no words. “That we did not just start taking a bunch of air strikes all across Iraq as soon as the IS came in was because that would have taken the pressure off Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki.” ISIS was, in other words, an asset then.
Maliki was in bad odour with the Obama establishment because he refused to sign the Status of Forces Agreement, “that would have involved the surrender of Iraqi sovereignty”. In this stand Maliki had the support of the Shia establishment at Najaf led by Grand Ayatullah Sistani. This stance of Sistani’s placed him on the wrong side of the American media. There is delicious irony in this. The media sang paeans of the high priest in 2005. In fact Friedman had written a column proposing Sistani for the Nobel Prize for the constructive role he played in inviting Iraqi Shias, an overwhelming majority in the country, to help stabilise electoral democracy.
True, a structure for the practice of democracy is in place in Baghdad but the Two River Civilisation has been ripped apart and terrorism is endemic. On this too Trump, in his conversation with Tapper, pulls no punches: “Saddam Hussain and Qaddafi may have been bad men but there was no terrorism in their countries. What we have created is terrorism.”
There have been many false troop withdrawal alarms in the past, even during the Trump years. The Syrian army, aided by the Russians, appeared to be in control, until the next eruption, in Aleppo, Del Azour, Idlib, anywhere. The motivation to keep the pressure up on Assad came principally from Riyadh. But a somewhat lame duck post-Khashoggi, it is winding down in Yemen and probably lacking in spunk vis-a-vis Syria. A greater credibility therefore attends announcement of troop withdrawal on this occasion.
Trump’s announcement of drawing down troops in Afghanistan has coincided with the appointment of Amrullah Saleh as Minister of Interior. He is a Tajik, former spymaster and close adviser to the late Ahmad Shah Masood and a persistent critic of Pakistan’s role in the Afghan civil war. Let me share with you a flavour of Saleh’s thinking when I met him in Kabul a few years ago.
“The enemy is headquartered in Pakistan and he should be defeated there. For the US, the ‘expendable’ part of the Taleban is in Afghanistan. Why would we ever collaborate with NATO who wish to kill Afghans they consider expendable? NATO has no strategy in the region because it has no policy towards Pakistan. They know they cannot defeat the Afghan Taleban without hitting hard at their bases in Pakistan.”
Much water has flown down the Kabul river since Saleh spoke to me. Trump’s newly-appointed Special Envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad has also tried to correct the image attached to him, that of being anti-Pakistan. During a recent visit to Islamabad, Secretary of State Mike Pampeo gave Khalilzad a high profile in his delegation. Much was made of the fact that Khalilzad visited Islamabad before New Delhi. Obviously, Khalilzad would like to get rid of the perception that he proposes a higher profile for India in Afghanistan.
Anyone interested in visually observing the success of India’s policy of “diplomacy by default”, a slow tortoise-like movement, should visit Hauz Rani opposite Max Hospital in Delhi where a virtual Afghan colony has sprung up, eateries et al, harmoniously merging with the landscape.
(A senior commentator on political and diplomatic affairs, Saeed Naqvi can be reached on saeednaqvi@hotmail.com. The views expressed are personal.)
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | World
Washington : US President Donald Trump on Friday threatened to close the southern border amid an ongoing partial government shutdown, resuming his push for the funding of a long-promised US-Mexico border wall.
“We will be forced to close the Southern Border entirely if the Obstructionist Democrats do not give us the money to finish the Wall and also change the ridiculous immigration laws that our Country is saddled with,” Trump tweeted on Friday morning, reports Xinhua.
“We build a Wall or close the Southern Border,” the president said, accusing Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador of “taking advantage” of his country for years.”
“No end in sight to the President’s government shutdown,” Democratic Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois tweeted Thursday. “He’s taken our government hostage over his outrageous demand for a $5 billion border wall that would be both wasteful and ineffective.”
Drew Hammill, a spokesman for Democratic House Leader Nancy Pelosi, tweeted on Thursday, “Democrats have offered Republicans three options to re-open government that all include funding for strong, sensible, and effective border security — but not the President’s immoral, ineffective and expensive wall.”
The US Senate convened briefly Thursday afternoon before adjourning until next week, with no signs of a deal to end the budget impasse that has shut down a quarter of the federal government.
The upper chamber will convene on Monday, December 31, for a pro forma session only, and then return to the Capitol Hill to renew budget deliberations on Wednesday, January 2, a day before Democrats are set to take control of the House.
“We will vote swiftly to reopen government and show that Democrats will govern responsibly in stark contrast to this chaotic White House,” Pelosi, the incoming House Speaker, has said in a statement.
In an earlier tweet, Trump accused the Democrats of opposing his border wall just for political gain. “This is only about the Dems not letting Donald Trump and the Republicans have a win,” he said.
Trump’s approval rating dropped slightly to 44 per cent in December amid the shutdown, a two-point fall from last month, according to a Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll survey, The Hill reported on Friday.
According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Thursday, 47 per cent of Americans hold the president responsible for the shutdown, while 33 per cent blame Democrats in Congress. Seven percent of Americans blame congressional Republicans.
The shutdown, currently in its seventh day, has affected nine federal agencies, forcing about 420,000 federal employees, who are deemed essential, to work without pay, while 380,000 others are expected to take unpaid leave.
The Environmental Protection Agency, which had enough funding to remain open for a week after the shutdown, is prepared to begin furloughing employees midnight Friday, US media reported.
Coast Guard officials said earlier this week that they need emergency legislation by the end of Friday in order to process paychecks on time for their regular release on January 1.
The Office of Personnel Management issued draft letters Thursday for federal employees to hold off creditors during the shutdown. The office’s guidance suggests that workers call their landlord, mortgage company or creditor to speak about their situation before sending a letter.
The Smithsonian, which has been operating on prior-year funds, said Thursday that all of its museums, research centers and the National Zoo will close starting January 2 unless the stalemate is resolved.
Trump has cancelled his New Year’s plans in order to stay in Washington DC until a deal over border wall funding is reached, White House Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney told “Fox & Friends” on Friday.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | World
Washington : The US Senate has approved a short-term spending bill to avoid a partial government shutdown during the holidays, but it does not include funds demanded by US President Donald Trump to build the wall along the Mexico border.
The bill, pushed by the Republicans and supported by the Democrats, includes funds to finance the administration for seven weeks from Friday midnight — when the current ones expire — till February 8.
The House of Representatives is expected to approve the bill on Thursday so that Trump can sign it, Efe news reported.
Trump has not yet stated whether he supports the spending bill as it does not include $5 billion he had demanded for the border wall with Mexico.
In fact, at a meeting last week with Democrat leaders in the Congress, Trump said he would be proud to force a government shutdown if the wall were to be financed.
With the approval of the budget, negotiation on funding for the wall would be postponed to 2019 when the Democrats will take control of the House of Representatives and can thereby block it easily.
Earlier this year, Trump faced two government shutdowns for lack of funds: The first was in January which lasted for three days while the second in February went on for only a few hours.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | World
Washington : The Donald Trump-led US administration announced that it has started returning US troops home from Syria after claiming a victory in the fight against the Islamic State (IS) without revealing any detailed timetable.
“We have started returning US home as we transition to the next phase of this campaign,” said White House Spokesperson Sarah Sanders in a statement on Wednesday, claiming that America has “defeated the territorial caliphate”.
Pentagon later echoed the White House claim, saying that the US military has already begun the process of bringing the US forces back while emphasizing the continuity of the campaign, Xinhua news agency reported.
“The Coalition has liberated the IS-held territory, but the campaign against IS is not over,” Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White said in a tweet.
All US State Department personnel are being evacuated from Syria within 24 hours, informed sources said.
An official also revealed that the time-frame for the troops withdrawal from the war-torn Arab country is expected to be between 60 and 100 days.
However, a senior Trump administration official, during a background briefing held on Wednesday afternoon, did not directly answer reporters’ questions on how the administration intends to withdraw the troops or whether there will a deadline for that.
Sanders’ statement came about one hour after US President Donald Trump hinted in a tweet about imminent US troop withdrawal from Syria.
“We have defeated the IS in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump Presidency,” Trump tweeted on Wednesday morning.
Earlier on Wednesday, the US media cited anonymous officials as saying that the US is planning a “rapid” and “full” withdrawal of troops from Syria.
Currently, there are more than 2,000 US soldiers deployed in Syria.
Trump has long voiced his desire to bring the US troops back home when possible, while senior administration officials including Defence Secretary James Mattis have advocated for a longer-term military deployment in Syria to secure a victory against the IS.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s claim about victory against the IS has been questioned.
“I strongly disagree. It has morphed into other forms of extremism and the threat is very much alive,” tweeted British Defence Minister Tobias Ellwood, following Trump’s claim on the social media.
Senior Republican Senator Lindsey Graham warned “devastating consequences” for US troops quitting Syria.
“An American withdrawal at this time would be a big win for IS, Iran, Bashar al Assad of Syria, and Russia,” the lawmaker from the state of South Carolina said in a statement on Wednesday.
—IANS
by admin | May 25, 2021 | Opinions
By Arul Louis,
Is the looming climate change apocalypse real? In the clearly-demarcated battle lines, the good guys are those who believe it is and the bad guys, like US President Donald Trump, are the doubters as any progressive and most of the media would affirm.
Yet it is also the good guys, the warriors against climate change, who strain the credibility of the phenomenon’s reality – and it is for them to affirm its reality through their personal examples.
On Thursday, former US Secretary of State John Kerry published an op-ed in The New York Times headlined, “Forget Trump. We All Must Act on Climate Change.” While he had suggestions for US lawmakers on forcing Trump to act, he was silent on the personal responsibilities for fighting climate change.
At the time that leaders were grappling with climate change strategies at the United Nations conference in Katowice, Poland, he had been to India and danced at the wedding of a petroleum billionaire’s daughter.
On the round trip by air he would have been responsible for about 2.7 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, besides other greenhouse gases like nitrous oxides. (For comparison, a typical car in the US puts out 4.6 tonnes of carbon dioxide in a year.)
Here is a fair question: If the climate change apocalypse was imminent, as he noted in his article, why did he undertake that journey?
It’s easy to preach about fighting climate change to the government, lawmakers and countries like India and China (which are often hypocritically blamed for the greenhouse gas buildup by the progressives – though not this time by Kerry – and less hypocritically by the deniers).
Here’s the bottom line: An American emits nearly 15.53 tonnes of carbon dioxide each year, which is nearly ten times that of an Indian’s 1.58 tonnes. (And Canada under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the high priest of sanctimony, is not far behind Trump’s America: the per capita emission is 15.32 tonnes.)
And countries like France have a comfortable standard of living with a per capita emission of 4.37 tonnes, which is less than a third of an American’s.
So, realistically, action has to begin with appeals to individuals to cut down their greenhouse rather than looking to governments and lawmakers – or telling developing countries to do it for them.
According to a 2016 Pew Research Center survey, 63 per cent of Americans believe that lifestyle changes are needed to combat climate change and 68 per cent of Democrats believe it is a serious problem.
Despite all that, it is easy to see why it is almost impossible to call for lifestyle changes.
Just look at France. A violent popular uprising drove President Emmanuel Macron to retreat from his daring attack on climate change in the name of the Paris Treaty with an with enhanced tax on petrol.
Forget about rousing individuals or society in the climate change war; the Democratic-run New York that riles against Trump and the deniers is not going to enrage its citizenry by banning the 30,000 lights on an eight-kilometre strand on the city’s Christmas tree in a country that produces about 30 per cent of its electricity from coal.
Meat diets are another glaring example of the hypocrisy. A study led by researchers at Linda Loma University concluded that because cattle farming for beef is greenhouse intensive, the US can right now reach about 50 to 75 per cent of its greenhouse gas reduction targets for 2020 by merely giving up beef for legumes as a protein source.
Not only would some of the activists not speak out against meat-eating in their own countries, but some of their Indian counterparts want to promote beef-eating in India.
As for Indian activists, greenhouse gas-generating trips to tell the British Parliament to stop mining in India is an ego trip, but not demanding the British do something about the 5.99 tonnes of carbon dioxide gas that each of them generates every year – especially the politicians who put out a lot more gas, literally and figuratively – than the average Brit.
So is the situation so hopeless and the apocalypse inevitable?
The Pew survey found that 24 per cent of Indians believe that technology can solve the climate change problem – and definitely that’s the way forward as technology is bringing down the price of green energy. And China and India can make the most significant contributions as they leap-frog to greener technologies – and no thanks to preaching from the activists of the industrialised West. So can the other developing countries.
In the industrialised nations (as elsewhere), the greenback is more powerful than greentalk: As technology advances, corporations are seeing the monetary benefits of adopting a greener way of doing business.
Meanwhile, may be the generals of climate warriors could tone down their holier-than-thou sermons on the climate change apocalypse and instead lead by example – and try to mobilise their armies of believers to adopt drastic lifestyle changes.
(Arul Louis, who pleads guilty to contributing to greenhouse gas pollution, covers the United Nation from New York. He can be reached at arul.l@ians.in and followed on Twitter @arulouis)
—IANS
