Connect with us

ASIA

Pelosi’s gamble could turn the risk of war into a reality

Published

on

The echoes of the visit to Taiwan by the US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi, are still resonating. The visit, which is considered by some experts to be Pelosi’s “personal solo-show”, and by other experts to be a “part of Washington’s Asia-Pacific Strategy” has also sparked a massive controversy within the United States itself.

Beijing has already warned that it will take drastic countermeasures, considering Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan as a “violation of its national sovereignty and territorial integrity”. Even the Biden administration is known to have notified the possible risks of the visit to the Pelosi’s office. Despite this, this action from the Speaker of the US House of Representatives Pelosi, who refrained to step down from her plan, has drawn reactions as a part of its consequences that further escalated tensions in the Asia-Pacific, and was described as a “provocation” among the international community.

Following Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan, Beijing has announced to halt some of its dialogue partnerships and cooperation mechanisms with Washington as an immediate countermeasure. It was not only China that show a reaction to Pelosi’s visit. The Taiwanese policy of Nancy Pelosi, which insisted on taking this visit despite the notice from both the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Biden administration, has both created a controversy back in the US, and has made Washington’s Taiwan policy to be questioned once again. Washington’s controversial actions in Taiwan, despite its announcement of respect for the One-China policy, has led to criticism within the US public opinion.

‘Policy of Strategic Uncertainty’

According to a White House official who provided information about the internal negotiations anonymously to the Washington Post; Nearly all senior members of the Biden’s office of national security, have privately expressed deep concerns about this trip and the timing of it. Officials have summarized the possible outcomes of Pelosi’s visit directly to her office, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark A. Milley has personally briefed Pelosi on this subject.

The article also states that Pelosi’s visit was independent of the White House and that nothing had changed in China-US relations, prior to this visit. However, Chinese leaders fear that visits to Taiwan by foreign state officials may potentially give Taiwan a diplomatic legitimacy as an independent country, and that they worry Pelosi’s visit may set an example by some other world leaders or officials. On the other hand, there are references to the upcoming National People’s Congress of the Chinese Communist Party, and Xi Jinping’s plans for a third term in leadership. And in the case of Washington’s policies on Taiwan, a policy of “strategic uncertainty” that neither supports nor opposes Taiwanese independence, is being reported.

Was it even worth it?

In the analysis article published in The Atlantic journal, Pelosi’s visit was described as a ‘gamble’ and was commented that “this Taiwan gamble strengthens the tendencies within US-China relations that can lead both countries towards conflict in East Asia”. It was reported that the policymakers in Washington see the country’s future being heavily dependent on Asia and are determined to expand the alliances in the region to consolidate US influence in Asia, and to bring China in check.

While it is stated that Taiwan is directly on the fault lines between the two rivaling powers and their geopolitical agendas, these agendas are summarized as follows; “For the United States, Taiwan is not only a long-term friend, but also an important economic partner and a link in the network of democracies that support the American influence in the Asia-Pacific. And for China, it is an indispensable component of the country’s ascension to a superpower status”.

The analysis expresses concerns that Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan could resonate far beyond the Taiwan Strait and even beyond East Asia, prompting Beijing to “intensify its efforts to thwart the US-backed global order” and for Xi Jinping to consolidate its anti-American pact with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin. It is argued that all this could cause a greater chaos in East Asia, and with China’s intensified military exercises around the island could turn into a conflict, thus further disrupting the already troubled global supply chains. Article referring to the possibility that Beijing will increase its pressures over Taiwan and perhaps even take the risk to go to war, and that the US and its allies may be dragged into a regional conflict, the article describes Pelosi’s visit as “a step in a process transforming a war over Taiwan from a remote possibility to a real risk that should worry the world.”

It is being reported that there are rough debates among the country’s public opinion over whether Pelosi’s visit was even “worth it”, in context of these possibilities which make the war much more probable. While it was given that realists who look at the situation with a “cold logic” agree that “it was not worth it”, while The Atlantic argues that “Pelosi’s persistence is necessary to show the Chinese and to the world that the United States does not take a step back”.

Salami slicing…

Bonnie Glaser, director of the Asia Program of the German Marshall Fund, points to the Biden administration’s inconsistency in its Taiwan policy, as one of the causes of this crisis, in a podcast of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), one of the institutions that shape the US foreign policies. Glaser stated that the US has a lack of clarity, consistency and even a lack of discipline in its stance on Taiwan, and that although Washington says it respects One-China Policy and does not support Taiwanese independence on paper, still acts much differently from this perspective. Glaser resembles this policy to a “salami slicing” strategy, and says China is well-aware of this tactic and therefore reacted strongly to Pelosi’s visit.

The only winner here is Pelosi

An expert on China at the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based think tank, Shirley Martey Hargis argues that this visit to Taiwan is not a strategically reliable decision since it will lead to a deterioration in the US-China relations, and in the relatively peaceful environment of East Asia. According to Shirley, there is only one long-term winner here: and that would be Pelosi herself. Saying that the visit has unnecessarily escalated tensions with China, Shirley also commented that it positions the United States in a two-front war, one front in Ukraine and one in Taiwan. Shirley says Taiwan “remains as a passive player in the US-China wrestling”.

A provocative action

The New Yorker journal has called Pelosi’s visit as “provocative politics”. The article, which argues that Pelosi’s initial aim was to provide a “small cheerleading”, while emphasizing that eventually the domestic politics of the US and China came into play and that Taiwan has gotten itself into a position of “a pawn caught in the middle”.

Noting that this action did not benefit Taiwan, but likely harmed Taiwan’s own security and “made US-China relations, which were already pretty bad, worse than they were before” the article also comments that “recovery may be much more difficult than we thought three weeks ago”

While it is argued that American politicians “have to be strategic and thoughtful about the cost and benefit of a particular action unless they actually want to drive the most important diplomatic relationship in the contemporary world into the ground”. It is stressed in the article that Pelosi’s solo-show also puts the Taiwanese government in a very difficult position.

This will make matters much worse

CNBC described the visit as “like pouring salt in an open wound for China”. Stephen Roach, a Yale University senior fellow and former Federal Reserve economist, has told CNBC that this visit to Taiwan has increased the US-China tensions and the risk of alienating these countries. “We are on a trajectory of escalating conflict, and this will certainly make matters worse,” Roach said, calling the visit a “new headache” for the Biden administration.

The economist Roach stated that this trip put China on the defensive and forced Beijing to show its determination to continue Taiwan’s eventual reunification with the mainland, while noting that he did not expect any overt military action from Beijing despite the current situation.

CNN channel also noted that Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan risks creating more instability between the United States and China. The analysts stated that this visit has sparked a harsh “rhetorical response” between the two countries, while also fueling fears in Washington that it would cause Beijing to “build an unprecedented escalation of the crisis in the Taiwan Strait”.

ASIA

Chinese, Russian troops hold joint exercise targeting cross-border terrorism

Published

on

China and Russia have held a joint military exercise focusing on cross-border terrorism, amid growing concern over terrorist attacks in Moscow.

The drill was held on 25 June in a river area near the Heilongjiang Bridge linking Russia’s Blagoveshchensk and China’s Heihe, the Chinese military’s official media outlet PLA Daily reported on Tuesday.

It was the first joint counter-terrorism drill between the neighbouring countries since Russia’s intervention in Ukraine.

It came just days after terrorist attacks in Russia’s southern region of Dagestan on 23 June, in which at least 22 people were killed in shootings at two synagogues, two Orthodox churches and a police station.

In March, more than 140 people were killed in an attack on a concert hall in Moscow, the deadliest terrorist attack in Russia for almost two decades. The Khorosan branch of ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack.

According to the PLA Daily, last week’s joint exercise simulated ‘terrorists trying to cross the border’ to launch an attack.

Chinese and Russian troops used aerial reconnaissance, maritime interception and land ambush to intercept and capture the terrorists during the exercise.

The exercise, which focused on improving intelligence sharing and operational coordination, showed the “firm determination” of both militaries to take effective measures to “combat all forms of terrorism, separatism and extremism” while jointly securing border areas, the report said.

The report also said that the two sides discussed further deepening border cooperation.

This is not the first time the two countries have held joint counter-terrorism exercises. In 2019, China’s People’s Armed Police took part in an exercise with the Russian National Guard in Russia.

According to Tass, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov reaffirmed the two countries’ ongoing cooperation in the fight against terrorism, including on multilateral platforms, during a meeting with his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi in April.

Aiming to strengthen law enforcement cooperation

Last week’s joint exercise follows an agreement between Chinese and Russian leaders during Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit to Beijing in May to strengthen cooperation in law enforcement and defence, including by expanding joint training and exercises.

The Chinese and Russian coast guards also signed a memorandum of understanding on maritime law enforcement cooperation in April last year.

In March, China and Russia organised a naval exercise with Iran focusing on anti-piracy efforts. China and Russia also held joint naval and air exercises in the Sea of Japan, or East Sea, in July last year.

Continue Reading

ASIA

Controversial military operations and ethnic dynamics in Pakistan’s fight against terrorism

Published

on

In a recent high-level meeting, the federal government of Pakistan announced its intention to launch a new military operation against terrorist organizations. This decision is aimed at eradicating militancy under the banner of Azm-i-Istehkam. Surprisingly, the military leadership has remained silent on this proposed operation, leaving the advocacy to political figures, notably Defense Minister Khawaja Asif of the Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N).

The Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), a significant coalition partner in the federal government, has maintained a conspicuous silence on the matter. Meanwhile, despite the approval from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’s Chief Minister Ali Amin Gandapur, factions within Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and the Sunni Ittehad Council have openly opposed the operation. This divergence in political opinion highlights the complex dynamics at play in Pakistan’s approach to counter-terrorism.

The opposition from various regional and ethnic parties, including the Pashtun Protection Movement (PTM), Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party (PkMAP), and the Awami National Party (ANP), stems from deep-seated concerns about the operation’s focus and its implications. Historically, PTI and PkMAP have not been staunchly anti-Taliban. PTI’s leader, Imran Khan, has consistently opposed military actions against Taliban militants, advocating instead for dialogue. Similarly, PkMAP leader Mehmood Khan Achakzai, while ostensibly opposing terrorism, is perceived to have friendly relations with the Taliban, as evidenced by the relative safety of his party members from Taliban attacks.

Significant religious-political entities have complex stances on militancy in Pakistan

The relative safety of certain political groups, like PTM and the National Democratic Movement, from Taliban violence raises questions. Critics argue that this perceived immunity could suggest covert alliances or understandings, casting doubt on the motivations behind their opposition to the military operation.

Jamiat Ulama-e-Islam (JUI-F) and Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), both significant religious-political entities, have complex stances on militancy. JUI-F’s position has been ambiguous since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. In contrast, JI, having reaped substantial benefits from the Afghan war, now finds itself sidelined and is striving to reassert its relevance by attempting to align with nationalist sentiments.

The media and sections of the government, particularly those influenced by Punjabi and Urdu-speaking elites, have often portrayed the Taliban as predominantly Pashtun. This narrative has led to the proposed military operation being focused on Pashtun-majority areas, such as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan. Defense Minister Khawaja Asif’s statement that the operation will target these regions reinforces this perception.

Pashtun-dominated regions reject the notion that terrorism is a Pashtun phenomenon

However, leaders from Pashtun-dominated regions, like Khan Muhammad Wazir of the ANP, reject the notion that terrorism is a Pashtun phenomenon. Wazir points to the involvement of non-Pashtun militants in numerous terror attacks across Pakistan. He highlights the role of Punjabi militants in groups like the Punjabi Taliban, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, and Jamaat-ul-Ahrar, who have orchestrated some of the deadliest attacks in recent years. Wazir’s argument underscores the ethnic diversity of militant groups in Pakistan, challenging the stereotype of the Pashtun terrorist.

Wazir’s emotional plea for an operation starting in Punjab, rather than Pashtun areas, aims to shift the focus to the diverse origins of militancy. He names several key figures from Punjab involved in terrorist activities, such as Tariq Lahori of Daesh and Maulana Qasmi of Jamaat-ul-Ahrar. By highlighting these figures, Wazir seeks to demonstrate that terrorism in Pakistan is not confined to any single ethnic group.

Doubt on the narration of the proposed military operation “Azm-i-Istekham”

The insistence on a military operation in Pashtun regions, driven by a media narrative dominated by Punjabi and Urdu-speaking elites, risks alienating the Pashtun community. Wazir’s call for international intervention by entities like China, the United States, Russia, the United Nations, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) underscores the severity of this perceived ethnic targeting. If the government and media continue to frame terrorism as a predominantly Pashtun issue, it may lead to increased ethnic tensions and further marginalize the Pashtun population.

The proposed military operation “Azm-i-Istehkam” and the political dynamics surrounding it reveal deep-seated ethnic and regional tensions within Pakistan. While the operation aims to eradicate terrorism, its focus on Pashtun areas risks reinforcing harmful stereotypes and overlooking the broader ethnic diversity of militant groups. A more equitable approach, recognizing the involvement of non-Pashtun militants and addressing the root causes of militancy across all regions, is crucial for fostering national unity and effectively combating terrorism. Only through such an inclusive strategy can Pakistan hope to achieve lasting peace and stability.

Continue Reading

ASIA

Huawei Harmony aims to end China’s reliance on Windows and Android

Published

on

While Chinese tech giant Huawei’s recent smartphone launches have been closely watched for signs of progress in China’s chip supply chain, the company has also developed expertise in sectors vital to Beijing’s vision of technological self-sufficiency, from operating systems to car software.

Chinese President Xi Jinping told the CPC Politburo last year that China must fight hard to localise operating systems and other technologies “as soon as possible” as the US restricts exports of advanced chips and other components.

OpenHarmony, developed by Huawei, is widely promoted in China as the “national operating system”.

“This strategic move is likely to erode the market share of Western operating systems such as Android and Windows in China as local products gain traction,” Sunny Cheung, an associate fellow at the Jamestown Foundation, a US defence policy group, told Reuters.

In the first quarter of 2024, Huawei’s own version of the HarmonyOS operating system overtook Apple’s iOS to become the second best-selling mobile operating system in China after Android, according to research firm Counterpoint. It has not yet been released on smartphones outside China.

“Harmony has created a strong core operating system for the future of China’s devices,” Richard Yu, president of Huawei’s consumer business group, said at the opening of a developer conference last week.

Self-sufficiency

Huawei first introduced Harmony in August 2019, three months after Washington imposed trade restrictions over alleged security concerns. Huawei denies that its equipment poses a risk.

Since then, China has stepped up its self-sufficiency efforts, pulling out of the main code-sharing centre Github and supporting a local version, Gitee.

China banned the use of Windows on government computers in 2014 and now uses mostly Linux-based operating systems.

Microsoft derives only 1.5 per cent of its revenue from China, its chief executive said this month.

Originally built on an open-source Android system, Huawei this year released the first “pure” version of HarmonyOS, which no longer supports Android-based apps, further separating China’s app ecosystem from the rest of the world.

Huawei said in its 2023 annual report that OpenHarmony was the fastest-growing open source operating system for smart devices last year, with more than 70 organisations contributing to it and more than 460 hardware and software products produced in the financial, education, aerospace and industrial sectors.

Visited by Reuters, Charlie Cheng, deputy director of the Harmony Ecosystem Innovation Centre, said the aim of making it open-source was to replicate Android’s success in eliminating licensing costs for users and provide companies with a customisable springboard for their own products.

“Harmony will definitely become a mainstream operating system and give the world a new choice of operating systems besides iOS and Android,” he said.

Google, Apple and Microsoft did not respond to requests for comment.

China’s previous efforts to build large open source projects have struggled to gain traction among developers, but Huawei’s growing smartphone market share and extra work to develop a broader ecosystem gives Harmony an edge, analysts said.

Huawei’s Yu said this month that more than 900 million devices, including smartphones, watches and car systems, were running HarmonyOS and that 2.4 million developers were coding in the ecosystem.

“OpenHarmony will need more time and iterations for these developers to feel more confident about working with OpenHarmony,” Emma Xu, an analyst at research firm Canalys, told Reuters, adding: “But the reputation, behaviour and trust that HarmonyOS has achieved will certainly have a positive impact.”

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey