US foreign policy

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Iranian American held in Tehran for seven years granted temporary release

      by

      Iranian American held in Tehran for seven years granted temporary releaseSiamak Namazi, convicted along with father on espionage charges, freed from Evin prison on one-week renewable furlough An Iranian American businessman who has been imprisoned in Iran for nearly seven years has been released from Tehran’s Evin prison on a one-week, renewable furlough, the United Nations announced on Saturday.The release of detainee Siamak Namazi comes as his father, Baquer Namazi, is being allowed to leave Iran for medical treatment, UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said in a statement. ‘Women are in charge. They are leading’: Iran protests continue despite crackdownsRead more“The [UN] secretary general is grateful that, following his appeals to the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, our former colleague Baquer Namazi has been permitted to leave Iran for medical treatment abroad,” Dujarric said.Baquer Namazi is the ex-governor of Iran’s Khuzestan province and former representative of what was originally known as the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (Unicef).“The secretary general is also pleased to learn that Baquer Namazi’s son, Siamak Namazi, has been released from detention,” Dujarric continued. “We will continue to engage with the Iranian authorities on a range of important issues, including the regional situation, sustainable development and the promotion and protection of human rights.”Baquer Namazi was convicted in Iran of “collaboration with a hostile government” in 2016 and sentenced to 10 years in prison. Iranian authorities released him on medical grounds in 2018 and closed his case in 2020, commuting his sentence to time served but effectively barring him from leaving the country.His son, Siamak, was convicted of the same charge and has been held in Evin prison since 2015. The US government has described the charges against both as baseless.It was unclear if Siamak’s furlough might be a step toward his full release. It was also not clear whether it signals the possible furlough or release of other US citizens detained in Iran.“I am thrilled for the Namazi family that for the first time in seven years Siamak Namazi is sleeping at home with his family,” the attorney who represents the Namazi family, Jared Genser, told Reuters.Genser added that Siamak Namazi was staying with his parents at their Tehran apartment.“This is a critical first step but of course we will not rest until the entire family is able to return to the United States and their long nightmare is finally over,” Genser also said.Their release coincides with the height of intense protests against the Iranian regime following the death of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old woman who was allegedly beaten by Iran’s morality police over headscarf laws.Iran’s semi-official news agency Nournews on Saturday reported that a regional country has helped Iran and the US mediate for the “simultaneous release of prisoners,” shortly after Tehran allowed Siamak Namazi out of prison on a one-week furlough.“In recent weeks, intensive talks, with the mediation of a regional country were held for the release of Iranian and American prisoners,” the news agency said, without disclosing which country was the mediator.The news agency also said that billions of dollars of Iranian assets frozen by US sanctions would “be released soon”.Iran said in August it was ready to swap prisoners with the United States after the American secretary of state, Antony Blinken, tweeted that “Siamak Namazi had now spent 2,500 days wrongfully detained” in Iran. According to Blinken, Washington was determined to secure the freedom of all Americans held by its Middle East adversary.Tehran has sought the release of a dozen Iranians held in the United States, including seven Iranian-American dual nationals, two Iranians with permanent US residency and four Iranian citizens with no legal status in the United States.Reuters contributed reportingTopicsIranUS politicsMiddle East and north AfricaUS foreign policynewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US senators refuse to let killing of Shireen Abu Akleh drop with Israel

      by

      US senators refuse to let killing of Shireen Abu Akleh drop with Israel The state department seems keen to avoid questions about the Palestinian American journalist’s shooting by an Israeli soldierIsrael has declared the case closed. The US state department has done its best to duck difficult questions. But leading members of the US Congress are refusing to drop demands for a proper accounting of the death of the Palestinian American journalist, Shireen Abu Akleh, four months ago.The longest-serving member of the US Senate, Patrick Leahy, recently upped the ante by warning that Israel’s failure to fully explain the Al-Jazeera reporter’s killing could jeopardize America’s huge military aid to the Jewish state under a law he sponsored 25 years ago cutting weapons supplies to countries that abuse human rights.Shireen Abu Akleh’s family submits complaint to ICCRead moreNearly half of the Democratic members of the Senate have signed a letter calling into question Israel’s claim that Abu Akleh was accidentally shot by a soldier. The letter suggests she may have been targeted because she was a journalist.The Biden administration is also facing a flurry of legislative amendments and letters from members of Congress demanding that the state department reveal what it knows about Abu Akleh’s death and that the FBI launch an independent investigation.Few think there is much prospect of the US actually cutting its $3.8bn a year in military aid to Israel in the near future, but it is politically significant that so many senior Democrats have signed on to publicly challenge Israel, which has frequently been able to count on solid bipartisan support in America.Although criticism has focused on Abu Akleh’s death, the demands for accountability come as Israeli killings of Palestinians have escalated while Jewish settlers in the West Bank appear to have been given free rein at times to attack Palestinians and take over their land.Dylan Williams, senior vice-president of policy and strategy at the Washington-based campaign group J Street, which describes itself as “pro-Israel and pro-peace”, said the demands for justice for Abu Akleh reflect broader concerns.“Members of Congress seem increasingly frustrated that these types of disturbing actions from Israeli forces continue to take place, without facing meaningful pushback or accountability from our government,” he said.“There’s growing momentum to make clear that Israel must be held to the same important standards as all close US allies, and that our steadfast support for Israel’s security does not and should not preclude our government from also standing up in defense of human rights and international law in the occupied Palestinian territory.”The powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), which funds political campaigns against politicians critical of Israel, has lobbied against a US investigation of Abu Akleh’s death.But Sarah Leah Whitson, director of Democracy for the Arab World Now – an advocacy group founded by the murdered Saudi dissident Jamal Khashoggi to pressure the US government to end support for authoritarian regimes in the Middle East – said that changing American public sentiment about Israel and the Palestinians has made it easier for some politicians to speak out.“There is an increasing view among the American public that Israel is committing the crime of apartheid, that Palestinians are unjustly victimised by Israel. This has given legislators more space, particularly secure legislators like Patrick Leahy, to say what they actually think,” she said.“In addition, they have more space on this particular case because Shireen Abu Akleh was a US citizen.”Israel initially claimed that Abu Akleh was shot by a Palestinian during a military raid on the occupied West Bank city of Jenin in May. Earlier this month, it finally admitted that it was “highly probable” that an Israel Defence Forces (IDF) soldier killed the journalist but claimed the shooting occurred during a gun battle with Palestinian fighters.That account was widely dismissed because investigations by human rights groups, the press and the United Nations showed that there was no fighting in Abu Akleh’s vicinity.Last week, Leahy told the Senate that the Biden administration had failed to act on calls from members of Congress for the FBI to investigate Abu Akleh’s death as is “customary and appropriate after a tragedy like this involving a prominent American killed overseas under questionable circumstances”.“Unfortunately, there has been no independent, credible investigation,” he said.Leahy challenged the value of Israel’s report on Abu Akleh’s death, noting there was “a history of investigations of shootings by IDF soldiers that rarely result in accountability”.The senator also questioned the state department’s role after the US security coordinator (USSC) in Jerusalem, Lt Gen Mark Schwartz, concluded that there was “no evidence to indicate [Abu Akleh’s] killing was intentional”.Leahy said: “The USSC, echoing the conclusion of the IDF, apparently did not interview any of the IDF soldiers or any other witnesses. To say that fatally shooting an unarmed person, and in this case one with ‘press’ written in bold letters on her clothing, was not intentional, without providing any evidence to support that conclusion, calls into question the state department’s commitment to an independent, credible investigation and to ‘follow the facts’.”Leahy has introduced an amendment, along with other senators, calling for the Biden administration to examine whether Israel has fallen afoul of the 1997 “Leahy Law” barring military assistance to countries whose armies abuse human rights.“Whether [Abu Akleh’s] killing was intentional, reckless or a tragic mistake, there must be accountability. And if it was intentional, and if no one is held accountable, then the Leahy Law must be applied,” Leahy said.Senator Chris Murphy, chair of the Senate foreign relations subcommittee responsible for the region, told MSNBC that he had not previously supported calls to set conditions for US military aid to Israel but that he was concerned about its conduct in the West Bank.“Some of [Israel’s] recent decisions are making conflict between Israel and the Palestinians more likely, not less likely,” he said. “I haven’t gotten there yet, arguing for conditions on that aid, but I think all of us are watching the behavior of the Israeli government very carefully.”Leahy is backed by other senators including Chris Van Hollen, who pushed an amendment passed by the Senate foreign relations committee earlier this month requiring the state department to hand over a full copy of the USSC’s controversial report on Akleh’s death after the US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, failed to respond to an earlier request and a series of questions.“I will continue pressing for full accountability and transparency around the death of Shireen. Anything less is unacceptable,” Van Hollen told the committee.Van Hollen was also instrumental in a letter in June signed by nearly half of all Democratic members of the Senate demanding “an independent, thorough, and transparent investigation” into her killing. The letter said disturbing comments by an Israeli official suggested she might have been targeted because she was a journalist.“On the day Shireen Abu Akleh was shot and killed, an Israeli military spokesperson, Ran Kochav, stated that Ms Abu Akleh and her film crew ‘were armed with cameras, if you’ll permit me to say so’,” the letter said.“We know you agree that journalists must be able to perform their jobs without fear of attack.”TopicsPalestinian territoriesUS SenateIsraelMiddle East and north AfricaUS politicsUS foreign policyUS CongressnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Iran president rules out meeting with Biden, saying it won’t be beneficial

      by

      Iran president rules out meeting with Biden, saying it won’t be beneficialEbrahim Raisi says he sees no ‘changes in reality’ from Trump administration as hopes to revive nuclear talks dampen Iran’s president, Ebrahim Raisi, has ruled out a meeting with Joe Biden on the margins of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) this week, saying he saw no “changes in reality” from the Trump administration.Raisi underlined the firm position of his government and dampened hopes that a week of summitry at UNGA in New York might yield any progress in negotiations to revive the 2015 nuclear deal. Washington has rejected the latest Iranian bargaining positive as “not constructive”, and most observers believe there will be no breakthroughs at least until after the US congressional elections in November.Asked on the CBS 60 Minutes news programme whenever he would be ready to meet Biden in New York, Raisi replied: “No. I don’t think that such a meeting would happen. I don’t believe having a meeting or a talk with him will be beneficial.”Raisi and Biden are both expected to address UNGA on Wednesday morning.On comparisons between the Biden administration, which has reentered talks on restoring the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Programme of Action (JCPOA) and the Trump White House, which withdrew the US from the deal in 2018, triggering its subsequent unraveling, Raisi was blunt.“The new administration in the US, they claim that they are different from the Trump’s administration. They have said it in their messages to us. But we haven’t witnessed any changes in reality,” he said, in an interview due to be broadcast on Sunday evening.Efforts to restore the JCPOA, by which Iran severely restricted its nuclear programme in return for sanctions relief, have stalled in part because Iran is seeking guarantees that any agreement is not reversed by Biden’s successor, which could be Trump himself.Raisi will arrive in New York in a week the regime’s human rights record is under particular scrutiny. Thirty Iranians have been injured, some seriously, in protests after the death of Mahsa Amini a 22-year-old Kurdish woman three days after she was arrested and reportedly beaten by morality police in Tehran.TopicsIranUS foreign policyMiddle East and north AfricaUS politicsJoe BidenBiden administrationTrump administrationnewsReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      US hid fears of radiation in Moscow embassy in 70s from staff, documents reveal

      by

      US hid fears of radiation in Moscow embassy in 70s from staff, documents revealPresident Ford and state secretaries complained to Soviet Union about health concerns over ‘Moscow signal’ The US complained to the Soviet Union for more than a decade about microwave radiation directed at its embassy in Moscow, but kept concerns secret from embassy staff for nine years, according to newly declassified documents.The reported microwave radiation came to be known as the “Moscow signal” and was the source of frequent complaints from Washington. US officials were unsure of either the purpose of the signal or the potential health effects of long-term exposure to low-level microwave radiation.The declassified documents, obtained by the National Security Archive at George Washington University, provide a historical perspective on current anxiety about “Havana syndrome”, a cluster of mysterious neurological symptoms afflicting scores of US diplomats and spies, which the US believes may have been caused deliberately by some form of directed energy weapon.The first reference to the Moscow signal was in a June 1967 state department memo recording a conversation between the then US secretary of state, Dean Rusk, and the Soviet foreign minister, Andrei Gromyko, in which Rusk raised the matter of the “electro-magnetic signal” aimed at the embassy in Moscow. Gromyko expressed scepticism about the claim, but Rusk insisted there was “no doubt whatever about it” and sketched a rough diagram to illustrate his point. Gromyko said he would “look into the matter” but no change in the level of radiation was detected.Over the years that followed, the microwave signals multiplied and intensified.President Gerald Ford wrote to the Soviet leader, Leonid Brezhnev, in December 1975: “These transmissions have created levels of radiation within the embassy which may, in the opinion of our medical authorities, represent a hazard to the health of the American families living and working in that building. Indeed, in one particular case, they may already have caused a serious health problem for one member of our embassy staff.”Ford was almost certainly referring to the ambassador Walter Stoessel, who became ill with leukaemia at that time, and died of the disease a decade later.In his reply to the president, Brezhnev insisted the electromagnetic field around the US embassy was “of industrial origin”.Despite US fears about the health effects, embassy staff were not informed, apparently because of concerns the story would leak to the media and upset arms control negotiations with Moscow. Stoessel’s illness was kept secret.In a 1975 conversation with the then Soviet ambassador in Washington, Anatoly Dobrynin, the US secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, asked for the signal to be turned off before he made a planned visit to Moscow or, he joked, “You could give me a radiation treatment”.“We really are sitting on it here, but too many people know about it,” Kissinger told the ambassador. If it was discovered that the Nixon and Ford administrations had known about the problem and done nothing to stop it, he said, “we will catch hell”.The embassy staff were finally informed in 1976. A state department telegram from February of that year said employees should be briefed in small groups but they should not pass on the details to their dependants. However, the telegram recommended that pregnant staff or family members be medically evacuated immediately for tests.The Soviet leadership took no heed of the US complaints and it is unclear when the Moscow signal was turned off, if it ever existed. US experts were mystified over the purpose of the microwave radiation, with the two leading theories being that it was intended to neutralise electronic intelligence gathering by the embassy, or to activate listening devices built into the structure of the embassy.When the previous embassy building was demolished in 1964, dozens of microphones had been found embedded in its walls.TopicsUS foreign policyUS politicsRussianewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Leon Panetta on the Afghanistan withdrawal, a year on: Politics Weekly America podcast

      by

      More ways to listen

      Apple Podcasts

      Google Podcasts

      Spotify

      RSS Feed

      Download

      Share on Facebook

      Share on Twitter

      Share via Email

      A year ago, American troops withdrew from Afghanistan after a 20-year war. The Taliban quickly returned to power and the country has since experienced famine, economic collapse and a widespread erosion of women’s rights.
      This week, Jonathan Freedland speaks to the former US defense secretary Leon Panetta, who was at the heart of the Obama administration’s Afghanistan policy, about what he thinks of the Afghan withdrawal and what the future holds for Joe Biden and the Democrats

      How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

      Archives: MSNBC, CNN, the Guardian Send your questions and feedback to podcasts@theguardian.com Help support the Guardian by going to theguardian.com/supportpodcasts More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US says clashes with Iran-backed militias won’t affect Tehran nuclear talks

      by

      US says clashes with Iran-backed militias won’t affect Tehran nuclear talks Nuclear negotiations under way, as US-led mission against the Islamic State exchanges fire with armed groups in Syria and Iraq US-led forces and Iran-backed militias exchanged fire for the second day in a row, but the Biden administration said the fighting would not affect nuclear negotiations with Tehran.US Central Command said the two bases, Conoco and Green Village, used for the US-led mission against the Islamic State (IS) had come under rocket attack on Wednesday evening, but there were no serious injuries. The US struck back with attack helicopters, killing “two or three suspected Iran-backed militants conducting one of the attacks” and destroying vehicles.“The response was proportional and deliberate,” a CentCom statement said. “The United States does not seek conflict with Iran, but we will continue to take the measures necessary to protect and defend our people.”US officials have stressed there is no connection between the fighting between the US and alleged Iranian proxies, and the delicate endgame of negotiations to revive a 2015 agreement between Iran and major powers which has largely disintegrated since Donald Trump withdrew the US in 2018.The state department confirmed that the US had sent a response on Wednesday to Iranian proposals on ways to return to the deal. Iran said that it had received the US response and was studying it. Both the US and Iran responses follow a proposed EU blueprint for restarting the nuclear deal, by which Iran would roll back its nuclear program in return for sanctions relief.John Kirby, spokesman for the US national security council said Iran had made some concessions which had closed the distance between the negotiating positions but added: “Gaps remain. We’re not there yet.”As the nuclear negotiations appeared to end the final stretch, fighting flared up in Syria, where the US-led anti-IS coalition are in close proximity to Tehran-supported militia in Syria and Iraq. Wednesday’s clash came a day after US airstrikes against targets in Deir Azzour, which Washington said were arms bunkers used by militias affiliated to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). That action was taken in retaliation for drone attacks on US military outposts on 15 August.Kahl said Tuesday’s US strikes had struck nine bunkers, and had originally targeted 11 but people had been seen near two of them. The aim was not to cause casualties but to send a deterrent message, he said.“Our response was extraordinarily carefully calibrated. It was meant to be proportional to the attacks that the Iran-backed groups carried out on 15 August. It was very precise,” he said.There have been a succession of attacks on the residual US military mission in Syria, left behind to monitor and contain the remnants of IS. Kahl said the decision was taken to strike back after the 15 August drone attack in part because wreckage from a downed drone could be traced back directly to Tehran. He added that US airstrikes were also a cumulative response to a series of attacks by Iranian-based militias.“We don’t want Iran to draw the wrong conclusion that they can continue just doing this and get away with it,” he said.He insisted the US military operations in Syria were not linked to negotiations on the nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).“Whether the JCPOA is reborn or not, it actually has nothing to do with our willingness and resolve to defend ourselves,” Kahl said. “I think the strike last night was a pretty clear communication to the Iranians that these things are on different tracks.”Ellie Geranmayeh, a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said there were signs of anticipation on both sides of a deal being clinched.“The US and Iranian governments have begun shifting the message for their audiences in expectation of something happening,” Geranmayeh said.The Iranian press has noticeably changed tone over recent weeks, swapping nationalistic and anti-western views for more neutral positions on the deal, which Iranian leaders have framed as a pillar of sovereignty.The Israeli government, which has struggled to prevent the JCPOA being reborn, struck a defiant tone as the prospect of a new deal rose.“We are not prepared to live with a nuclear threat above our heads from an extremist, violent Islamist regime,” the prime minister, Yair Lapid, said. “This will not happen, because we will not let it happen.”TopicsIranSyriaUS foreign policyUS militaryUS politicsMiddle East and north AfricanewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      US congressional delegation visits Taiwan on heels of Pelosi trip

      by

      US congressional delegation visits Taiwan on heels of Pelosi tripFive-member group including a senator will meet president and attend banquet hosted by foreign minister A US congressional delegation has arrived in Taiwan, days after China held military drills around the island in retaliation for the House speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit.The five-member delegation, led by Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts, will meet President Tsai Ing-wen and attend a banquet hosted by the foreign minister, Joseph Wu, during the visit, according to Taiwan’s foreign ministry.The American Institute in Taiwan said the US politicians would discuss “US-Taiwan relations, regional security, trade and investment, global supply chains, climate change, and other significant issues of mutual interest”.Quick GuideChina-Taiwan relations ShowA brief historyThe Chinese government claims Taiwan as a province of China and has not ruled out taking it by force.At the end of the Chinese civil war in 1949, the losing Kuomintang government fled to the island of Taiwan, establishing the Republic of China (ROC) government in exile. On the mainland the Chinese Communist party (CCP) established the People’s Republic of China. From the 1970s onwards many nations began switching their formal ties from the ROC to Beijing, and today fewer than 15 world governments recognise the ROC (Taiwan) as a country.The CCP has never ruled over Taiwan and since the end of the civil war Taiwan has enjoyed de facto independence. Since its decades-long period of martial law ended in the 1980s, Taiwan has also grown to become a vibrant democracy with free elections and media.But unification is a key goal of the Chinese leader, Xi Jinping. The island’s president, Tsai Ing-wen, has said Taiwan is already a sovereign country with no need to declare independence, but Beijing regards Taiwan’s democratically elected government as separatists.Under Xi’s rule, aggression towards Taiwan has increased and analysts believe the threat of invasion is at its highest in decades. In recent years the People’s Liberation Army has sent hundreds of war planes into Taiwan’s air defence identification zone, as part of greatly increased “grey zone” activities, which are combat-adjacent but do not meet the threshold of war. Taiwan is working to modernise its military and is buying large numbers of military assets and weapons from the US in the hope it can deter Xi and the CCP from making a move. Helen Davidson Photograph: Tingshu Wang/X06979Taiwan hailed the delegation’s visit as another sign of warm ties between Taipei and Washington. “The ministry of foreign affairs expresses its sincere welcome [to the delegation],” the ministry said in a statement. “As China is continuing to escalate tensions in the region, the US Congress has again organised a heavyweight delegation to visit Taiwan, showing a friendship that is not afraid of China’s threats and intimidation, and highlighting the US’s strong support towards Taiwan.”The other members of the delegation are the Democratic members John Garamendi and Alan Lowenthal of California and Don Beyer of Virginia, and the Republican representative Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen from American Samoa, according to the institute.China’s embassy in Washington said on Sunday that “members of the US Congress should act in consistence with the US government’s one-China policy” and argued the latest congressional visit “once again proves that the US does not want to see stability across the Taiwan strait and has spared no effort to stir up confrontation between the two sides and interfere in China’s internal affairs”.China views Taiwan as its own territory to be taken one day, by force if necessary. For a week after Pelosi’s visit this month it sent warships, missiles and jets into the waters and skies around the island. Pelosi was the highest-ranking elected American official to visit Taiwan in decades.Taiwan has accused China of using her visit as an excuse to kickstart drills that would allow it to rehearse for an invasion. It held its own exercises simulating defence against a Chinese invasion of its main island. China drew down its drills but said it would continue to patrol the Taiwan strait.In its daily update, Taiwan’s defence ministry said on Sunday that it had detected 22 Chinese planes and six ships operating around the strait. Of those, 11 planes crossed the median line, an unofficial demarcation between Taiwan and China that Beijing does not recognise.Sign up to First Edition, our free daily newsletter – every weekday morning at 7am BSTTaiwan’s presidential office said the group would meet Tsai on Monday morning. “Especially at a time when China is raising tensions in the Taiwan strait and the region with military exercises, Markey leading a delegation to visit Taiwan once again demonstrates the United States Congress’ firm support for Taiwan,” it said.Markey’s office said the lawmakers in Taiwan “will reaffirm the United States’ support for Taiwan as guided by the Taiwan Relations Act, US-China joint communiques, and six assurances, and will encourage stability and peace across the Taiwan strait.”The group would meet “with elected leaders and members of the private sector to discuss shared interests including reducing tensions in the Taiwan strait and expanding economic cooperation, including investments in semiconductors,” Markey’s office said.Taiwan’s foreign ministry published pictures of four lawmakers being met at Taipei’s downtown Songshan airport, having arrived on a US air force transport jet, while Markey arrived at the Taoyuan international airport.Last week China vowed zero tolerance for “separatist activities” in Taiwan and reaffirmed its threat that it would take control of the self-ruled island by force if provoked.“We are ready to create vast space for peaceful reunification, but we will leave no room for separatist activities in any form,” China’s Taiwan affairs office said in a white paper on Wednesday.It said China would “not renounce the use of force, and we reserve the option of taking all necessary measures”. It added, however: “We will only be forced to take drastic measures to respond to the provocation of separatist elements or external forces should they ever cross our red lines.”China last issued a white paper on Taiwan in 2000.AFP and Reuters contributed to this reportTopicsTaiwanUS CongressUS foreign policyChinaAsia PacificUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Pelosi’s ‘reckless’ Taiwan visit deepens US-China rupture – why did she go?

      by

      Pelosi’s ‘reckless’ Taiwan visit deepens US-China rupture – why did she go? The speaker insisted she was promoting democracy but critics suggest a last hurrah before she loses the gavel in NovemberRoy Blunt lived up his surname when he said this week: “So I’m about to use four words in a row that I haven’t used in this way before, and those four words are: ‘Speaker Pelosi was right.’”The Republican senator was praising Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan, the first by a speaker of the US House of Representatives in a quarter of a century.But not everyone was so sure. In poking the hornets’ nest and enraging China, which claims the self-governing island as its territory, Pelosi deepened a rupture between the world’s two most powerful countries – and may have hurt the very cause she was seeking to promote.On Thursday, China fired multiple missiles into waters surrounding Taiwan and began a series of huge military drills around the island; the White House summoned China’s ambassador, Qin Gang, to protest. On Friday, China said it was ending cooperation with the US on key issues including the climate crisis, anti-drug efforts and military talks.It was yet another moment of peril in a world already reeling from the coronavirus pandemic, Russia’s war in Ukraine and mass food shortages.So why did Pelosi go? The speaker is a fervent defender of Taiwan and critic of China’s human rights abuses. During the visit, she pointed to a global struggle between autocracy and democracy, a favourite theme of Joe Biden’s, and told reporters in Taipei: “We cannot back away from that.”But the 82-year-old may also have been rushing for a last hurrah before November’s midterm elections in which she is expected to lose the speaker’s gavel. Her televised meetings in Taiwan, sure to have registered in Beijing, appeared to some like a vanity project.Writing just ahead of the trip, Thomas Friedman, an author and New York Times columnist, described Pelosi’s adventure as “utterly reckless, dangerous and irresponsible”, arguing that Taiwan will not be more secure or prosperous because of a “purely symbolic” visit.Friedman warned that the consequences could include “the US being plunged into indirect conflicts with a nuclear-armed Russia and a nuclear-armed China at the same time”, without the support of European allies in the latter.Biden himself had publicly admitted that the US military felt the trip was “not a good idea right now”, not least because President Xi Jinping is preparing to secure a third term at the Chinese Communist party’s national congress later this year.In a call last month, the White House has said, Biden sought to remind Xi about America’s separation of powers: that he could not and would not prevent the speaker and other members of Congress traveling where they wish.But Biden and Pelosi are close allies from the same political party, a different scenario from 1997 when Democrat Bill Clinton was president and Republican speaker Newt Gingrich went to Taiwan. Pelosi, second in line to the presidency, flew into the island on a US military aircraft with all the government heft that implies.It was perhaps telling that Biden and Democrats remained mostly silent, whereas the speaker’s loudest cheerleaders were rightwing Republicans and China hawks including Gingrich.Some commentators believe that a superpower conflict between America and China over Taiwan or another issue is one day inevitable. White Pelosi may have shaved a few years off that forecast, it could be argued that Biden himself has supplied some of the kindling.For months the president has sown doubts about America’s commitment to the “One China” policy, under which the US recognises formal ties with China rather than Taiwan. In May, when asked if the US would be get involved military to defend Taiwan, he replied forcefully: “Yes. That’s the commitment we made.”Although America is required by law to provide Taiwan with the means to defend itself, it has never directly promised to intervene militarily in a conflict with China. This delicate equilibrium has helped deter Taiwan from declaring full independence and China from invading. But some worry that Biden is supplanting this longstanding position of “strategic ambiguity” with “strategic confusion”.Bonnie Glaser, director of the Asia Program at the German Marshall Fund of the United States thinktank in Washington, told a Council on Foreign Relations podcast this week: “There has been a lack of clarity, consistency, a lack of discipline, shall we say, and even a lack of coherency, I think, in US policy statements.“The Biden administration continues to say that the United States has a One China policy, that the United States does not support Taiwan independence, but then there are other things that the US does, which from China’s perspective and using their language, looks like we are slicing the salami. We are heading towards supporting a Taiwan that is legally independent.”Glaser added: “So Speaker Pelosi going to Taiwan doesn’t really, I think, in and of itself cross a red line, but I think the Chinese see a slippery slope … And then on top of all this, we have President Biden talking about policy toward Taiwan in confusing ways.”Other analysts agreed that, once news of Pelosi’s plan to visit Taiwan emerged, it would have been impossible to back down without handing Beijing a propaganda victory.Bill Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution thinktank and former policy adviser to Clinton, said: “I can see the arguments on both sides. Argument on one side, this was probably an ill-timed gesture on her part. Argument on the other side, once the issue was joined, allowing the Chinese to bully her out of the trip would would have been a really bad sign to the region.“If she hadn’t put the issue on the table, that would have been one thing. But once she did and once it was clear that she was pretty firm in doing it, it would have been a mistake, say, for the president to put a lot of pressure on her not to go. That would have been both a substantive mistake and a political mistake.”Larry Diamond, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution thinktank in Palo Alto, California, wrote in an email: “Pelosi wanted to convey our commitment and resolve. I respect her for that. However, I still think the trip was a mistake. It provoked a serious escalation of Beijing’s military intimidation without really doing anything to make Taiwan more secure.“What Taiwan really needs now is more military assistance, especially a large number of small, mobile, survivable and lethal weapons, like anti-ship missiles. To paraphrase [Ukraine’s Volodymyr] Zelenskiy, they don’t need more visits, they need weapons. And they have to do a lot more themselves to prepare for a possible attack.”TopicsNancy PelosiUS politicsUS foreign policyChinaTaiwanAsia PacificnewsReuse this content More