Young Diplomats

The French president continues his mediation in the Iranian case. After the G7 discussions, Emmanuel Macron and his Iranian counterpart Hassan Rouhani met on Saturday. On that occasion, the President of the Islamic Republic warned that his country could break away a little more from its commitment to military nuclear power. “If Europe cannot implement its commitments, Iran will take a third step to reduce its JCPOA commitments” (the 2015 nuclear agreement), threatened Mr Rouhani. However, there is still hope. The Iranian president added that “this step, like the two previous ones, will be reversible”. Mohammad Javad Zarif told the German newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung that this step could be taken on 6 September.

Rouhani is still ready to negotiate

Mr Rouhani also criticized once again the Europeans for not having taken “concrete measures” to maintain economic exchanges with Iran, which had been suffocated by American sanctions. For his part, Emmanuel Macron once again “stressed the importance of the ongoing momentum to create the conditions for de-escalation through dialogue and the construction of a lasting solution in the region”, according to the Elysée. For France, “the important thing was to check, after the G7 debate on Iran, that the parameters of the negotiations remain valid and that President Rouhani is still available to negotiate. And ” it is,” asserts a French diplomatic source.

Paris believes that Iran must return to its JCPOA commitments on the one hand, and Donald Trump must take a break from its economic sanctions, for example by allowing Iran to export some of its oil. On the other hand, neither French nor Iranian sources indicated whether the two leaders had referred to Emmanuel Macron’s call for a Trump-Rouhani meeting, for which each sets as a condition that the other make the first concessions.

Tensions are rising between Israel and Hezbollah

Paris also “reiterated the need for Iran to comply fully with its nuclear obligations and take the necessary measures for the restoration of peace and security in the Middle East,” the Elysée said. More specifically, the French President called on Iran to “act to put an end to the fighting and open negotiations in Yemen” and called for “the utmost restraint in Lebanon” as tensions between Israel and Hezbollah rise. Mediation should therefore take a long time.

Preventing an Arctic cold war

By: Rosa Sejer Ingstrup Knudsen

For information about the Ilulissat Declaration and the current situation in the Arctic region please read part I on “How to use the Ilulissat Declaration as inspiration to desecuritize future policy issues in the Arctic region”

 

Recommendations:

In the following segment four recommendations on how to desecuritize future policy issues in the Arctic region. The Ilulissat Declaration will be used as inspiration and serve as the foundation for the recommendations that has been put forward in this segment.

 

1. Cooperation in international forums:

Based on the Ilulissat Declaration it is advised that different international institutions establish the “overall” rules of behavior for states, businesses and individuals (The members of the Arctic Council met at the Arctic Ocean Conference to create of the Ilulissat Declaration).

These newly agreed upon set of rules will be used when states interact with each other on Arctic related matters. Therefore it would be ideal to follow the mindset of the Ilulissat Declaration and utilize institutions to create and uphold the rules as well as to help keep the common domains open and free.

 

1. The Copenhagen way:

This recommendation follows a theory named “The Copenhagen School” created by Ole Wæver, where states seek to prevent a policy issue from being securitized by moving the issues from the realm of security and back to “normal politics”.

This was what was done with the Ilulissat Declaration. It moved the policy issue of arctic-sovereignty from a question of state security over to “normal politics” making the policy issues about areas such as marine environmental research and protection.

It is therefore recommended to move a policy issue stemming from events in the arctic back to normal politics. For example by moving the issue of sovereign rights delineation into another socio-political domain that is not seen as a ‘hot potato’.

Furthermore, it would be beneficial to redirect the “security discourse” associated with the issue at hand on to a more compelling issue that has already been desecuritized for example by moving the states’ wish to dominate and protect future sea routes with their own military to the area concerning all states’ general use of the sea and freedom of navigation.

 

1. Make it a non-issue:

A long the lines of the Copenhagen School, it is recommended that the politicians, bureaucrats and strategists do not talk about the issues in terms of security and insist that it is a non-security issue. In the Ilulissat Declaration the Arctic five representatives declared that the law of the seas provide rights and obligations on non-security issues such – as mentioned before – marine environmental research and protection. The declaration is an effort to de-escalate and make the sovereign claims of the Arctic a non-issue to signal to the rest of the world that it is not the beginning of an Arctic cold war. This too can be done with future policy-issues.

Furthermore, it is advisable to downgrade the issue at hand by redefining it as not being a threat to the state’s security interests. By doing so, it adds to help move the policy issues back to ”normal politics” (it is worth to notice that this strategy only works on issues that has yet to be securitized).

 

1. Minimize symbolic politics:

Military power-projection can – in the wake of political tensions – arise as a byproduct of other states’ ships patrolling and general activities to exploit natural resources in or near contested areas. An example was when Russia increased its maritime activities as well as flew bombers over the area near Denmark’s territory. This act of symbolic politics has added to maintaining a concern about increased military security, which can lead to uncertainty and result in an arms race, which is undesirable.

Therefore the last recommendation is to refrain from using symbolic politics and focus on creating a shared understanding on how to collectively navigate the region. The Ilulissat declaration did not allow symbolic politics and its purpose is to act as a legal framework.

By de-escalating and insisting on making a legal framework to address and deal with future policy-issues without symbolic politics, they automatically de-securitize and diminish the security concern making it about more than just an arms race and a battlefield for states to fight for more power.

How to use the Ilulissat Declaration as inspiration to desecuritize future policy issues in the Arctic region

Preventing an Arctic cold war

 

By: Rosa Sejer Ingstrup Knudsen

 

Purpose:

Today, the Ilulissat Declaration remains the modus vivendi for securing peace between the arctic states. The Ilulissat Declaration succeeded in moving the policy issue of arctic-sovereignty from a question of state security over to “normal politics” i.e. over to the part of politics that deals with law, environmental protection and geo-science.

Because of that, the aim of this article is to use the experiences from the said declaration to develop a set of recommendations that can be used to prevent future attempts to securitize parts of the Arctic region.

 

 

Background:

During the Cold War, the Arctic region became a key strategic military location and was subject to military build-up and securitization. There was some unsuccessful desecuritization attempts such as the nuclear weapon free-zone proposal from the former Prime Minister Odvar Nordli in 1980.

Seven years later former President Mikhail Gorbachev held his famous Murmansk speech suggesting a demilitarization of the area. This speech was later sought as a desecuritization act paving the way for “normal politics”.

 

The Making of the Ilulissat Declaration:

One of the biggest contributors to the likelihood of a securitization was the infamous underwater planting of the Russian flag on the North Pole in 2007.

The Russian-flag incident exemplifies the dangers of having countries claiming sovereignty over the Arctic.

Because of this development, the former Danish Foreign Minister, Per Stig Møller invited the ”Arctic 5” (Canada, USA, Russia, Norway and Denmark) to a meeting in Ilulissat to discuss the potential conflict scenarios in the Arctic.

 

The meeting later resulted in a declaration that created a legal framework for navigating between sovereignty rights, environmental protection, freedom of navigation and so on.

 

The rationale behind the Ilulissat declaration:

The Ilulissat Declaration from 2008 was signed by the Arctic five and can be seen as a pre-emptive desecuritization act as a response to the increasing militarization of the Arctic region. The Arctic five agreed to prevent a securitized Arctic scenario and to deal with future issues of sovereignty/maritime safety in a normal political manner.

This would be done by cooperating when it comes to the allocation of sovereign rights in the Arctic Ocean. The said declaration’s aim was to emphasize that science and international law should determine the delineation of the Arctic Ocean, not to highlight an arms race and great power competition.

The Current Situation:

Today, there is still a global interest in the region, which has been increased over the past couple of years due to climate change. Climate change means easier access to the region and new shipping lanes can be opened and there has been a rising interest in economic exploitation of different resources such as oil and gas that exists in the Arctic underground.

Several countries have arctic strategies and renewed their military capabilities. This has caused new controversies and challenges for a possible re-emergence of a securitization of the Arctic region.

 

Please go to part II of this article to read about the four recommendations on how to use the Ilulissat Declaration as inspiration to desecuritize future policy issues in the Arctic region.

 

The United States needs a new strategy. No one seems to be aware as to what its foreign policy objectives are, not even Washington policymakers themselves. As with any other country, it’s foreign policy is shaped by the geography the country faces, and, as a result, will follow a pretty predictable pattern in order to ensure it survival. The United States is no exception.

So, what are the geopolitics of the United States? What geographic obstacles does the country face? Well, in order to understand that question, one must examine the geography of the United States.

The United States is geographically blessed; every other world leader undoubtedly prays to god every night before going to bed asking God why their countries are not as geographically blessed as the United States. The United States lies between two massive oceans, offering the United States unobstructed access to the World’s markets.

This is good as it allows the United States to diversify its trading markets, thus making it more immune to global financial crises. In landlocked countries, trade is largely limited with their neighboring nations, and so, when their neighbors suffer economic decline, they have little choice but to suffer economic decline as well. The United States is not limited by this. While Europe may be on the decline, the United States, through its ports on the Pacific Ocean, can just change its economic focus to Asia, which is currently having an economic boom.

A second benefit to this is that it is virtually impossible to invade the United States, due to the sheer size of both the oceans. By the time any naval armada sails, the United States is fully prepared to withstand a naval assault. The only way to invade the United States is via Alaska, either along through the Aleutian Islands (which is what the Japanese did during WW2) or the Bering Strait.

This makes the United States a sea power rather than the land power, although the United States acts like a land power in many respects. As for its naval strength, the Pacific Ocean is more important to the United States to defend its heartland. This is due to the fact that the Pacific Ocean contains a series of small islets that can use as island hopping and making its way to the shore of the United States. That makes for the first geopolitical objectives of the United States: Maintaining dominance in the Pacific Ocean. To that end the rise of China has posed a direct threat to the security of the United States.

In terms of naval power, the United States can divide its naval forces into ten major fleets. Two fleets along the Atlantic Coast to guard the eastern Shore, one in Norfolk to guard the Mid-Atlantic Shore and Washington D.C, and again in Philadelphia to guard the North Atlantic and its urban core. One fleet in Key West to guard the Caribbean and Southern Coast of the United States. One fleet in Alameda to guard the West Coast of the United States. This leaves Four fleets to safeguard the Pacific Ocean: One docked in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, one docked in Guam, one docked in Okinawa, and one docked in American Samoa.

But that leaves two fleets missing out of ten. Where are the other two fleets? Well, these two fleets are part of other geopolitical interests of the United States.

The first concerns Islamic terrorism. One of the major geopolitical security issues that the United States has is to combat global Islamic terrorism, following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The United States must maintain an eye on terrorist activity to make sure they do not attack the United States again. Now, foreign armies cannot defeat insurgent armies, as insurgencies are by their nature local. The United States can only intervene if the terrorists hold territory. Currently, Islamic terrorists openly control territory in Syria, Yemen, and Somalia.

Due to the containment of Al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists in Syria, I will exclude Syria from this and mention Yemen and Somalia, where the power vacuum and civil wars there have pledged the country into anarchy, letting Al-Qaeda and other groups fill in the vacuum. These two countries border the Gulf of Aden, in between the Red Sea and the Arabian Sea. This is a vital shipping lane, and as a sea power, one of the geopolitical issues of the United States is to enforce the global shipping lanes. So a fleet will have to be docked in the area to prevent Islamic terrorists from taking over the Gulf of Aden. Currently, there is a nearby fleet in Bahrain, but that will have to be moved to Djibouti, Djibouti is a more fitting place, as it currently sits at the base of the Gulf of Aden.

Now, the United States cannot do anything militarily in Yemen or Somalia to dislodge the terrorists group from the territory they control until the central governments of Yemen (Houthis, Southern Separatists, central government) and Somalia (Warring Clans, Somaliland separatists, Puntland separatists) to unite and for a new stable government that will not collapse take form in both countries. Only then will the situation on the ground be stable enough for the United States military to take out Al-Qaeda on the ground and retake all their territory. But once the territory has been retaken, the United States military must leave, otherwise they will end up doing more harm than good. So, the fleet will just be there as a mainly observing and escort fleet, but a United States fleet is still necessarily there at the moment, nonetheless.

The 10th fleet concerns the Arctic Ocean. Recent melting sea ice has opened a window into the arctic ocean that the Russians have capitalized on. The Arctic Ocean has always been the Achilles heel of naval strategy for the United States, as the ice meant that policymakers have afforded the luxury of ignoring the Arctic Ocean. But now by ignoring Climate Change, the United States has given the Arctic Ocean to the Russians.

The reason why this is so important can be shown by civilian flight map patterns. Flights from the Eastern United States to Asia have always flown over the Arctic Ocean as it is the shortest flight route. Should war break out between Russia and the United States, the Russians, through their two Arctic sea ports of Murmansk and Arkhangelsk, can cross the Arctic Ocean, land on the northern shores of Alaska and Canada, and thrust deep into the United States before the  Pentagon had the chance to respond.

Now, this is where the geography of the United States also comes into play as Alaska and Canada serves as buffer zones to protect the heartland of the United States. Due to the large vastness of the area, any invading army coming in from the Arctic would be bogged down due to the tundra and taiga biome. However, the Arctic Ocean still acts as America’s soft underbelly, as a Russian Arctic Fleet could sail down to the North Atlantic and cut off the supply lines between Europe and the United States. The United States, now more than ever, needs an Arctic fleet.

What is even worse for the United States is that the United States only has one Arctic port, Barrow, AK (Utqiagvik by its indigenous Inuit name, and has recently been renamed to such, but  I refer to it as Barrow for simplicity’s sake) and it is not big enough to host an Arctic Fleet. On top of that, there are no roads linking Barrow to the outside world, the closest road is part of the Pan-American Highway and links to the oil fields at Prudhoe Bay. The only way in and out of Barrow is through air.

There is only one port in Alaska big enough to host an Arctic fleet: Anchorage. And Anchorage is on the other side of Alaska from the Arctic. Nonetheless, that is where the Arctic Fleet sill be docked.

Aside from naval strength, there is another geographic advantage to the United States. Should the United States ever be invaded from the coast, both coasts are protected by two mountain ranges; the Appalachian Mountain Range and the Pacific Mountain Range. These two mountain ranges bog down any invading army.

This means that the United States will, by and large, never fight a war on it’s own soil into the future, and all of its wars that the United States has fought since the Spanish – American War have been on foreign soil. So, that leaves one question: What foreign countries/ foreign continents concern the security of the United States?

While oceans may give the appearance of buffer zones, more often than not, they act as unofficial border extensions. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the history of United States – European relations. Every major European Continental War has dragged into it the United States, in one form or another. This brings to it another geopolitical objectives of the United States: Keeping Europe at peace.

Aside from Europe, the two countries that border the United States also pose a strategic threat to the United States, as they can invade the flat terrain of the American heartland and render American defenses useless. To deal with this potential threat, the United States must treat each bordering country different.

To the north lies Canada, a country that is incapable of being geopolitically independent. Canada has too inland of ports, and is too far north to be a major port of global commercial interest, and so has to rely on a foreign power, and has little choice, except the United States, as the United States completely envelopes Canada, and 90% of Canada’s population lives within 100 miles of the United States border. However, this is no guarantee that Canada will remain under United States influence. When Canada was under British influence, the border with the United States was a source of tension and conflict. This brings up another geopolitical objective of the United States: Maintain influence over Canada.

To the South lies Mexico. Unlike Canada, Mexico has the capability to maintain geo-political independence. The United States therefore has little to no capability to exert geo-political influence over Mexico. This makes the border with Mexico one of the great sources of turmoil, as Mexico has a long history of political instability that, like Europe, the United States has a long history of getting dragged into, whether it wants to or not.

While the United States has strong leverage in negotiating when it comes to affairs between countries, it has little when it comes to civil wars. That includes Mexico, whose internal distress makes the United States – Mexico a frequent source of lawlessness. That brings up another geopolitical objective of the United States: Secure the Border with Mexico. To that end, Donald Trump’s Wall is nothing new in United States foreign policy objectives, fortifying the Mexican Border has been a United States foreign policy objective since the Mexican Revolution.

A third objective for the United States concerns the Caribbean. The Caribbean hosts one of the largest shipping lanes on the planet, due in large part to the Panama Canal. The Caribbean also contains a series of islands that stand right in the middle of the shipping route.  If the Caribbean ever fell under an anti-American alliance, a full naval blockade can be implemented, and cut major US shipping from the Panama Canal, resulting a major plummet in the United States economy. This brings up another geopolitical objective of the United States: Maintain hegemony in the Caribbean.

There are two other elements about geopolitics, both concern internal dynamics of a country. One of the elements concerns navigable rivers, natural resources, and agricultural capacity.

Fortunately for the United States, the geography of the country also blesses it in this regard. The United States has a strong abundance of navigable rivers, particularly in the Middle of the country, with all of the rivers converging into the Mississippi River, coming down to the Gulf of Mexico, with New Orleans serving as its mouth. This brings up another geopolitical objective of the United States: maintaining control over the mouth of the Mississippi River.

Natural resources are also plentiful in the United States, with large amounts of coal, oil, natural gas, iron, gold, and silver, they can keep their economy afloat, so long as the country does not fall into the trap of the resource curse.

The United States is also equally blessed with agriculture, having more arable land than any other country. This has enabled the United States to produce vast amounts of corn, wheat, and soybeans, among others. Due to the large abundance of navigable rivers, vast amounts of arable land, a high percentage of natural resources, oceans providing access to the world markets, and mountain ranges protecting the interior, the United States became a world power with little effort, and can afford to rest easy.

Another element to geopolitics concerns how the geography and demographics of any particular country affect how the country spends its national budget on both military services as well as peacetime services. Discussed before was the navy, but there are still other military branches.

The main overall theme is that due to the may geographic fortunes that benefit the United States, the United States does not need to spend much money on its armed forces. While the navy is still a major part of the United States defenses, unless countries like the Philippines and Indonesia, the United States does not have a large amount of islands and archipelagos to patrol with a large fleet.

Also, due to its buffering by oceans, the United States does not need a large standing army. The only land rival to the United States is Mexico, and the geopolitics of Mexico do not clash with the geopolitics of the United States, so there has been little reason for the United States to consider Mexico a threat. Only real purpose of the army would be to guard the coasts of the United States from any invasions.

The oceans serving as buffer zones also means that the United States has little need for overseas military bases, especially as the nature of counterinsurgency warfare and counter-terrorism warfare means that these bases often do more harm than good.

Now, it is true that the United States is a member of NATO, but the truth is that ever since the fall of the Warsaw Pact in 1989, NATO has had little to no purpose, and Donald Trump’s calls for other NATO members to fit the bill in military budgets only prove that sooner or later, a post NATO- world will come. The most probable outcome is a Pan-European block to combat Russian influence, while the United States and Canada join Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, of which the United States is treaty bound to defend in case of attack, in a Pan-Pacific block to combat China, alongside Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Singapore, India, and Vietnam.

The breaking up of NATO into two separate alliance blocks may cause conflict in the North Atlantic Ocean, most notably the issue of Greenland, as the United States considers North America, of which Greenland is a part of, to be within its sphere of influence. To that end, Donald Trump’s recent comments about purchasing Greenland from Denmark are not that far-fetched, as the United States purchased Louisiana from France in 1803, Alaska from Russia in 1867, and the Virgin Islands from Denmark in 1917. However, the joint American – European concern over the Russian militarization of the Arctic Ocean, the inhospitable climate of Greenland, and its geographic location means that it is not a major strategic concern for the United States at the moment.

While the army is not a big concern for the United States, the air force is. Due to the vast size of the United States including both land and maritime air space, the United States needs a large air force to fully patrol the skies.

This brings up another element concerning the deployment of the United States armed forces. Because of the geographic isolation, it takes several months for the United States to mobilize its military and deploy them to the battlefield. For many other countries, it only takes hours. Now, such is the way of the United States, and thus, little can be done on that front. The United States can fix this problem by having an offensive military approach, but that can overextend supply lines and prove really unpopular. But it brings up another geopolitical objective of the United States: Compensate for the long period of mobilization.

As for internal security, the United States also enjoys great leisure. Unlike other countries, such as Russia, China, Iran, or most African countries, the United States has no ethnic minorities with separatist intentions, due in large part to the lack of national identity. As there is no such thing as an ethnic American, ethnic tensions are relatively uncommon, and following the US – Indian peace treaty of 1924, in which the United States government gave full rights and full citizenship to the Indigenous tribes of the United States, the chance of an Indigenous separatist movement is virtually non-existent. But it does bring up another geopolitical objectives of the United States: Maintaining demographic stability.

As for political insurgency, the United States does have political insurgents, but no more than any other country has. Therefore, there is nothing unique on this front pertaining to the geopolitical situation of the United States.

The large gap between the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean brings up another geopolitical objective for the United States: Maintaining a sophisticated infastruce network. The United States must have the ability to quickly move troops from one part of the country to another in case of an attack.

So, the geopolitics of the United States centers around these objectives:

-Maintaining dominance in the Pacific Ocean

-Combat global Islamic terrorism

-Enforce the global shipping lanes

-Combat climate change

-Maintaining dominance in the Arctic

-Keeping Europe at peace

-Maintain influence over Canada

-Secure the Border with Mexico

-Maintain hegemony in the Caribbean

-Maintaining control over the mouth of the Mississippi River

-Compensate for the long period of mobilization

-Maintaining demographic stability

-Maintaining a sophisticated infrastructure network

And a United States foreign policy must center around these basic geopolitics.

“The position of the United Nations on this region (Kashmir) is governed by the Charter of the United Nations and applicable Security Council resolutions.” Mr. Antonio Guterres, the Secretary General of the United Nations, August 8, 2019.

India, disregarding what Secretary General said and ignoring all norms of international law and the United Nations Security Council resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir abrogated Articles 370 and 35A of the Indian constitution and thereby bringing a constitutional end to the special status of the State.

We believe that abrogation of article 370 and 35 A is an act of aggression and assault on the rights of the people of the State.  Such attempts are in open contravention of UN resolution #122 adopted on January 24, 1957; # 123 adopted on February 21, 1957 and # 126 adopted on December 2, 1957. These resolutions prohibit any unilateral action to change the disputed nature of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

It is to be noted that the United Nations Security Council Resolution # 122 “declares that the convening of a constituent assembly as recommended by the General council of the ‘All Jammu and Kashmir National Conference’ and any action that assembly may have taken or might attempt to take to determine the future shape and affiliation of the entire State or any part thereof, or any action by the parties concerned in support of any such action by the assembly, would not constitute a disposition of the State in accordance with the above principle.”

Today, Kashmir is in turmoil. The government of India has imposed curfew, banned all public meetings and placed the Kashmiri leadership under house arrest. All educational institutions have been closed.  Internet services snapped and all university examinations postponed. Barricades have been erected on all entry and exit points in Srinagar and other cities.

“Imagine for a moment that nearly all residents of the US state of Virginia — population roughly 8.5 million — were blocked from communicating with each other or the outside world. Imagine that their movements within their neighborhoods were highly restricted due to military-enforced curfews and checkpoints. And imagine they could not access reliable information because, due to the clampdown, journalists were largely prevented from reporting or publishing the news. This may sound like the plot of a dystopian novel, but it is almost exactly what’s happening in the Indian-administered Kashmir Valley right now.” CNN – Opinion, August 15, 2019.

It must be mentioned here that India presents a wholly false picture of the situation in Kashmir. One instance is revealing. When the whole world knows that Kashmir is caged and it is literally under siege, Rohit Kansal, the Principal Secretary of Jammu & Kashmir Government said that it was very peaceful in Kashmir. The irresponsibility of this kind of disinformation is borne out by the fact, reported in The New York Times, dated August 10, 2019, that, “Inside Kashmir, Cut Off From the World: ‘A Living Hell of Anger and Fear.” Amnesty International tweeted that “The unilateral decision by Government of India to revoke Jammu & Kashmir’s special status without consulting J&K stakeholders, amidst a clampdown on civil liberties & communications blackout is likely to increase the risk of further human rights violations & inflame tensions.”

In the context of preventive diplomacy to find a peaceful solution of Kashmir problem, President Donald J. Trump expressed his readiness to extend every possible help to facilitate a search for a lasting solution to the “hot hot tinder box of Kashmir.” As was expected, India virtually rejected this offer. Indian foreign minister responded that they would like to resolve Kashmir dispute under Simla Agreement. The Indian contention that the conflict would be settled under Simla Agreement is designed to negate the jurisdiction of the United Nations over the dispute, on the one hand, and, on the other, to eliminate the party most directly concerned, i.e., the people of Kashmir.

The statement of the Secretary General made it abundantly clear that Simla Agreement does not and cannot supersede the UN resolutions. “The Secretary-General also recalls the 1972 Agreement on bilateral relations between India and Pakistan, also known as the Simla Agreement, which states that the final status of Jammu and Kashmir is to be settled by peaceful means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.”

Kashmir is one of the oldest unresolved conflicts on the agenda of the UN to which the Security Council devoted scores of meetings and on which it adopted more than a dozen substantive resolutions. Mere passage of time or the flight from realities, which is characteristic of Indian leadership, cannot alter this reality. The mere fact that the Security Council debated the Kashmir issue on August 16, 2019 for the first time within the past 50 years nullifies the India’s contention that Kashmir is its internal matter.

The Security Council meeting on ‘the situation in Kashmir’, held on August 16, 2019 was a closed-door meeting. However, Chinese Ambassador briefed the press soon after the Council meeting that, “The Kashmir issue should be resolved properly through peaceful means in accordance with the UN charter, the relevant Security Council resolutions, and bilateral agreements.” The Ambassador emphasized, “This represents the international community’s consensus.” He added that “China is deeply concerned about the current situation and opposes any unilateral action that complicates the situation and we call upon the relevant parties to exercise restraint.” What happened at the Security Council was also articulated by Abhishek Manu Singhvi. Mr. Singhvi is not only the leader of Indian National Congress; he is also the Spokesman of Indian National Congress. He said, I quote: “the United Nations Security Council meeting on Kashmir was a big diplomatic and strategic failure of the BJP government.”

Therefore, as an instance of impartial and humane opinion on the issue, we submit to the Secretary General of the United Nations – the custodian of human rights — the following:

First, we are thankful to the President of the United Nations Security Council for bringing this matter to the attention of the Council. The members of the Council undoubtedly knew that leaving the problem unattended could lead to serious consequences not only in Subcontinent but also beyond.

Second, the Secretary General could appoint his special envoy, a person of an international standing, like Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland and former UN High Commissioner on Human Rights or Kjell Magne Bondevik, former Prime Minister of Norway. Such an envoy could visit India & Pakistan and both sides of the Ceasefire Line in Jammu & Kashmir, assess the situation, and explore various possibilities of plan of action to set a stage for the settlement of the Kashmir dispute to the satisfaction of all parties concerned.

Third, special envoy could urge Government of India to pull out bulk of its 750,000 military and paramilitary forces from Kashmir to pave the way for normalcy in Kashmir.

Fourth the envoy could also impress upon the Government of India that the following measure are essential to create an atmosphere that is conducive for a dialogue:

1. An immediate and complete cessation of military action against the people of Kashmir;
2. The complete withdrawal of India’s military presence from Kashmiri towns and villages;

iii.            The restoration of the rights of peaceful association, assembly and demonstration;

1. The unconditional release of all those imprisoned in connection with resistance and during the past two weeks of undeclared curfew;
2. The encouragement by the Governments of India and Pakistan of a dialogue with the accredited leadership of the people of the State of Jammu & Kashmir to facilitate proposals for the final settlement of the dispute.

(Dr. Fai is the Secretary General, World Kashmir Awareness Forum.

He can be reached at:  gnfai2003@yahoo.com )

Introduction

A few days before the G7 summit to be held in Biarritz from 24 to 26 August 2019, French President Emmanuel Macron is meeting his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in Brégançon, in the South of France, on 19 August. The two leaders are expected to address key issues such as the war in Ukraine, which in 2014 led to Russia’s exclusion from the G8.

A ” Frozen Conflict “

Since the beginning of the conflict five years ago, the Donbass War has claimed more than 10,000 lives, figures that have been reported by several sources but are difficult to confirm. Despite a final ceasefire agreement signed in Minsk in February 2015, clashes between pro-Russian separatists and the Ukrainian army in the east of the country still persist.

“We are in a situation where we continue to have a certain number of deaths on a regular basis,” says Florent Parmentier, professor at Sciences Po, a French famous school, and researcher at HEC. This statement echoes the four soldiers killed on August 6 during a new attack between separatists and Ukrainians.

This was confirmed by Loup Bureau, a documentary filmmaker who has been visiting the Donbass regularly for three years and who films the fighting on the Ukrainian side: “The resources deployed in this conflict are enormous. When there are one or two deaths, it means that the fighting has been very violent. That is why it is misleading to talk about a frozen conflict.

Hope of Peace ?

Florent Parmentier has observed a radical change in Ukrainian politics since the election of the new President Volodymyr Zelensky on 21 April 2019. “His position is quite different from that of Petro Poroshenko (former Ukrainian President). Volodymyr Zelensky really considers a perspective of peace in the Donbass.

Loup Bureau is not so optimistic, “Zelensky called Putin several times for peace agreements, a de-escalation zone has been set up where the two armies have withdrawn, but it remains anecdotal in relation to the front zone. »

Opinions also differ on the spot. “Ukrainians are divided between reaching peace agreements to end this war, which has been going on for more than 5 years and has claimed many victims, and others want the Ukrainian army to launch an offensive to reclaim Russian territories, but for that they are in a very bad position,” says Loup Bureau.

For these two specialists, no prospect of peace is possible without Russia’s agreement. “It is Russia that is in charge of the entire Donbass conflict. Having been on the field, it is never the Ukrainians who open fire. They’re just answering. Russia can choose whether or not to end the conflict,” says Loup Bureau.

But these new prospects for peace could also be beneficial to Russia, which seems open to negotiations, as Florent Parmentier explains. “This conflict has a cost and the Russians are starting to get economically tired. Especially since a number of demonstrations are currently taking place in Russia, mainly for economic reasons. For Putin, it is better to have an unsatisfactory peace than a good war.

But Florent Parmentier concedes it: Donbass is above all a strategic place for Russia, “an opportunity to get closer to Europeans while retaining influence in Ukraine. The idea is to say to ourselves that if we[Russia] want to continue to have an influence in Ukraine, we must allow Donbass to reintegrate Ukraine, so as to control the whole political process.

A ” Normandy ” Summit ?

“Putin uses Ukraine as a buffer zone with us Europeans,” says Loup Bureau. “It is a way for him to put pressure on Ukraine to prevent it from joining the European Union and NATO”, a project to which the country aspires.

Emmanuel Macron hoped on Monday that the conditions would be met quickly to organise “in the coming weeks” a summit in “Normandy” format (France, Russia, Ukraine and Germany) in order to resolve the conflict in eastern Ukraine.

“President Putin has had several exchanges with him in recent weeks, it is an opportunity for us to revisit this situation, to be able to exchange and to be able to prepare future meetings. In close collaboration with President Zelenski and Chancellor Merkel, we will have to consider the opportunity – which is my wish – for a new summit in Normandy format in the coming weeks if we can configure the way forward,” he added to the press next to his counterpart.

Some 13,000 people have been killed since spring 2014 in the conflict in eastern Ukraine between Ukrainian forces and pro-Russian separatist fighters.

Concluded in 2015 to resolve the conflict between Kiev and Moscow, the Minsk agreements have largely remained a dead letter despite efforts by Berlin and Paris.

The attack

A military base 70 km south of Mogadishu was attacked on 14th of august by Shebab Islamist fighters, who blew up car bombs and opened fire on the soldiers, AFP learned from military sources.

“After the explosions, they tried to break through our lines, but we pushed them back. We have pushed them back and we are pursuing them. Several soldiers were slightly wounded by shrapnel,” General Yusuf Rageh told reporters. A radio journalist integrated into the troops was killed in the attack, according to the Federation of Somali Journalists. Gacal Abdulle Gacal, 23, is the third journalist killed this year in Somalia, she said, calling for an investigation into the circumstances of his death.

The Shebab claimed to have “killed many soldiers” in this attack, which occurred in Awdheegle, a town that was taken from the Islamists last week by Somali security forces and soldiers of the African Union force in Somalia (Amisom). “A first explosion reached the main entrance of the base, followed a few minutes later by a second explosion. The blasts were deafening,” a witness, Muktar Dinle, told AFP by telephone. Another resident of the area, Mohamed Isak, said the shooting that followed the explosions lasted more than an hour. “We are locked in our homes, we don’t know exactly who controls what in the city,” he added.

Chased out of Mogadishu in 2011, the Shebab then lost most of their strongholds. But they still control large rural areas from where they conduct guerrilla operations and suicide attacks, including in the capital, against government, security or civilian objectives. They swore the loss of the Somali government, supported by the international community and by the 20,000 men of Amisom.

the intensification of joint operations

The African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) and the Somali security forces will intensify their joint military operations in order to free the areas still in the hands of the terrorist group al-Shebab, an AU high-level envoy said Monday evening.

Francisco Madeira, head of ANISOM, made these remarks at an Eid el-Adha (or Eid el-Kebir) dinner organized for the Muslim community in Mogadishu. He stressed the importance of providing troops for the security of Somalia, adding that the country needs well-trained forces to be able to control the liberated territories.

The determination of AMISOM and the Somali Government to defeat the al-Shebab group remains unwavering, he noted.

On this occasion, he welcomed the recent liberation of Awdheegle, a city rich in agriculture located 70 km west of Mogadishu. Awdheegle had been a base for years where shebab people had gathered to plan and launch their operations.

He also commended the Somali government for considering the provision of troops as a priority, stressing that it is the Somali National Army (SNA) battalions that maintain order in the liberated territories.suo

He added that AMISOM would continue to support the strengthening of the Somali security forces following the recent success of joint military operations.

The game of the US

The American president confirmed that he had approved the sale of F-16s to Taiwan. He noted that the agreement still needs to be approved by Congress.

“They will use them in a very responsible way,” added Donald Trump. He also said the $8 billion agreement would support job creation in the United States. “It’s a lot of money and a lot of jobs.”

This would involve 66 aircraft destined for Taiwan. The sale could anger China and exacerbate the tensions already underway between the two largest global economies.

How Taiwan brillantly handled the trade war

Besides, Beijin must be upset that the trade war benefits some. Indeed, Taiwan is expected to lead the four countries known as the Asian dragons this year. The announcement comes from the Taiwanese government itself, which expects growth of 2.5% this year. This figure should enable it to beat South Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong, which are facing an economic slowdown.

The small country is benefiting in particular from the return of certain sectors of activity, pushed out of China by the taxes imposed on Beijing by Washington. The Taiwanese government has redoubled its efforts to benefit from the international context. The government launched a programme to encourage Taiwanese companies with production facilities in China to invest in Taiwan. With some success.

Since the beginning of the programme, some 100 companies have responded to the call: $16 billion of investment on the national territory is on the table for a total of some 43,000 job creations, according to the Ministry of Economy cited by Bloomberg.

This is enough to raise Taipei’s hopes, which now expects growth of 2.58% for 2020 and a rebound in its exports to 3.58%, compared to a decline of 1.24% estimated for this year. This is despite China’s measures to restrict the number of Chinese tourists travelling to the nationalist island.

The complex relation with Honk Kong

Ma Xiaoguang, spokesman for the Taiwan Bureau of Affairs of the State Council of State Affairs, warned on Monday the administration of the Taiwan Progressive Democratic Party (PDP) to stop interfering in Hong Kong’s affairs and stop its connivance with criminals.

Mr. Ma made these remarks in response to a question on the PDP’s statement on the recent actions of Tsai Ing-wen and the relevant departments trying to assist some Hong Kong residents in their visit to Taiwan on behalf of “humanitarian aid”.

He called on the PDP administration to stop undermining the rule of law in Hong Kong.

“By turning a blind eye to the facts and confusing good with evil, the PDP administration has not only helped to hide the crimes of a small number of violent radicals in Hong Kong, to encourage their acts of smearing Hong Kong, but has also announced their protection,” said Mr. Ma. “Such acts will make Taiwan a’haven for criminals’.”

ROME (Reuters) – Luigi Di Maio, head of the ruling 5-Star Movement, signaled the imminent demise of Italy’s coalition government on Tuesday by thanking Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte for his time in office.

“Whatever happens, I wanted to tell you that it was an honor to work together in this government,” said Di Maio, who serves as deputy prime minister in the cabinet.

Conte is set to address parliament later on Tuesday to defend his record after the 5-Star’s coalition partner, the far-right League, said it would present a motion of no-confidence in the administration.

A parliamentary vote has not yet been scheduled and there is great uncertainty over how the political turmoil will end.

However, Conte is widely expected to resign later in the day, opening the way for President Sergio Mattarella to launch formal consultations with parties to see if a new coalition can be formed. Failing that he will dissolve parliament.

League leader Matteo Salvini has demanded early elections, 3-1/2 years ahead of schedule, confident that his surging popularity in the opinion polls will sweep him into power and push the anti-establishment 5-Star into opposition.

Di Maio said 5-Star lawmakers would stand by Conte, who is a law professor with no political affiliation. “Each of us knows that we are on the right side of history,” Di Maio said in a post on Facebook.

“The League will have to answer for its wrong decision to bring everything down, opening a government crisis in the middle of August … just to chase the polls,” he added.

Political sources told Reuters on Monday that Italy’s opposition Democratic Party has held “good”, initial contacts with 5-Star over the possibility of forging a new coalition.

This article was published on the website Reuters here’s the link : https://www.reuters.com/article/us-italy-politics/italys-di-maio-signals-imminent-end-of-government-thanks-conte-idUSKCN1VA0TE

urkey has defied warnings from Russia, Iran and their local allies in Syria by seeking a deal with the United States and continuing to support insurgents as they clashed with government forces in the restive northwestern province of Idlib.

A demilitarized zone deal struck nearly a year ago by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Russian President Vladimir Putin sought to stave off a Syrian military advance against Idlib, a jihadi-dominated area also populated by up to two million civilians and scores of various rebel groups. But violence has flared here in recent weeks, further inflating the death toll of an eight-year civil war. As the fighting worsened, a Turkish convoy defied Syrian warnings and crossed the border before being hit by an airstrike that “caused three civilians to lose their lives and left 12 civilians wounded,” according to the Turkish Defense Ministry.

“We strongly condemn this attack which contradicts the existing agreements, cooperation and dialogue with the Russian Federation. Without prejudice to our rights to self-defence, we expect the necessary measures to be taken to prevent recurrence of such incidents,” the ministry said in a statement, arguing that Moscow had been informed prior to the convoy’s departure.

The Syrian Foreign Ministry, however, claimed in an earlier statement Monday that the convoy was “loaded with ammunition and weapons” intended “to help the defeated terrorists of the Nusra Front,” an al-Qaeda affiliate now known as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, in the recently government-reclaimed city of Khan Sheikhoun. The ministry said it “holds the Turkish regime fully responsible for the repercussions of this flagrant violation of the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic”—which Russia has supported politically since the conflict began in 2011 and through direct military intervention since 2015.

Turkey played an early role in the unrest that threatened Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, backing a largely Arab Sunni Muslim rebellion against the leader who stood accused of war crimes by the U.S. and a number of its regional allies. Iran, a close ally of Assad, began to mobilize regional, largely Shiite Muslim paramilitaries tasked with bolstering the embattled Syrian military.

The dynamics of the conflict were greatly shifted with Russia’s entrance, compelling Turkey to join in trilateral talks with the two Assad allies as an increasingly Islamist opposition lost territory and international support from the U.S. and its regional allies. Around this same period, the Pentagon officially allied with a mostly Kurdish group known as the Syrian Democratic Forces. This organization is opposed by Turkey due to their close ties to the banned Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK).

With the Islamist State militant group (ISIS) largely defeated thanks to rival Syrian pro-government and U.S.-led coalition campaigns, the competing geopolitical interests of Syria’s international actors have especially come to dominate the war in Syria. Ankara has often found itself in the middle of Washington and Moscow’s competing visions for the country, while at the same time trying to advance its own interests.

Erdogan’s deal with Putin last year managed to temporarily halt a planned Syrian attack on Idlib, an operation that President Donald Trump threatened to halt by force, but continued militant activity within demilitarized areas and Syrian and Russian airstrikes on the province have slowly eroded hopes for a more permanent peace there. Some anti-government groups have also attempted to attack the Russia-administered Hamaymim airbase in Latakia from Idlib and Putin said Monday that he and his administration “support Syrian army efforts to carry out local operations to neutralize these terrorist threats.”

“I would like to remind you that no one ever talked about terrorists having an opportunity to concentrate in the Idlib zone and to feel comfortable operating there,” Putin said after receiving French President Emmanuel Macron in Moscow. “On the contrary, it was stressed that the fight against terrorists would continue.”

Elsewhere in northern Syria, Turkey was also struggling to assert itself in the face of another major power, the United States. Rebels once supported by the CIA and now sponsored by Turkey have occasionally clashed with the Pentagon-backed Syrian Democratic Forces, which were expelled early last year from the northern Aleppo district of Afrin and have faced attacks in the northeast as well, where U.S. troops operated.RELATED STORIES

Trump announced his plans to withdraw from the country in December, but ongoing fears about a clash between Turkey and Kurdish forces have left Washington and Ankara struggling to come up with a deal. Earlier this month, shortly after U.S.-Turkey ties took a major blow due to the latter’s decision to go through with a purchase of Russia’s S-400 surface-to-air missile systems, Defense Secretary Mark Esper traveled to Ankara in an attempt to establish a plan for so-called “safe zones” in northern Syria

This article was originally found on the website NewsWeek here’s the link : https://www.newsweek.com/turkey-russia-tensions-syria-deal-us-1455135