Philippa Kaur

More stories

  • 88 Shares129 Views

    in World Politics

    Indonesia’s Balancing Act Between China and Taiwan

    On July 1, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) celebrated its 100th anniversary. During his commemorative speech at Tiananmen Square, President Xi Jinping claimed that China has never oppressed the people of any other country. Xi is clearly ignoring China’s treatment of Taiwan. Since 2016, relations between China and Taiwan have worsened. Taiwan’s Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) won both the presidential and legislative elections in 2016, displacing the Kuomintang (KMT) as Taiwanese voters became skeptical of the KMT’s policy of engaging with China. 

    Does the World Need to Contain China?

    READ MORE

    Since becoming president, DPP leader Tsai Ing-wen has challenged Beijing’s “one-China policy.” In 2020, she declared that Taiwan could not accept reunification with China under its “one country, two systems” offer of autonomy. Taiwan’s first female president said that “Both sides have a duty to find a way to coexist over the long term and prevent the intensification of antagonism and differences,” pouring cold water over Beijing’s long-cherished hopes of reunification.

    Chinese Aggression, Taiwanese Response

    China has responded aggressively to Taiwan’s position. In a recent article, Lee Hsi-min, a retired Taiwanese admiral, and Eric Lee, an Indo-Pacific security analyst, point out that the CCP “is already taking action against Taiwan.” For years, China has undertaken incremental military measures against its tiny neighbor. Beijing has been careful not to cross the threshold of armed conflict, but its sub-conflict operations have been relentless.

    These operations have come to be known as gray zone aggression. They involve airspace incursions, coastal violations, cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns. A recent report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies found that Chinese aircraft had entered Taiwan’s airspace 20 times in the first eight months of 2020. The Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has stepped up its air and naval operations. Fighter and bomber aircraft frequently circumnavigate Taiwan as a show of force. Chinese aircraft carriers have been on military exercises and “routine” drills in waters near Taiwan.

    This is part of China’s increased aggression in its neighborhood since Xi took charge of the CCP, with Beijing doing all it can to undermine Taiwan’s institutions, demoralize its society and undermine popular support for a democratically elected government. However, Taiwan has responded robustly to this aggression. In April, the Taiwanese foreign minister vowed that his country would defend itself to “the very last day.” Taiwan is spending more on defense, strengthening military ties with allied powers and even preparing for a potential war to retain its independence.

    Indonesia’s Balancing Act

    As tensions rise between China and Taiwan, Indonesia has been forced into a delicate balancing act. China is Indonesia’s largest trading partner, a big source of investment and a supplier of COVID-19 vaccines. In 2019, bilateral trade reached $79.4 billion, rising tenfold since 2000. Indonesia has even started using Chinese currency for trade in a historic move away from the US dollar. 

    In 2020, Chinese foreign direct investment in Indonesia, including flows from Hong Kong, reached $8.4 billion, rising by 11% in a year. A 142-kilometer Indonesian rail project is part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative and is expected to cost $4.57 billion. In April, Xi met Indonesian President Joko Widodo and promised to boost Chinese investment further. Xi said the two countries should increase infrastructure projects such as the high-speed rail link between the capital Jakarta and Bandung, a major Indonesian city.

    Before the pandemic, 2 million Chinese tourists visited Indonesia every year. Jakarta’s nationwide vaccination campaign is using China’s Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine. (So far, the West has failed to provide Indonesia with vaccines.) Derek Grossman, a senior analyst at the RAND Corporation, has argued that Indonesia is quietly warming up to China.

    Even as Indonesia develops closer ties with China, it is also deepening its relationship with Taipei. Taiwan’s track record in tackling the COVID-19 pandemic has been spectacularly successful, and Taipei has donated 200 oxygen concentrators to Jakarta. Even though it has been criticized for the recent rise in cases, Taiwan is still a role model for a country like Indonesia, which needs all the help it can get.

    Like the US, the UK and many other countries, Indonesia does not recognize Taiwan’s independence. However, trade between the two countries is rising. In 2019, Taiwanese investment in Indonesia crossed $400 million. The previous year, trade between the two countries surpassed $8 billion, growing by 15.7% in a year. President Tsai’s “new southbound policy” is starting to yield results. 

    Indonesia has to be careful in handling its relationship with both China and Taiwan. Recently, Japan’s deputy defense minister suggested that Taiwan “as a democratic country” should be protected from China. The statement triggered fierce condemnation from Beijing. Jakarta should to avoid any pronouncement that may upset Beijing, Taipei or even Washington. Indonesia needs economic growth, increased investment and collaboration with all major powers.

    The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

  • 113 Shares159 Views

    in World Politics

    After Recent Protests, Cuba Will Not Be the Same

    The wave of protests that engulfed Cuba on July 11 has become a milestone in the island’s recent struggle for a free society. Limited at first, like so many protests across Latin America over the last few years, they soon spread out to most of the country, including small towns. It began in San Antonio de los Banos, a town about 16 miles south of Havana, as a reaction to the worsening living conditions, including shortages of food and other basic goods, power outages and a spike of COVID-19 that demonstrated the inability of the authorities to cope with the pandemic.

    Biden’s Pirates of the Caribbean

    READ MORE

    Soon, the protests acquired more political overtones as tens of thousands of protesters chanted for freedom and “Patria y Vida” — “Homeland and Life,” as opposed to the old revolutionary slogan, “Homeland or Death” — a song by rapper Maykel Castillo that has become the mantra of Cuba’s democratic movement. Other slogans were less civil. They focused directly on Miguel Diaz-Canel, Cuba’s president appointed by Raul Castro in 2019, by haranguing “Díaz Canel y Raúl, singaos!” (bastards!). Ramiro Valdes, part of the revolutionary old guard, was forced to abandon Palma Soriano as demonstrators chanted “Murderer!”

    Freedom and Change

    Most Cuba observers have concluded that these protests are quite unprecedented. Compared to the famous Maleconazo uprising that occurred in 1994 during the dark times of the so-called Periodo Especial after the fall of the USSR, the contrast is striking. At the time, when Cuba suffered economic collapse as a result of the abrupt termination of Soviet aid, the protests took place only in Havana, around the famous Malecon esplanade. Fidel Castro himself, accompanied by a rapid-response squad, went down to face off with the protesters.

    The unrest was rapidly quelled, but later that year, travel restrictions were loosened, leading to a flood of emigrants sailing for Florida by any means possible. One important difference with the current protests is their orientation. Back in 1994, many Cubans wanted to leave the country — which they did when allowed. This time, protests are asking for freedom and internal change.

    .custom-post-from {float:right; margin: 0 10px 10px; max-width: 50%; width: 100%; text-align: center; background: #000000; color: #ffffff; padding: 15px 0 30px; }
    .custom-post-from img { max-width: 85% !important; margin: 15px auto; filter: brightness(0) invert(1); }
    .custom-post-from .cpf-h4 { font-size: 18px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
    .custom-post-from .cpf-h5 { font-size: 14px; letter-spacing: 1px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
    .custom-post-from input[type=”email”] { font-size: 14px; color: #000 !important; width: 240px; margin: auto; height: 30px; box-shadow:none; border: none; padding: 0 10px; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-pen-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: center right 14px; background-size:14px;}
    .custom-post-from input[type=”submit”] { font-weight: normal; margin: 15px auto; height: 30px; box-shadow: none; border: none; padding: 0 10px 0 35px; background-color: #1878f3; color: #ffffff; border-radius: 4px; display: inline-block; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-email-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: 14px center; background-size: 14px; }

    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox { width: 90%; margin: auto; position: relative; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap;}
    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label { text-align: left; display: block; padding-left: 32px; margin-bottom: 0; cursor: pointer; font-size: 11px; line-height: 18px;
    -webkit-user-select: none;
    -moz-user-select: none;
    -ms-user-select: none;
    user-select: none;
    order: 1;
    color: #ffffff;
    font-weight: normal;}
    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label a { color: #ffffff; text-decoration: underline; }
    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input { position: absolute; opacity: 0; cursor: pointer; height: 100%; width: 24%; left: 0;
    right: 0; margin: 0; z-index: 3; order: 2;}
    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:before { content: “f0c8”; font-family: Font Awesome 5 Free; color: #eee; font-size: 24px; position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0; line-height: 28px; color: #ffffff; width: 20px; height: 20px; margin-top: 5px; z-index: 2; }
    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:before { content: “f14a”; font-weight: 600; color: #2196F3; }
    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:after { content: “”; }
    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:after { position: absolute; left: 2px; width: 18px; height: 18px; margin-top: 10px; background: #ffffff; top: 10px; margin: auto; z-index: 1; }
    .custom-post-from .error{ display: block; color: #ff6461; order: 3 !important;}

    The current demonstrations began in San Antonio de los Banos, home to a famous film festival, but spread simultaneously to Santiago de Cuba, Camagüey and to around other 60 districts before reaching Havana. It culminated at the Capitol, the historical building and symbol of national power, and the Revolution Square, where Castro used to make his epic, nine-hour-long speeches. As reported by blogger and journalist Yoani Sanchez, the protests were far-reaching both in volume and intensity.

    As was the case during the Arab Spring, in the absence of legally operating opposition parties, the demonstrations were possible thanks to the internet and to the myriad connections it allows. In fact, in the last few years, the landscape of organized dissent has changed partly through the use of YouTube, WhatsApp, Twitter and other apps, paving the way for the emergence of several new groups, such as the San Isidro Movement, that have enhanced the presence of a different discourse alongside the official dogma, especially among the youth.

    The protests seemed to respond to a tipping point of the decay of Cuban society where many of the social gains of the revolution have withered away. It was not just about the dismal response to the pandemic. For instance, the regime rejected to join the global COVAX mechanism for vaccine development and distribution, giving preference (and resources) to developing local vaccines that haven’t been duly tested according to international standards.

    Cuba’s public schools today compare to those in the slums of Rio de Janeiro, Caracas or Medellin. The hospitals, the crown jewel of the revolution, are noticeably run down, understaffed and running a dramatic shortage of even the most common medications. The latest protests may have been overwhelmingly peaceful, but they were precipitated by the Cubans’ growing loss of faith and hope in the country’s future, especially among the younger generation. 

    On Shaky Ground

    Compared to most Latin American countries, Cuba is a rather stable society. It is the only fully authoritarian state in the region, under an extreme socialist regime that has managed to survive by curbing the abilities of its citizens to overcome poverty and by exercising totalitarian control over political life. Different from Venezuela, where the attempt to create a hardcore socialist state has brought institutional, political and economic chaos, Cuba has been able to build solid institutions as well as extended and dense mechanisms of political control.

    But the structural economic shortcomings of the revolution have brought about political instability yet again. The July 11 protests mark the end of a period and the beginning of a new phase. Despite their intensity and extension, and their impact on the core of Cuba’s power, it is unlikely that they will bring about deep political change. The repressive muscle orchestrated for more than 60 years by the Cuban regime is highly sophisticated and has been exported to other countries.

    Different from the Maleconazo, when only the special forces were brought in, during the recent protests, the Diaz-Canel government has used all the gamut of police and militia organizations to crush dissent. By Monday, the number of arrests was estimated to be in the hundreds. By Wednesday, July 14, despite the opacity of Cuba’s official statistics, independent sources related to human rights organizations, both internal and external, counted them to be in the thousands.

    Embed from Getty Images

    The use of force has been so brutal that the vice minister of the interior, Brigadier General Jesus Manuel Buron Tabit, resigned in protest — an unprecedented move. Other regime insiders have also rejected the suppression of protests. Carlos Alejandro Rodriguez Halley, the nephew of General Luis Alberto Rodriguez Lopez-Calleja, called for the armed forces to put down their arms and for a transition for democracy. 

    General Lopez Calleja is not only Raul Castro’s former son-in-law but also a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party and a prominent leader of the Grupo de Administracion Empresarial, S. A. (GAESA), a powerhouse in Cuba’s economy. It is seemingly the first time that dissent emerges at the core of Cuba’s leadership. From exile, Rodriguez Halley directed his pledge to his uncle and to other members of the ruling elite.

    As a first response to the protests, the Cuban government has eased most importing restrictions for food and medicines, in an attempt to cater to the most basic needs of the population. But it is unlikely that the authorities will work to reverse either the crude reality Cubans live in today or the issues at the root of the crisis.

    Structural Problems

    The demonstrations are not merely circumstantial but connected to more structural problems. On the two occasions where important protests have shaken the country, protests have been associated with grave social shortcomings resulting from economic collapse. In turn, those economic troubles have derived from the abrupt reduction of foreign aid. 

    To a large extent, Cuba’s post-revolution economy has been essentially parasitic, benefitting first from Soviet economic support until its collapse in 1991, and later from Venezuela’s largesse. Today, 70% of Cuba’s food is imported, and due to the paralysis of the tourist industry and the reduction of remittances, the government is under a currency crunch. Many of the attempted reforms to step up local production, like dollarization or more flexibility to create enterprises, have been far too timid or have stalled.

    Since around 2016, the gravest impact on Cuba has been that of Venezuela’s own economic collapse, especially the steep decline in oil production. This has led to great restrictions in the amount of oil and gasoline contributions to the island, apart from Caracas’ diminishing capacity to pay for Cuba’s services, consisting mainly of 25,000 medical doctors nearly 80% of whose income goes to the government in Havana. If from around 2004 and until 2017-18 Venezuela filled the Soviet Union’s shoes, it is no longer able to do so. 

    In the early years of the 21st century, Venezuela and Cuba launched a large-scale offensive in Latin America to tilt the balance drastically away from US influence. In the last five to seven years, those attempts have dwindled, not only due to the absence of both firebrand leaders, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, but because of the dramatic economic downturn of Venezuela. This astonishing and rapid decline has pushed the country into a chronic humanitarian crisis, the migration of nearly 6 million people and acute international isolation. More recently, the embattled regime of Nicolas Maduro has become the target of investigations by several international human rights organizations for crimes against humanity.

    Embed from Getty Images

    Quite apart from the loss of the regional influence both countries enjoyed during the first 15 years of the century, and despite continuous claims about reciprocal solidarity between them, it is not difficult to argue that, in Cuba’s eyes, Venezuela has become more of a liability. Given the destruction of Venezuela’s oil industry, it is unlikely that it will recover production, currently as low as it was in the late 1940s. Alliance with Venezuela has pushed Cuba back to Cold War times as a result of Caracas’ confrontation with the US.

    The appeasement efforts made during the Obama years, which brought about the lessening of sanctions, an increase in remittances from exiles in the US, and more flights between the two countries, evaporated during Donald Trump’s administration, thanks in good measure to the stark polarization the alliance with Venezuela involved.

    Diminished Capital

    One of Cuba’s great assets in Latin America, lasting, though rather diminished, until today is the symbolic capital it accumulated in the aftermath of the revolution, somewhat reinforced by the soft power of exporting medical personnel and other services. But this aura of revolutionary respectability was also related to political stability, which operated as a magnet by offering its allies in the region a solid presence, a reliable strategic stance and vast accumulated experience in dealing with the US powerhouse. This edifice is at risk today as the protests have fractured the image of a small but solid nation.

    The instability brought about by the protests and the changing regional political environment of the last five years has left Cuba in unchartered territory, with no clear signs of how it will overcome the loss of Venezuela’s aid, how to redraw a lasting economic strategy or how to profit more from its international connections. Cuba does not have many options. One possibility would be to maintain the current course, with mild variations and betting that no new waves of protests occur.

    The current leadership may also decide that risking a closer relationship with one of the world powers competing with the US, like Russia or China, is Havana’s best option. That would allow Cuba to cushion itself from direct or indirect blows from its northern neighbor. But if that were the case, and just as the famous realtor mantra goes, it can only offer location, location, location. Both Russia and China, given their own geopolitical vulnerabilities, could consider making a move involving military considerations. This would significantly raise the geopolitical stakes.

    A third option is to negotiate a settlement with Washington by propitiating an internal transformation à la Vietnam that would involve dramatic reforms to move to a market economy. So far, the Cuban leadership has starkly avoided this latter course, essentially because it could weaken the economic power of the military-civilian elite running the country or because they risk losing control of the process. Whichever scenario the government decides to adopt, after July 11, Cuba is no longer the same.

    The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

  • 75 Shares149 Views

    in World Politics

    Confronting America’s Drive to Collective Amnesia

    It seems that there is a deep pent-up desire in America to avoid meaningful change at all cost. It is hard enough to confront issues honestly and forthrightly in the best of times. But it is nearly impossible to do so in an environment that prizes consensus over responsibility. The vocabulary of avoidance is everywhere and reaching epic proportions.

    Nowhere is this more obvious and dangerous than the way in which the vaccinated dance around the unvaccinated. If you are paying attention, there is simply no good excuse not to be vaccinated against COVID-19 in America, with some very minor medically-sound exceptions. But instead of just saying that in a straightforward way and then demanding policies and programs that mandate vaccinations, we are acting like vaccinations are some prize for knocking over a stack of steel bottles at a carnival stand: “Step right up, little lady, a quick flick of the needle and you are on your way with this keepsake stuffed elephant. Bring that big guy along with you, and you win the daily double, the stuffed elephant and a genuine MAGA hat.”

    Biden’s Pirates of the Caribbean

    READ MORE

    It is time to stop begging ignorant people to do something smart, and selfish people to do something selfless. How about: “Step right up little lady and show me your vaccination certificate if you want to eat here. Same for you big guy.” Or: “Mom, your kid wants to play high school football, but he hasn’t turned in the required COVID vaccination certificate.” Or my personal favorite: “I would have invited you to join us, but you are not vaccinated, and adding someone so stupid and selfish to the group seemed like a bad idea that would only serve to validate your stupidity and selfishness.”

    Validating willful ignorance is never a good idea, but it is a really bad idea when doing so puts people at risk. Further, most of us usually try to avoid truly selfish people, so let’s double down now to contribute to the common good. For impact, we have to be willing to tell the ignorant and selfish what we are doing and why. We have to be willing to demand that our institutions meet this challenge as well. It is beyond time for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to aggressively mandate vaccinations wherever they are authorized to do so.

    Another useful component of the avoidance vocabulary is the word “colleague.” The word seems to imply someone with whom you work, a co-worker. It shouldn’t apply to the SOB in your midst who seeks to undo everything you are trying to do. So, stop using the word “colleague” for those you believe to be willfully ignorant, selfish, dangerous and/or just plain too stupid to get out of your way. This is particularly so in the public arena, where every moron seems to be somebody’s colleague during any discourse — “My colleagues are unable to see that making it harder for black people to vote is racist behavior.” They could either not be your “colleague” or not be “racist,” but they shouldn’t ever be both.

    Normal vs. New Normal

    How about “normal” and “new normal” to make things sound just great as we surge forward as a nation? Returning to “normal” only works if your “normal” was fine with you. It avoids the uncomfortable truth that many people don’t want to return to their “normal,” because it sucked. As for a “new normal,” it is hard to imagine a less precise way of confronting the critical need for change to actually achieve a more perfect union. It surely creates an easy path to avoiding any measured discussion about hunger, poverty, access to meaningful health care, access to quality education, rampant gun violence, and racial and social justice, among other difficult issues.

    So, when I hear people say they want a “new normal,” it sounds a lot to me like they are talking about some vision of a better world that will miraculously emerge if we hold hands and pray a lot. What is needed is not a “new normal” but a new and transformed America where eliminating poverty is more important than giving up a tax break for your vacation home, where health care isn’t rationed by insurance companies and their medical allies, where school buildings and the teachers in them provide the same resources to black children that are provided to white children, and no child, not a single one, goes to bed hungry in America.

    Embed from Getty Images

    That’s the America that I want to see and to which there is so much resistance. “Normal” and “new normal” are comfort food concepts to spare the already comfortable the discomfort of sacrifice for the common good.

    And then just when you think you might be getting at least some Americans to turn their attention to a better life on Earth for the community of man, along comes billionaire space “tourism” to further distract a population grasping for the most banal of distractions. If you can’t afford Disneyland, an RV or even a trip to Taco Bell, America’s wealthy can give you the illusion of tourism in space. It is truly heartening to hear the mega brats talk so lovingly of opening up space to the masses, while working so hard to avoid sharing their wealth with those same masses. And take note that this illusion is getting enough attention and gushing goodwill to give us another touchstone on the golden road to “normal.”

    While I await my economy center seat with Kim Kardashian on one side and Martha Stewart on the other, I am getting pumped up for the debates to come as schools are about to open and the parental handwringing season of rage is commencing. This is so much fun, because in America’s dysfunctional democracy school decisions are seen as local decisions, thereby ensuring that everything from masks to midriffs, from black books to white books, from defunding teachers to defunding cops and the like, will be on the agenda somewhere everyday beginning now.

    This will be fine theater that is inconsistent with informed dialogue and ensures further avoidance of confronting systemic issues of import. Optics again will win the day, and the symbolism of preserving norms will overwhelm the content of change. The real losers this time will be the kids who will have to watch their parents stuff social, political, economic and moral genies back into the bottles from which they have again emerged, while further polluting the minds of the same kids they say they are trying to save.

    It seems beyond hope that all of this avoidance of meaningful change and the vocabulary that enables that avoidance will engender an equal and opposite reaction. The reason is simple: Only the forgotten are seeking meaningful change while so many in the rest of the nation want nothing more than continued amnesia.

    *[A version of this article was co-published on the author’s blog, Hard Left Turn.]

    The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

  • 63 Shares149 Views

    in World Politics

    Biden’s Pirates of the Caribbean

    On July 12, following an outburst of protest by Cubans responding to a raft of ills that plague the island, the White House issued US President Joe Biden’s message of apparent solidarity. “We stand with the Cuban people and their clarion call for freedom and relief from the tragic grip of the pandemic and from the decades of repression and economic suffering to which they have been subjected by Cuba’s authoritarian regime.”

    Today’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

    Clarion call:

    The sound of a high-pitched trumpet calling troops to battle in the 14th century or, when evoked by a politician in the 21st century, the sound of a high-pitched ideologue pretending (but not necessarily intending) to go to battle in the name of a claimed ideal

    Contextual Note

    Whenever an American politician evokes the question of Cuba, one can be sure that clichés will abound. The Oxford Dictionary defines “clarion” as “A shrill-sounding trumpet with a narrow tube, formerly much used as a signal in war.” This sounds like an apt description of today’s US politicians. They know that to win elections they must always sound shrill and ready for war, in their intentions if not in their tone.

    Biden uses the cliché of promising to “stand with the Cuban people.” He then invokes “the tragic grip of the pandemic,” but somehow forgets to mention the far more serious and tragic grip of a 60-year US blockade of Cuba that cut off the nation and its people from the global economy, forcing the regime to improvise a form of near autarchy in an increasingly interconnected world. For much of that time, Cubans depended for their survival on a lifeline from the Soviet Union (later Russia) and various assorted US enemies, such as Venezuela.

    Like Lewis Carrol’s Walrus about to eat the oysters he has befriended, Biden explains how he “deeply sympathizes” with the Cuban people. He offers Cuba’s leaders this advice: “The United States calls on the Cuban regime to hear their people and serve their needs at this vital moment rather than enriching themselves.” Does he seriously expect them to take on board his wise counsel? Can the president of a nation that made 638 attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro pretend to be someone who can be trusted to “hear their people and serve their needs?”

    Embed from Getty Images

    The statement’s litany of clichés continues with the claim that this is a “vital moment.” Biden optimistically envisions a counterrevolution provoked by the intense suffering imposed on the Cuban people as a result of the combined force of a pandemic, an endless embargo and US sanctions. These have created a situation beyond any government’s control. Biden’s irony then intensifies with the implicit reproach, “rather than enriching themselves.” Spoken by the president of a recognized plutocracy and the father of Hunter Biden, this remark merits some serious laughs.

    Biden clearly knows something about politicians enriching themselves and their families. A growing trove of evidence reveals that, during the years of Joe Biden’s vice presidency, his son Hunter demonstrated exceptional skill trading on his father’s name, apparently with dad’s complicity. Hunter Biden’s lifestyle alone bears witness to the moral vision of a family and a class culture with few scruples about pushing ethical and legal limits in the interest of “enriching themselves.”

    Forbes states that Joe Biden’s net worth is “only an estimated $8 million.” That puts him above the poverty line but, in the eyes of most of the billionaire elite, classifies him as a loser. To maintain his image of “middle-class Joe,” Biden may have been motivated to seek ways of enriching his son, perhaps as a ploy to dodge inheritance tax. He even apparently relied on his son’s generosity to cover some of the domestic costs his $8 million fortune didn’t permit him to cover. Hunter’s net worth is unknown, but Newsweek says it “could be millions.” Such a paltry fortune for someone with his surname and admittedly illustrious career (drug addiction and adultery apart) may help to explain Hunter’s sudden need to sell his artwork at exorbitant prices.

    CNN reports that “the White House has been forced to deal with ethics questions about people buying the artwork for huge sums as a way to curry favor with President Joe Biden.” That is not only a fair description of the context but fits with the whole pattern of Hunter Biden’s career. Wondering whether his art had value, CNN interviewed art critic Sebastian Smee, who judged that Biden’s “work has the feeling of an afterthought.” It didn’t need “to be made, except perhaps as a therapeutic exercise.” His work is now expected to command “prices ranging from $75,000 to $500,000.”

    So how does this compare with Cuban politicians’ enriching themselves? The website Celebsblurb weighed in on the question of current president Miguel Diaz Canel’s fortune without providing a figure. “Being active in the political field since 1993, Miguel has earned a handsome amount of salary” the site claims. He enjoys “a lavish lifestyle with the aid of his enormous net worth.” Fidel Castro’s fortune was evaluated at under “about $900 million,” which is impressive, but he fell short of becoming a billionaire. According to the website Wealthy Persons, Fidel’s brother, Raul, who reigned for several years, reached $150 million, nearly 20 times that of Joe Biden.

    Could Biden be expressing his jealousy when talking about Cuban leaders enriching themselves? They have certainly outpaced the American president. Running a communist country pays, especially if you’re good at preserving a precarious stability in the face of a permanent assault by a neighboring superpower. If you think of the Cuban people as the board of directors of Cuba Inc., their compensation scheme reflects their CEO’s performance. Another way of calculating Fidel’s claim to such a fortune could be by putting a price of $1.4 million on each foiled CIA assassination attempt. As ransoms of national leaders go, that is a very modest figure.

    “Working-class Joe” seems to have secured a comfortable situation for his family, even if he can’t compete with “revolutionary Fidel.” But Castro’s fortune may have had less to do with personal greed than with a trend that affects all fragile developing nations — the need their leaders feel to secure the degree of financial autonomy that allows them to counter the inevitable initiatives of hostile superpowers to unseat them. In contrast with Cuba, US plutocracy has refined the art of spreading wealth around the entire oligarchic class. Politicians merit the millions they receive from the billionaires. That’s enough to ensure their loyal obedience. On the US political chessboard, the politicians are the pawns.

    Historical Note

    In the past week, US media outlets have expressed their hope that Cuba’s economic disaster may provoke the always desired outcome known as regime change. The current crisis in Cuba is attributable to the combined effects of a decades-long embargo, supplementary punitive sanctions imposed by Donald Trump and maintained by Biden, and a government with limited influence on the international stage and insufficient management skills. The overthrow of the current government thanks to pressure and assistance from the US would simply produce chaos and possibly a civil war on a scale similar to what Libya has experienced for the past 10 years.

    Therein lies the biggest mystery concerning Biden’s Cuba policy: With all his experience dating back to the Vietnam War, including decades of sanctions, invasions and assassinations, Biden has seen enough history to understand that US wars and sanctions have produced mountains of tragedy and absolutely nothing to rejoice about other than pleasuring the military-industrial complex. The much younger Barack Obama seemed at least to have partially learned the lesson of history when he sought to open the dialogue with Cuba.

    US democracy fatally and repeatedly produces the same consistent effect. In 2008, Americans elected Obama in the hope (his word) of ending the Bush administration’s wars. Obama maintained those wars and expanded them to at least three other nations. In 2020, the electorate voted to overturn Trump’s radical reengineering of US foreign policy (supposedly dictated by Russia). Americans voted in Biden to overturn Trump’s legacy. What has their champion done so far? He has prolonged it and, in some cases, intensified it. This is bad news for Cuba, but possibly even worse news for the US.

    *[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on Fair Observer.]

    The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in World Politics

    The Politics of American Protest: A North Korean Twist

    Gwen Berry recently protested the playing of the US national anthem by turning away from the flag and holding up a shirt that read “activist athlete.” The protest took place at the Olympic trials in Oregon where Berry had placed third in the hammer throw competition. Her action immediately drew angry responses from the right-wing side of the political spectrum.

    A number of right-wing politicians and commentators called her unpatriotic and demanded that she be kicked off the Olympic team. As Tom Cotton, the Republican senator from Arkansas, put it: “If Gwen Berry is so embarrassed by America, then there’s no reason she needs to compete for our country at the Olympics.”

    Black Lives Matter Shines the Spotlight on the Shadow of Slavery

    READ MORE

    Conservative outrage at protests against the American flag and the national anthem is not unusual. When NFL player Colin Kaepernick knelt during the national anthem in the 2016 season to protest racial injustice in the United States, he was roundly criticized in conservative circles. When he became a free agent the next year, no football team would sign him, despite his obvious talents as a quarterback.

    Taking a Stand

    Gwen Berry and Colin Kaepernick are both African Americans. At one level, they are protesting the history of racial injustice in the United States, represented by the national anthem. “The Star-Spangled Banner” was written by Francis Scott Key, who once declared that black people were “a distinct and inferior race.” His composition includes a verse, rarely sung, that criticizes black Americans who fought on the British side in the War of 1812 in order to gain their freedom from slavery. “The Star-Spangled Banner” became the national anthem only through the efforts of groups that supported the losing Confederate side of the Civil War.

    Embed from Getty Images

    At another level, Berry and Kaepernick are protesting the current racial injustices in the United States, particularly the police violence against African Americans. The murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis in May 2020 is only the most famous example of the brutality that African Americans have experienced at the hands of police forces throughout the country.

    Berry and Kaepernick are not alone in their outrage. The demonstrations in the wake of Floyd’s murder, which involved between 15 and 26 million people, were the largest in American history. Protests also spread to over 60 countries around the world. So right-wing critics are not just responding to the symbolism of these athletes taking a stand. They are deeply uncomfortable with the popularity of those sentiments. Most of these critics are the white men and women who dominate the Republican Party and the right-wing media. But one voice raised against Gwen Berry’s action was truly unexpected. It came from a North Korean defector.

    Yeonmi Park is a human rights activist who was born in North Korea and left the country as a teenager with her mother. She has acquired an international reputation on the basis of several speeches and a book that details her harrowing experiences leaving North Korea and making her way, eventually, to the United States. Her story has also generated considerable controversy for its numerous inconsistencies.

    Park has become something of a celebrity in right-wing circles in America. After Berry’s protest, Park appeared on the Fox News show “Fox & Friends” to denounce the American athlete. “If she did the exact same thing at this very moment, if she was North Korean, not only herself will be executed, [also] eight generations of her family can be sent to political prison camp and execution,” Park declared. “And the fact that she’s complaining about this country, the most tolerant country, she doesn’t really understand history.”

    Park’s comments are exceptionally strange. By her reasoning, no one should protest anything in the United States because the conditions here are better than in North Korea. And American protesters shouldn’t exercise their freedom to protest … because no such freedom exists in North Korea.

    A Better Place

    Of course, the opposite is true. The ability to protest peacefully is what makes the United States a great country, and Gwen Berry and fellow protestors are proving that point, over and over again. Indeed, the country has made great strides because of peaceful protests, not despite them. The civil rights movement, the women’s movement, the peace movement, the LGBTQ movement: All of these protests have made America an infinitely better place. America is not a particularly tolerant country, as the response to Gwen Berry’s protest demonstrates. But it has become a more tolerant country over time because of this history of protest. That is the history that Yeonmi Park so obviously doesn’t understand.

    There is another implication in Park’s words: that the suffering of African Americans is somehow less painful or legitimate than the suffering of North Koreans. “I was a slave,” Park told the Fox program. “I was sold in China in 2007 as a child at 13 years old … There is actual injustice.”

    Suffering is not a competitive sport. What many North Koreans experience in their country and North Korean defectors suffer in China is truly awful. And what many African Americans experience in the United States is also truly awful. They are not comparable, however. They have to be understood in their own contexts. And activists must fight against these injustices here, there and everywhere — preferably together rather than at cross-purposes.

    The sad truth is that Yeonmi Park has become a mouthpiece for the American right wing. Fox News delights in showcasing her views. On one program, for instance, she compares her studies at Columbia University to the brainwashing that she experienced in North Korea, leading her to conclude that the US future “is as bleak as North Korea.”

    On another occasion, she combined both her own knowledge of North Korean rhetoric with the similar-sounding nationalist slogans of Trump supporters when she told Fox Business that the American ”education system is brainwashing our children to make them think that this country is racist and make them believe that they are victims. It’s time for us to fight back. Otherwise, it might be too late for us to bring the glory of this country back.”

    Since she knows a thing or two about brainwashing, Yeonmi Park might want to take a more critical look at the propaganda of the American right wing. If she does, she might just see that Gwen Berry’s protest is what makes America great. And she might understand how the nationalism and intolerance of Fox News and the Republican Party are pushing the United States ever closer to the North Korean reality that she so despises.

    *[This article was originally published by Hankyoreh.]

    The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

  • 113 Shares149 Views

    in World Politics

    How Dubai and Abu Dhabi See the World Cup

    With the Euros over, attention outside the UK is turning to the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar. The focus in Britain, quite rightly, remains on the racist abuse directed at black members of the English football team and the extent to which the prime minister and the home secretary contribute to enabling a culture in which such abuse can flourish.

    Is Football Still a Bastion of White Supremacy?

    READ MORE

    In the Gulf, the lucrative rights to World Cup packages are now being awarded. In Kuwait, ITL World has been appointed the sales agent. The company’s CEO, Siddeek Ahmed, could hardly contain his delight at being able to offer “fans a unique opportunity to purchase ticket-inclusive hospitality packages” for the World Cup. In addition to game tickets, the packages include flights, accommodation, transport and “leisure” programs. According to Arabian Business, the deals for the main venue, the 80,000-seat Lusail Stadium, will run from $14,350 to $74,200. That buys you all 10 matches hosted there, including the quarter-final, semi-final and final. If you are not short on cash, you can pick up a 40-seat suite at the stadium for just $2.6 million.

    In Dubai, Expat Sport Tourism DMCC won the rights, with its website urging football fans to be a part of history to see the first World Cup held in the Arab world. “From the pinnacle in high end corporate experiences to individual hospitality solutions for football fans, we can cater for all those wishing to be part of FIFA World Cup 2022” is how the firm put it.

    Not Everyone Is Happy

    With an estimated 1.5 million fans heading to Qatar next year, Dubai, with its well-established tourism and entertainment sectors, sees itself as ideally placed to cash in on the World Cup bonanza. Yet others in the United Arab Emirates are less welcoming.

    Embed from Getty Images

    Mohammed al-Hammadi is the president of the Emirates Journalists Association and editor-in-chief of the newspaper Alroeya, based in Abu Dhabi. Among the core values listed on the paper’s website are “apply best practice in line with the journalism codes” and “be an objective and trustworthy information tool.”

    Hammadi is a strong proponent of normalization. He spoke at a webinar in October 2020, after the UAE and Bahrain had announced their plan to normalize relations with Israel. The event was organized by a pro-Israeli think tank, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP). Hammadi said he believed in both peace and advancing the rights of Palestinians, but people like him who “speak in favor of peace are stigmatized … and find themselves falling under attack.” He added that the word normalizing “has a very negative connotation in our region.”

    In June, he drew the ire of African journalists with a ham-fisted attempt to have them join a coordinated media attack on the World Cup in Qatar. They adopted a resolution denouncing efforts to “use Africa and its institutions as political football in order to settle scores in a political dispute.” The statement said:

    “While journalists in the East African region struggle to preserve their independence and freedom from rogue government and commercial interests that threaten the integrity of journalists, an outside actor is behind attempts to manipulate, divert and involve journalists in an issue completely outside the scope and powers of journalists and their unions.
    In the same way that journalists and their unions in East Africa are calling, confronting and protesting against governments for their interference in the work of journalists and the curtailment of their freedoms, all foreign powers that have a negative and false agenda must be condemned and publicly challenged as a matter of principle and consistency.”

    Twelve days later, the website Emirates Leaks, citing what it called “reliable sources,” alleged that Hammadi had attempted to pressure the heads of the journalism unions of Norway and Finland. According to the site, he wanted them to influence journalism unions in Asia and Africa to “coordinate attacks against Qatar and tarnish its image before hosting the World Cup.”

    His efforts occasioned a written question on June 23 in the European Parliament from Fulvio Martusciello. The Italian MEP accused the head of the Emirates Journalists Association of leading a smear campaign against Qatar: “Al Hammadi asked the Finnish and Norwegian Journalists Federations to exercise influence on journalists unions that he supports financially to engage in the Abu Dhabi campaign and offend Qatar. He also tried to offer them financial bribes and expensive gifts in return for achieving Abu Dhabi’s inflammatory goals.”

    So, while Dubai can barely contain its World Cup excitement, Abu Dhabi appears set to continue its anti-Qatar campaign. Imagine for a moment that the UAE was a football side and its two big stars had separate agendas and were playing only for themselves. That is not a winning formula and it’s something a good manager, like England’s Gareth Southgate, would quickly sort out.

    *[This article was originally published by Arab Digest, a partner organization of Fair Observer.]

    The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

  • 75 Shares179 Views

    in World Politics

    Personality and Ambition Fuel Saudi-UAE Divide

    Personality and the conflation of national interests with personal ambition are contributing to the widening gap between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. It was only a matter of time before Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) would want to go out on his own and no longer be seen as the protégé of his erstwhile mentor and Emirati counterpart, Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed (MBZ). By the same token, there was little doubt that the Saudi prince and future king would want to put to rest any suggestion that the UAE, rather than Saudi Arabia, called the shots in the Gulf and the Middle East.

    No doubt, MBS will not have forgotten revelations about Emirati attitudes toward Saudi Arabia and the UAE’s strategic vision of the relationship between the two countries. This was spelled out in emails by Yusuf al-Otaiba, the UAE ambassador in Washington and a close associate of MBZ, which were leaked in 2017. The emails made clear that UAE leaders believed they could use Saudi Arabia — the Gulf’s behemoth — and Mohammed bin Salman as a vehicle to promote Emirati interests.

    Sultans of the Gulf (Podcast)

    LISTEN HERE

    “Our relationship with them is based on strategic depth, shared interests, and most importantly the hope that we could influence them. Not the other way around,” Otaiba wrote. In a separate email, the ambassador told a former US official that “I think in the long term we might be a good influence on KSA [Kingdom of Saudi Arabia], at least with certain people there.”

    A participant in a more recent meeting with Otaiba quoted the ambassador as referring to the Middle East as “the UAE region,” suggesting an enhanced Emirati regional influence. In a similar vein, former Dubai police chief Dhahi Khalfan, blowing his ultra-nationalist horn, tweeted in Arabic, “It’s not humanity’s survival of the strongest, it’s the survival of the smartest.”

    To be sure, Mohammed bin Zayed has been plotting the UAE’s positioning as a regional economic and geopolitical powerhouse for far longer than his Saudi counterpart. It is not for nothing that it earned the UAE the epitaph of “Little Sparta,” in the words of former US Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis.

    Windows of Opportunity

    No doubt, smarts count for a lot. But, in the ultimate analysis, the two crown princes appear to be exploiting windows of opportunity that exist as long as their most powerful rivals, Turkey and Iran, fail to get their act together. The Saudis and Emiratis see the Turks and Iranians as threats to their regional power. Both Turkey and Iran have far larger, highly educated populations, huge domestic markets, battle-hardened militaries, significant natural resources and industrial bases.

    Embed from Getty Images

    In the meantime, separating the wheat from the chaff in the Gulf spat may be easier said than done. Bader al-Saif, a Gulf analyst, notes that differences among Arab states have emerged as a result of regime survival strategies that are driven by the need to gear up for a post-oil era. The emergence of a more competitive landscape need not be all negative. Saif warns, however, that “left unchecked … differences could snowball and negatively impact the neighborhood.

    Several factors complicate the management of these differences. For one, the Vision 2030 plan for weening Saudi Arabia off its dependence on the export of fossil fuel differs little from the perspective put forward by the UAE and Qatar, two countries that have a substantial head start.

    Saudi Arabia sought to declare an initial success in the expanded rivalry by revealing last week that the International Air Transport Association (IATA), the airline industry body, had opened its regional headquarters in Riyadh. IATA denied that the Saudi office would have regional responsibility. The announcement came on the heels of the disclosure of Saudi plans to create a new airline to compete with Emirates and Qatar Airways.

    Further complicating the management of differences is the fact that Saudi Arabia and the UAE are likely to compete for market share as they seek to maximize their oil export revenues in the short and medium term. This is particularly before oil demand potentially plateaus and then declines in the 2030s.

    Finally, and perhaps most importantly, economic diversification and social liberalization are tied up with the competing geopolitical ambitions of the two princes in positioning their countries as the regional leader. Otaiba signaled MBZ’s ambition in 2017 in an email exchange with Elliot Abram, a neoconservative former US official. “Jeez, the new hegemon! Emirati imperialism! Well, if the US won’t do it, someone has to hold things together for a while,” Abrams wrote to the ambassador, referring to the UAE’s growing regional role. “Yes, how dare we! In all honesty, there was not much of a choice. We stepped up only after your country chose to step down,” Otaiba replied.

    The Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas

    Differences in the ideological and geopolitical thinking of the princes when it comes to political Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood reemerged recently. Differing Saudi and Emirati approaches were initially evident in 2015 when King Salman and his son began their reign in Saudi Arabia. This was a period when Mohammed bin Zayed, who views political Islam and the Brotherhood as an existential threat, had yet to forge close ties to the new Saudi leadership. At the time, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal, barely a month after King Salman’s ascendancy, told an interviewer that “there is no problem between the kingdom” and the Brotherhood.

    Just a month later, the Muslim World League, a body established by Saudi Arabia in the 1960s to propagate religious ultra-conservatism and long dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood, organized a conference in a building in Mecca that had not been used since the banning of the brothers. The Qataris, who have a history of close ties to the Brotherhood, were invited.

    After King Salman and his son came to power, Saudi Arabia adopted a harder approach toward Brotherhood-related groups as Mohammed bin Zayed gained influence in Saudi affairs. The Muslim League has since become Mohammed bin Salman’s main vehicle for promoting his call for religious tolerance and inter-faith dialogue. Saudi Arabia and the UAE are portraying themselves as icons of a socially moderate form of Islam that, nonetheless, endorses autocratic rule.

    .custom-post-from {float:right; margin: 0 10px 10px; max-width: 50%; width: 100%; text-align: center; background: #000000; color: #ffffff; padding: 15px 0 30px; }
    .custom-post-from img { max-width: 85% !important; margin: 15px auto; filter: brightness(0) invert(1); }
    .custom-post-from .cpf-h4 { font-size: 18px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
    .custom-post-from .cpf-h5 { font-size: 14px; letter-spacing: 1px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
    .custom-post-from input[type=”email”] { font-size: 14px; color: #000 !important; width: 240px; margin: auto; height: 30px; box-shadow:none; border: none; padding: 0 10px; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-pen-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: center right 14px; background-size:14px;}
    .custom-post-from input[type=”submit”] { font-weight: normal; margin: 15px auto; height: 30px; box-shadow: none; border: none; padding: 0 10px 0 35px; background-color: #1878f3; color: #ffffff; border-radius: 4px; display: inline-block; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-email-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: 14px center; background-size: 14px; }

    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox { width: 90%; margin: auto; position: relative; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap;}
    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label { text-align: left; display: block; padding-left: 32px; margin-bottom: 0; cursor: pointer; font-size: 11px; line-height: 18px;
    -webkit-user-select: none;
    -moz-user-select: none;
    -ms-user-select: none;
    user-select: none;
    order: 1;
    color: #ffffff;
    font-weight: normal;}
    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label a { color: #ffffff; text-decoration: underline; }
    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input { position: absolute; opacity: 0; cursor: pointer; height: 100%; width: 24%; left: 0;
    right: 0; margin: 0; z-index: 3; order: 2;}
    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:before { content: “f0c8”; font-family: Font Awesome 5 Free; color: #eee; font-size: 24px; position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0; line-height: 28px; color: #ffffff; width: 20px; height: 20px; margin-top: 5px; z-index: 2; }
    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:before { content: “f14a”; font-weight: 600; color: #2196F3; }
    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:after { content: “”; }
    .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:after { position: absolute; left: 2px; width: 18px; height: 18px; margin-top: 10px; background: #ffffff; top: 10px; margin: auto; z-index: 1; }
    .custom-post-from .error{ display: block; color: #ff6461; order: 3 !important;}

    Last week, the kingdom signaled a potential change in its attitude toward Brotherhood-related groups with the broadcast of an interview with Khaled Meshaal, the Qatar-based head of the political arm of Hamas. The interview was aired on Al Arabiya, the Saudi state-controlled news channel. Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist group that controls Gaza, maintains relations with Iran and is viewed as being part of a Brotherhood network. Meshaal called for a resumption of relations between Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian movement.

    In 2014, Saudi Arabia designated Hamas as a terrorist organization. This was part of a dispute between Qatar, a supporter of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, and Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain, which had all withdrawn their ambassadors from Doha. The Saudis were particularly upset by the close relations that Hamas had forged with Iran and Turkey, Riyadh’s main rivals for regional hegemony.

    A litmus test of the degree of change in Saudi Arabia’s attitude will be whether it releases scores of Hamas members. These members were arrested in 2019 as part of Saudi efforts to garner Palestinian support for then-US President Donald Trump’s controversial peace plan for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Quoting the Arabic service of Turkey’s state-run Anadolu news agency, Al-Monitor reported that Al Arabiya had refrained from broadcasting a segment of the interview in which Meshaal called for the release of the detainees.

    Despite Differences

    The Saudi–UAE rivalry and the ambitions of their leaders make it unlikely that Mohammed bin Salman and Mohammed bin Zayed will look at structural ways of managing differences. This includes areas like greater regional economic integration through arrangements for trade and investment and an expanded customs union. The latter would make the region more attractive to foreign investors and improve the Gulf states’ bargaining power.

    In the absence of strengthening institutions, the bets are on the crown princes recognizing that, despite their differences, “it doesn’t make sense for either one of them to let go of the other.”

    The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

  • 88 Shares179 Views

    in World Politics

    The Role Turkey Can Play in Afghanistan

    Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan caused waves at the NATO summit in June, announcing that Turkey would continue to protect Kabul airport following the complete NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan. Kabul airport is Afghanistan’s principal air connection to the outside world, and it is vital for the security of diplomats and aid workers in the country.

    The proposal needs to be seen in the context of the broad militarization of Turkish foreign policy. In recent years, Ankara has deployed armed forces for geopolitical leverage in Syria, Somalia, Libya, the Eastern Mediterranean and Azerbaijan. The associated costs have remained very low, further emboldening Turkish policymakers. In Somalia and Syria, the Turkish military also gained experience operating in theaters where armed militants pose significant security challenges.

    Joe Biden Meets Afghanistan’s Leaders as the Country Faces Collapse

    READ MORE

    The main factor behind the airport proposal, however, is Turkish-American relations. Ankara hopes to regain favor with Washington after a string of diplomatic crises. The Turkish side knows its hand is weakened by issues such as its acquisition of the Russian S400 air defense system and Washington’s responses, including CAATSA sanctions and removing Turkish manufacturers from the supply chain for the new F35 warplane. The Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, known as CAATSA, is a law passed by the US Congress in 2017 that intended to penalize Russia. In December 2020, Turkey was added to the sanctions list for its purchase of the S400. The proposal to help out in Afghanistan emerged as an obvious way to improve bilateral relations with the US.

    A Good Reputation

    As the only Muslim-majority member of NATO, Turkey played important roles in Afghanistan. Former Turkish Foreign Minister Hikmet Cetin served as NATO’s first senior civilian representative in Afghanistan and Turkish officers twice commanded the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). There are currently 500 Turkish soldiers serving with the NATO mission. Turkey never deployed a combat force, however. The Taliban, in turn, avoided targeting Turkish forces; there has only been one attack on a Turkish unit.

    Embed from Getty Images

    Additionally, Turkish state institutions and NGOs conduct a broad range of cultural and educational activities and supply extensive humanitarian aid. Reports confirm the ability of Turkish officials and volunteers to engage with Afghan society on equal terms. Shared religious and cultural elements certainly help. Although the Taliban accuses of Ankara being too pro-Uzbek, Turkey is viewed very positively across Afghan society. This, together with its ability to talk with all sides and its non-combat role in ISAF, places Turkey in a unique position.

    However, protecting Kabul airport would change the nature of Turkey’s involvement. While the Afghan government welcomed the idea, the Taliban have repeatedly declared that they will not tolerate even a residual foreign force. That implies that the Taliban would target Turkish troops, risking drastic consequences for Turkey. To avoid this, Turkey’s extended stay requires prior agreement with all Afghan parties, and Ankara will use its diplomatic capacity to seek such an agreement. Moreover, rather than focusing solely on leaving a residual force, Turkey could use its diplomatic and humanitarian leverage to pursue a more comprehensive approach to the Afghan problem.

    Intra-Afghan Agreement Needed

    The current peace agreement involves only the United States and the Taliban. There is as yet no peace agreement between the Afghan government and the Taliban. As the withdrawal of NATO forces accelerates, the conflict is now between the Taliban and Afghan government forces. Despite NATO’s decades of investment, the Afghan army is no match for the Taliban. In fact, a major Taliban offensive is already underway. Kabul may not fall immediately, but time is on the side of the insurgents. But if the Taliban overplays its hand and tries to dominate the entire country, there will be a backlash, particularly from the non-Pashtun ethnic communities.

    In that case, Afghanistan is likely to descend back into civil war. Under such circumstances, a Turkish military presence would be too risky and unsustainable, even with agreements with the government and the Taliban. Rather than focusing only on protecting Kabul airport, Turkey should place its diplomatic weight behind a peaceful settlement between the Taliban and the government before violence spirals out of control. The first step toward a broader agreement between the Afghan parties themselves would be for Ankara to reach an agreement with each of them. This road is arguably a stony one, but it offers much greater rewards. Turkey would certainly need the support of other countries to overcome the obstacles involved.

    The first challenge is to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table with the Afghan government, which Turkey and the international community have so far failed to achieve. Here, Turkey can benefit from its exceptionally good relations with Pakistan and Qatar. Qatar is home to the Taliban’s only external office and relations are cordial. Pakistan, where many senior Taliban leaders reside, has the greatest leverage. Even though large segments of Afghan society frown on Pakistan’s involvement in their country, its influence over the Taliban would be crucial for reaching a negotiated settlement.

    Europe should be more active and support Turkey’s efforts diplomatically and economically. As well as that being the morally right thing to do, Europe has a tangible interest too. A resurgence of fighting in Afghanistan would trigger a wave of migration. Afghans are already the second-largest migrant community in Turkey after the 3.6 million Syrian refugees. They also formed the second-largest group of new asylum applications in Germany in 2020. Given Iran’s open-door policy, it would be realistic to expect waves of Afghan migration to Turkey and on to Europe. The specter of a new refugee crisis looms.

    *[This article was originally published by the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), which advises the German government and Bundestag on all questions relating to foreign and security policy.]

    The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More