#Indo-Pacific-diplomacy

[kesarijournal]

Unraveling the Diplomatic Intrigue: India, Australia, and the Khalistan Conundrum

In a world where geopolitical dynamics are as intricate as they are impactful, a recent series of high-level discussions between India and Australia have caught the eye of international observers. At the heart of these talks is a complex web involving the Khalistan movement, strained Indo-Canadian relations, and Australia’s role in this multifaceted narrative.#### The Delhi Dialogue: A…

[xtruss]

World: The West Isn't Buying Into China's Year of Diplomacy

Chinese President Xi Jinping at a press conference in Shaanxi, on May 19, 2023. A new poll indicates that the West does not believe that China is contributing to Global Security. Florence Lo/Pool/AFP Via Getty Images

Western nations increasingly see China as an interventionist power that is not improving global security, according to recent polling, as Beijing struggles to square its desired peacemaker image with the political realities of its expanding global influence.

The Pew Research Center conducted a 30,000-person survey across 24 nations between February and May and found that people living in European, North American and Indo-Pacific democracies are particularly wary of China's influence. The sentiment was less strong, though still present, among African and South American respondents.

A median of 71 percent of the 30,000 people polled felt that China does not contribute either much or at all to international peace and stability, versus 23 percent who felt China does. Americans (80 percent), Dutch (86 percent), British (80 percent), Germans (80 percent), and French (75 percent) were among those who felt most strongly that Beijing is a negative influence on global affairs.

Democratic Indo-Pacific nations emphatically agreed, with 87 percent of South Koreans, 85 percent of Australians, and 85 percent of Japanese feeling the same.

The list of nations—the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Argentina, Brazil, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Israel, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, Poland and South Africa, and Australia—is dominated by Western liberal democracies, with inherent ideological tensions likely somewhat explaining the negative views of Chinese foreign influence.

But only in Indonesia, Kenya and Nigeria did a majority of respondents say Beijing contributes either a fair amount or a great deal to international peace and stability.

Newsweek reached out to the Chinese Foreign Ministry via email for comment.

China—already considered by many an economic and technological superpower—is still shaping its military and diplomatic clout abroad. Major decades-long investment in the former is openly intended to eventually challenge American hegemony, but on the diplomatic battlefield, Beijing is following a less publicly combative path.

Among the salient diplomatic issues that have helped shape global opinions of China this year are one striking success and one ongoing failure.

The former was the landmark Iran-Saudi Arabia normalization deal signed in April, in which China unexpectedly brokered a détente few thought likely given the deep and historic animosity between the Middle East's power players.

But China's unconvincing neutrality regarding Russia's war on Ukraine has somewhat eroded global trust in Beijing, particularly among the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific nations rallying to Kyiv's cause. China's de facto backing for Russia has undermined its continued calls for peace and the anemic peace plan it proposed in March.

North vs. South

Larger issues involving China—among them the fate of Taiwan, the situation in the South China Sea, lingering frustrations about the pandemic, the brewing showdown with the U.S., human rights, and concerns about political interference—have "completely dwarfed" Beijing's diplomatic efforts, Andrew Small, a senior transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund, told Newsweek.

"Publics have evidently not seen either the Saudi-Iranian deal as particularly significant or the Chinese efforts on Ukraine as particularly credible," Small said.

Small noted Beijing will not necessarily be too concerned with continued Western skepticism.

"In one sense, the argument for what China has been trying to do on Ukraine and in some of these other efforts was positioning in the 'Global South,'" he said. "The view on their side had been that no one in Europe is going to take this seriously, but they are able to position themselves through this in the Global South as an actor that approaches these issues in a neutral way."

Russian President Vladimir Putin (R) and China's President Xi Jinping deliver a joint statement in Moscow, on March 21, 2023. China's de facto support of Russia's war on Ukraine has angered Western nations. Mikhail Tereshchenko/Sputnik/AFP Via Getty Images

But the poll's findings also suggest that Beijing's self-framing might not be playing out as it hoped. A median of 57 percent of those surveyed said they felt China interferes in other countries affairs either a fair amount or a great deal.

The sentiment was most notable in Europe, where a majority of national respondents excluding Hungarians agreed, as well as in North America. A majority of all those in Indo-Pacific nations apart from Indonesia saw Beijing as interventionist.

Even in the four of the six African and South American nations surveyed a majority said China intervened at least somewhat in other countries' affairs. Fifty percent of South Africans and 46 percent of Argentinians also agreed.

"It's such a mantra in Chinese foreign policy, so foundational in the way that they frame things that this is not what they do, and it is the antithesis of the Western approach," Small said.

Against this backdrop, Small added, it is "striking" to see so many nations feeling that China is indeed intervening abroad. The data suggests, he said, that the perception of Chinese anti-interventionism is being "shredded."

Recent months have seen a renewed China-U.S. effort to thaw chilly bilateral relations. In June, Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited Beijing to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping. And earlier this week, Blinken told CNN the U.S. wants to "put some stability into the relationship."

But the long-term disputes show no signs of easing. While visiting Tonga this week, Blinken hit out at what he called China's "increasingly problematic behavior" in the Indo-Pacific.

In Europe too, major nations are increasingly concerned about Chinese espionage and influence, even if leaders like French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz are still courting investment.

Worsening Euro-Atlantic ties with Beijing, Small said, might accelerate a brewing confrontation.

"To a certain extent, this will validate an analysis on the Chinese side that starts to write off the West," he said, and instead focus on a "winnable" public opinion battle in the developing world.

— Newsweek Magazine | By David Brennan | July 27th, 2023

[zvaigzdelasas]

With a history of short-term governments in Nepal’s 15 years of democratic progression, the current reconfiguration is no surprise, and it will be no surprise if the Maoists get back again with the Nepali Congress in months and years to come.

Power sharing, political discontent, ideological differences, underperformance, and pressure to restore Nepal to a Hindu state – a long list of reasons reportedly forced the Maoists to sever ties with the Nepali Congress. While the Nepali Congress expected the Maoist leader and current prime minister, Pushpa Kamal Dahal (also known by his nom de guerre, Prachanda) to leave the alliance, it did not expect an overnight turnaround. [...]

Dahal reportedly conveyed to the Nepali Congress chair, former Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba, that external pressure forced him to join hands with CPN-UML and form a new government.

If this assertion is true, China emerges as a plausible factor, given its historical inclination toward forging alliances with leftist parties in Nepal. This notion gains credence in light of China’s past efforts, such as its unsuccessful attempt in 2020 to mediate the conflict between Oli and Dahal.

On the other hand, India has enjoyed a comfortable working relationship with the Nepali Congress and the Maoists. Although Maoists were a challenging party for New Delhi to get along with when Dahal first gained the prime minister’s seat in 2008, the two have come a long way in working together. However, the CPN-UML has advocated closer ties with the northern neighbor China; Beijing suits both their ideological requirements and their ultra-nationalistic outlook – which is primarily anti-India. [...]

India faces challenges in aligning with the Left Alliance for two key reasons. First, the energy trade between Nepal and India has grown crucial over the past couple of years. However, India strictly purchases power generated through its own investments in Nepal, refusing any power produced with Chinese involvement. With the CPN-UML now in government, Nepal may seek alterations in this arrangement despite the benefits of power trade in reducing its trade deficit with India.

Second, India stands to lose the smooth cooperation it enjoyed with the recently dissolved Maoist-Congress coalition. During the dissolved government, the Nepali Congress held the Foreign Ministry, fostering a favorable equation for India. Just last month, Foreign Minister N.P. Saud visited India for the 9th Raisina Dialogue, engaging with top Indian officials, including his counterpart, S. Jaishankar.

As concerns arise for India regarding the Left Alliance, there is also potential for shifts in the partnership between Nepal and the United States, a significant development ally. Particularly, there may be a slowdown in the implementation of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) projects. Despite facing domestic and Chinese opposition, the Nepali Parliament finally approved a $500 million MCC grant from the United States in 2022, following a five-year delay.

China perceives the MCC as a component of the U.S.-led Indo-Pacific strategy, countering its BRI. Hence Beijing aims to increase Chinese loans and subsidies to Nepal to enhance its influence.

To conclude, the re-emergence of Nepal’s Left Alliance signals a shift in power dynamics, impacting domestic politics and regional geopolitics. With China’s influence growing, Nepal’s foreign policy may tilt further toward Beijing, challenging India’s interests. This shift poses challenges for India, particularly in trade and diplomatic relations, while also affecting Nepal’s partnerships with other key players like the United States.

[[The Author,] Dr. Rishi Gupta is the assistant director of the Asia Society Policy Institute, Delhi]

6 Mar 24

[simply-ivanka]

Trump Was Good for America’s Alliances

He pushed NATO to spend more on defense, expanded the Quad and facilitated the Abraham Accords.

By Alexander B. Gray Wall Street Journal April 3, 2024

Foreign-policy experts are predictably fretting over Donald Trump’s re-election campaign. They fear that the former president threatens the alliances and partnerships that have sustained global peace since 1945. Should Mr. Trump return to the White House, the thinking goes, he will be unconstrained by the guardrails that prevented him from torpedoing America’s alliances in his first term and will permanently damage both U.S. security and the international order.

This narrative concedes a point that undermines its premise: The U.S. alliance system didn’t crumble during Mr. Trump’s first term. On the contrary, the Trump administration strengthened relations with partners in the Indo-Pacific, Central and Eastern Europe and the Mideast. Anyone who believes that Mr. Trump was once bound by conventional wisdom but won’t be again—and will wreak havoc on the global order he ostensibly detests—hasn’t been paying attention.

To understand Mr. Trump’s record, recall what he inherited. The Obama administration’s disastrous “red line” in Syria, its ill-conceived Iranian nuclear deal, its failure to deter or respond adequately to Russia’s 2014 aggression against Ukraine, its toleration of Chinese malign activity in the South and East China seas, and its promise of a “new model of great-power relations” with Beijing had brought U.S. relations with allies and partners like Japan, Taiwan, Israel, the Gulf Arab states and much of Eastern Europe to a historic low point. Much of Mr. Trump’s tenure was spent not simply repairing those relationships but expanding them in innovative ways.

Mr. Trump appalled many foreign-policy veterans, who thought his rhetoric threatened the world order. In one sense, that fear was absurd: Nearly every American administration has publicly scolded North Atlantic Treaty Organization member countries for shirking their defense-spending commitments. Mr. Trump did likewise—and, perhaps unlike his predecessors, was seen as willing to take decisive action to secure change. Through public and private cajoling—also known as diplomacy—he secured a commitment from NATO members to beef up their contributions. From 2017 through 2021, nearly every signatory raised defense spending, contributing substantially to the alliance’s ability to respond to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

These efforts resulted in a significant redistribution of U.S. forces from legacy bases in Germany to facilities in Poland and the Baltic states, where they are far better positioned to deter Moscow. Along with NATO allies, Mr. Trump provided long-sought Javelin antitank missiles to Ukraine, imposed sanctions against malign Russian actors, and worked with partners to stop the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which would have increased European allies’ energy dependence on Russia. These weren’t the acts of a retrograde isolationist; they were the work of a pragmatist seeking novel solutions to 21st-century challenges.

The administration’s goal of strengthening America’s standing in the world bore fruit, including the Abraham Accords between Israel and several Arab states, a significant upgrade to the Quad alliance among the U.S., India, Australia and Japan, stronger diplomatic relations with Taiwan thanks to unprecedented cabinet-level visits and record arms sales, and an unexpected deal between Serbia and Kosovo.

At each step, Mr. Trump asked his staff to think of creative ways to resolve issues that had bedeviled their predecessors for decades. Doing the same things over and over and expecting different results rightly struck the president as insane.

After three years of press adulation over America’s supposed return to the world stage under President Biden, one might ask: What have Americans and the world gotten from a supposedly more alliance-friendly U.S. president? So far, a catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan, the failure of American deterrence in Ukraine, an Iranian nuclear breakout inching ever closer, and an accelerating Chinese threat toward Taiwan. Allies in the Mideast, Eastern Europe, and Asia have begun to chart their own course in the face of an uncertain U.S. trumpet.

The global foreign-policy elite is sowing needless fear around the world by willfully misrepresenting Mr. Trump’s first term and scare-mongering about a second. Should Mr. Trump return to the White House, there will doubtless be sighs of relief among officials in friendly capitals who remember his time in office. It isn’t difficult to understand why: Mr. Trump’s language may make diplomats uncomfortable, but his actions strike fear among those who matter most to American security: our adversaries.

Mr. Gray is a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council. He served as chief of staff of the White House National Security Council, 2019-21.

[beardedmrbean]

North Korea said a second attempt to put a spy satellite into orbit failed early Thursday, but the reclusive country vowed to launch another in the coming months.

The Malligyeong-1 reconnaissance satellite was mounted on a new type of carrier rocket called the Chollima-1 and launched from a station in North Pyongan province in the early morning hours, according to the state-run Korea Central News Agency (KCNA). The first and second stages "all flew normally, but failed due to an error in the emergency explosion system during the flight of the third stage," KCNA said in a statement.

North Korea's National Aerospace Development Administration is investigating the cause of the accident and plans to attempt a third launch in October, according to KCNA.

North Korea attempted to launch its first spy satellite on May 31, but it crashed into the West Sea after an "abnormal starting" of the second-stage engine, KCNA said at the time.

MORE: North Korea satellite launch fails, with another promised as 'soon as possible'

In 2018, North Korea claimed to have put a satellite into space but international analysts later said that wasn't true.

Thursday's second attempt coincided with joint military drills between South Korea and the United States, which North Korea has long denounced.

The U.S., South Korea and Japan all issued statements "strongly" condemning North Korea's use of ballistic missile technology for its launch, which despite its failure they said is in violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions. The three allies also reaffirmed their commitment to work closely together to achieve "complete denuclearization" of North Korea in line with the U.N. Security Council resolutions.

"This space launch involved technologies that are directly related to the DPRK intercontinental ballistic missile program," Adrienne Watson, spokesperson for the U.S. National Security Council, said in a statement, using the acronym for North Korea's official name. "The President’s national security team is assessing the situation in close coordination with our allies and partners."

"The door has not closed on diplomacy but Pyongyang must immediately cease its provocative actions and instead choose engagement," Watson added. "The United States will take all necessary measures to ensure the security of the American homeland and the defense of our Republic of Korea and Japanese allies."MORE: US, Japan and South Korea's leaders hold historic meeting as threats from China, North Korea loom large

The incident was assessed as not posting "an immediate threat to U.S. personnel, territory, or that of our allies," according to a statement from the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, which noted that it would "continue to monitor the situation."

South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff said in a statement the military "was prepared in advance through identifying signs of an imminent launch."

The office for Japanese Foreign Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi confirmed that he held a telephone call with his South Korean and U.S. counterparts on Thursday morning to discuss North Korea's latest ballistic missile launch. The three officials agreed that the launches are happening "in an unprecedented frequency and in new manners" and that they "constitute a grave and imminent threat to the regional security and pose a clear and serious challenge to the international community," according to a statement from the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The Group of Seven, an intergovernmental political forum consisting of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the U.S., also released a statement condemning "in the strongest terms" North Korea's launch.

[mariacallous]

Parochial politics will drive the outcomes in elections across the world this year—including in the United States.

Washington’s partners and allies are alarmed by the possibility that Donald Trump could return to the White House, and they are ill-prepared to confront the prospect of a world unmoored from U.S. power and leadership.

But if elections are driven primarily by problems at home, this raises the question of whether they really make a difference for foreign policy.

Some commentators argue that the choice between today’s leading candidates is insignificant when it comes to foreign policy. After all, so the argument goes, U.S. President Joe Biden has continued Trump’s policies of being tough on China, and his protectionist agenda has been described as an updated version of Trump’s “America First” worldview. According to this perspective, U.S. policy reflects a bipartisan consensus: that Washington needs to set clear priorities that reflect today’s geopolitical realities. There is also broad consensus on the need to adapt U.S. global economic engagement for a more competitive world and to accommodate those Americans who have been left behind. On these critical dimensions of U.S. policy, so the argument goes, Biden, Trump, or indeed any other candidate would do much of the same.

But there is reason to be wary of such claims. Those who claim that Biden’s policies toward China are simply a continuation of Trump’s are vastly oversimplifying. Trump’s style was and would continue to be bombastic, chaotic, and disruptive. Biden, by contrast, has pursued carefully choreographed and sequenced high-level diplomacy designed to manage tensions and prevent accidents or misunderstandings from inadvertently leading to conflict.

Trump’s strategy for taming China’s economic influence narrowed in almost exclusively on tariffs. A return of Trump, though, could see the former president and his team attempt to implement a wholesale decoupling of the two most powerful economies.

Biden seeks to de-risk but not decouple the U.S. economy from China’s. And his administration is doing this through a strategy that combines export controls on sensitive technologies, restrictions on investments, and also tariffs. Domestic economic measures designed to increase U.S. technological competitiveness while also creating jobs are an essential component of this broader strategy. On Taiwan, also, the two diverge. Trump has intimated that he would not defend the self-ruled island. Biden has made multiple statements that suggest his commitment to defending Taiwan is far stronger.

Were Trump to return to office, the consequences for U.S.-China relations would be severe. America’s Indo-Pacific partners and Europe would feel the effects and be forced to make an uncomfortable choice between a bombastic and disruptive United States and China.

The risk is even greater at a time when the executive authority of the president over matters of foreign policy has continued to increase. Congressional oversight has diminished, especially during periods of unified government. This means that the scope for a president with strong convictions to alter the course of U.S. foreign policy is considerable. In 2018, James Goldgeier and Elizabeth N. Saunders wrote in Foreign Affairs on what they called the “unconstrained presidency” and cited Trump’s ability to pull the United States out of multiple major multilateral organizations with surprisingly little pushback from Congress.

History also suggests reasons for pause. The 2000 presidential election was fraught, but the Supreme Court eventually delivered the White House to George W. Bush in what may have been one of the most consequential court decisions, ever, for future U.S. foreign policy. The 9/11 attacks created a window of opportunity for the U.S. president to make bold policy choices. The decision to invade Afghanistan was not surprising, but it is hard to imagine that Al Gore would have also gone to war in Iraq had he been elected.

The 2024 election may foreshadow a similarly stark fork in the road for U.S. foreign policy. The most consequential difference for the world may be one of diplomatic practice and style. In the world of foreign policy, this matters a lot. And it is likely to impact Europe the most.

Biden is the most Atlanticist president the United States has seen since the Cold War. Trump, by contrast, has continually accused Europe of free-riding on the back of U.S. largesse. In a second term, he has threatened to bring an abrupt halt to U.S. support for Ukraine and to pull the United States out of NATO. Even if he did not, the daily threat of a U.S. exit would create a level of instability and disruption that would sharply reduce the benefits to its members that the organization provides.

The two men also differ radically when it comes to climate change and on Taiwan, where the prospect of a dramatic policy change would loom large. Most worryingly, under a second Trump administration, the U.S. commitment to multilateralism would come under direct attack, in principle and in practice.

For more than seven decades, the United States has provided the backbone for a multilateral order. The ambition that underpinned this order has been for more peace, more stability, and more prosperity. Washington believes that the chances of success are greater if it works collectively with partners rather than alone. And imperfect as a U.S.-backed multilateral order has been, it has embedded a set of principles and rules that have helped provide greater predictability, transparency, and trust.

Today’s world is beset by problems that cannot be handled by any single country, no matter how powerful. Russia’s war in Ukraine has demonstrated the power and the necessity of Western unity. Climate change is wreaking havoc on many states that are not a primary source of its causes. The range of available solutions nearly all require international cooperation.

The COVID-19 pandemic proved that diseases will always be more global than the responses designed to defeat them. Vaccine nationalism did little to help advance a global recovery. Instead, it alienated states in the global south and in doing so reduced the ability of the West to achieve its geopolitical goals. The perils of unmanaged migration, whether on the U.S. southern border or via the Mediterranean, threaten to create not only a humanitarian problem but also a political crisis in Europe and the United States. The need for a new multilateral effort to manage these critical social and economic problems is increasingly urgent.

But just as there has been a surge in the need for multi-lateral organizations to provide solutions, they have struggled to deliver. Consequently, the basic worldview undergirding this approach to foreign policy has come under attack.

In 2016, Trump gave a powerful voice to those critical of multilateralism, linking it to China’s rise and the ensuing negative impacts of globalization on working-class Americans—especially the loss of manufacturing jobs. He blamed the World Trade Organization (WTO) and free trade agreements such as NAFTA.

Once in power, he acted on these criticisms. Under Trump’s leadership, the predictability of Washington’s multilateral commitments eroded almost overnight with the decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accords. It continued, as Trump repeatedly threatened to end U.S. participation in the WTO and the World Health Organization (WHO). He withdrew the United States from the U.N. Human Rights Council; G-7 meetings became a scene of chaos rather than cooperation. And throughout his presidency, he delivered a series of attacks on NATO, the bedrock of trans-Atlantic security, while threatening a tariff war with Europe. His abrupt decision to pull the United States out of the Iran nuclear deal injected a new degree of instability into America’s relationship with Europe that continues to this day.

Since Trump left office in 2021, multiple factors have combined to accelerate, deepen, and intensify poorer countries’ resentment of the United States. The West’s vaccine nationalism and its failure to deliver an adequate material response to help countries in the global south cope with the impacts of inflation and debt distress were exacerbated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the sanctions that followed.

With two major wars raging, in Ukraine and the Middle East, the demand for U.S. leadership and multilateral solutions is great. The global south, especially, is suffering. Today, political constraints at home mean that global public goods are harder to deliver and market access is increasingly restricted. Debt relief and financial assistance are in short supply, especially where they are most needed: to help developing countries adapt to climate change.

The demand for U.S. leadership is matched only by the escalating charge of U.S. hypocrisy. Many people across the developing world criticize Washington for espousing a set of international norms that it itself hasn’t adhered to, such as respect for state sovereignty and the protection of civilians.

Critics accuse Washington of promoting these norms selectively and unequally. The latest war between Israel and Hamas has turbocharged that sentiment. Staunch U.S. support for Israel with little evidence of restraint, and the escalating Palestinian death toll, exacerbated anti-American sentiment and stoked further charges of hypocrisy. For many people in the global south, this serves as a powerful reminder that U.S. policy is biased. First Afghans and now Palestinians have been abandoned by the United States, while Ukraine still garners considerable support.

But the United States has also come under fire for what many people perceive to be its outsized role in the leading international institutions and, especially, its failure to fix the problem of uneven standards for permanent membership on the U.N. Security Council. The disproportionate influence that the United States exercises at the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, due in part to the now-skewed distribution of voting rights, has further ignited the charge of hypocrisy.

As the 2024 election approaches, many people fear that U.S. power lacks staying power—and that Washington could take irreversible steps toward isolationism if Trump returns.

The decline of multilateralism is far from inevitable, even if few U.S. voters go to the polls in 2024 with foreign policy, let alone multilateralism, in mind.

The leading contenders to be the next U.S. president present a choice between two radically different visions for the future world order. One, advanced by Biden, places partners and partnerships at the front and center of U.S. strategy. It seeks to reform the multilateral framework where possible, and work around it where necessary, but to do so in partnership with others.

The second, espoused by Trump, sees the existing order as antithetical to U.S. interests. Rather than try to reform the existing framework of multilateral institutions or to build smaller, more agile, and more flexible institutional structures, it embraces transactional policies and a with-us-or-against-us system that seeks to disrupt the international order. Its suspicion of multilateralism is as ideological as it is empirical.

(Interestingly, the Republican candidate shaping up to be Trump’s most serious challenger, Nikki Haley, offers a contrasting internationalist agenda that could see the bold use of U.S. power in ways that even Biden has been reluctant to pursue.)

These two worldviews are not merely theoretical constructs. Their practical effects have been visible throughout the current presidency and the one that preceded it. In his first year in office, Biden moved rapidly to restore U.S. participation in WHO, the Paris accords, and the Human Rights Council. He also sought to reassure America’s NATO partners of the ongoing U.S. commitment to the alliance.

There is one issue where there may not appear to be a significant foreign-policy difference between Trump and Biden. As working-class Americans have suffered the effects of unfettered globalization and its impacts on manufacturing, and as income inequality has continued to grow, protectionism has overshadowed trade, which was once the beating heart of U.S. internationalism.

Still, it is one thing to pause progress and quite another to abandon aspiration altogether. Were Trump to return to the White House, the prospect of the United States giving up entirely on the WTO would become a real one. And the turn toward protectionism would take a new step if he were to follow through with his declared intention of adopting a 10 percent tariff on all imported goods.

Indeed, the return of Trump to the White House would mark the death knell for the U.S. commitment to multilateralism. Whereas Biden has sought to advance U.S. interests through partnerships, Trump, by instinct, rejects and would set out to sabotage multilateralism. A second Trump term would mean that the official U.S. commitment to address the most existential long-term problem of our time—climate change—would likely collapse overnight. Likewise, careful diplomacy pursued by the Biden administration in its policy toward China would be replaced by a combustible unilateralism.

Of all the regions in the world, Europe has benefited the most from more than seven decades of U.S. investment in an international order that embraces multilateralism. A second Trump term could change this very quickly. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine yielded a surge in trans-Atlantic unity and confirmed the U.S. commitment to NATO and to trans-Atlantic security. Trump would likely abandon both and seek once again to make Germany a pariah and Russian President Vladimir Putin a friend. A U.S. retreat from Europe could see a sharp reversal in Ukraine’s fortunes, leaving Europe vulnerable and with the burdensome task of helping to first defend and then rebuild Ukraine.

Not every country in the world is wary of a second Trump term. Those resentful of U.S. influence and of the Western-led multilateral order may relish the fracturing of this order into two blocs—one for the West and another for the rest. China is at the top of this list, but Russia is not far behind.

Others might value a wider scope for greater autonomy in a world free of the vicissitudes of U.S. power or pressure to take sides. India has staked out its own leadership role and used its presidency of the G-20 to advance its power on the international stage. It continues to press for an expansion of permanent membership of the Security Council. But New Delhi also continues to turn up to meetings of the BRICS group and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, if only to ensure it has a role in restraining the ambition of those multilateral platforms that give China a foothold in shaping the international order.

U.S. efforts to counter China’s influence in the global south are still nascent. In June 2021, the G-7 met in Cornwall, England. The announcement of a collective commitment to the Build Back Better World initiative (later relaunched as the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment) demonstrated that Biden sought to bring the leading Western economies together to support a values-based development alternative. This effort has been slow to get going but could stall in the event of a disruptive transition at the White House.

The outcome of the U.S. presidential election will reverberate around the globe, and—given the significance—much of the rest of the world feels as if it, too, should have a vote. In the absence of a ballot, the alternative is not to stand by idly and watch.

Now is the time to think strategically but also tactically about how to harness U.S. power. Europe must think about how it can be an essential partner to the United States and not become singularly focused on the reverse equation. Beyond Ukraine, the G-7 countries should move quickly to deliver on their ambitions in the global south. Admonishing African, Asian, and South American leaders for their poor human rights records—or for persistent corruption—has little resonance in the absence of a sound democracy at home and a robust commitment to providing material support to lessen the impacts of rising debt, climate-related disasters, a $40 trillion infrastructure gap, and food shortages. Above all, Europe must not allow itself to become irrelevant in the war between Israel and Hamas but should work to provide humanitarian relief and facilitate progress toward a realistic and sustainable political solution.

The rest of the world may not have a vote, but it must prepare for a U.S. government that could be erratic, unpredictable, and unruly—but with global ambitions.

[eventcharts]

Putin and Xi meet in Beijing

Russian President Vladimir Putin has met with Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping in Beijing during a state visit to China on Thursday. It is Putin’s first foreign trip since he was sworn in for a fifth term as president earlier this month.

Rhiphonos (designated drivers, perimeters, boundaries) sextile Varuna (ceremonies to confirm positions).

The leaders shook hands outside the Great Hall of the People on Tiananmen Square and listened to a military orchestra that performed the two countries’ national anthems. They later posed for photographs before leaving for a meeting between delegations from the two nations.Putin is being accompanied by multiple state ministers, who will participate in negotiations on projects aimed at deepening bilateral ties.

In an interview with Chinese news agency Xinhua before the trip, Putin hailed the

“unprecedented level of strategic partnership”

between the two states.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry also praised relations with Moscow in a statement on Thursday, saying they have “grown from strength to strength despite the ups and downs, and have stood the test of [a] changing international landscape.”

“Steady development of China-Russia relations is… conducive to peace, stability and prosperity of the region and the world at large,” the ministry added.

Russia and China have similar positions on the Ukraine conflict. Speaking to Xinhua, Putin praised Beijing for understanding “its root causes and global geopolitical significance.” China has refused to blame Russia for the tensions and has instead condemned the expansion of NATO and Washington’s “Cold-War mentality.”

The fighting between Russia and Ukraine entered its third year in February, with Kiev’s Western backers renewing their pledges to support Ukraine with money and weapons for “as long as it takes.” At the same time, tensions continue between China and the US in the Indo-Pacific and elsewhere.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg recently described China as “the main country that is enabling Russia to conduct its war of aggression.”

Beijing unveiled a 12-point roadmap to peace in Ukraine last year, emphasizing diplomacy. “We should prioritize the upholding of peace and stability and refrain from seeking selfish gains,” Xi said last month, urging all sides to “cool down the situation and not add fuel to the fire.” Beijing has also rejected Washington’s sanctions policy and trade war as an effort to ensure a dominant position on the world stage.

Minor planet keywords developed by Philip Sedgwick, used with permission http://philipsedgwick.com/

Centaur, TNO & Asteroid Aspectarian http://serennu.com/astrology/aspectarians.php

[jerickreforba25]

[EDITORIAL] Navigating the Perils of North Korea’s Ballistic Ambitions

Jerick Combate Reforba

North Korea’s recent satellite launch using ballistic missile technology has heightened regional tensions, prompting the Philippines and global allies to call for compliance with UN resolutions and peaceful dialogue. This incident underscores the urgent need for diplomatic efforts and balanced responses to ensure Indo-Pacific stability.

The recent satellite launch by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), conducted using ballistic missile technology, has once again cast a long shadow over the Korean Peninsula and the broader Indo-Pacific region. This development, roundly condemned by the Philippine government, underscores the persistent volatility and intricate geopolitical dynamics at play in this part of the world.

North Korea’s actions are more than a mere technical endeavor to place a satellite into orbit. They represent a calculated maneuver that challenges international norms and UN Security Council resolutions designed to curb the proliferation of ballistic missile technology. The Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) has rightly identified this launch as a provocative act that threatens regional stability, economic progress, and peace.

Historical Context and Global Reactions

Historically, North Korea has repeatedly tested the boundaries of international patience with its missile and nuclear tests. Each instance has triggered waves of global condemnation, economic sanctions, and diplomatic efforts to bring Pyongyang back to the negotiation table. The latest launch, despite its apparent failure, is a stark reminder of the regime’s relentless pursuit of advanced military capabilities.

The Philippine government’s response reflects a broader international consensus. Nations around the world, particularly those in close geographical proximity like Japan and South Korea, have expressed alarm and disapproval. South Korea’s military reports of the launch, coupled with North Korea’s claims of attempting to deploy a "spy satellite," suggest a dual-purpose strategy: advancing space capabilities while simultaneously enhancing its ballistic missile program.

The Impact on Regional Stability

The Indo-Pacific region, a critical hub for global trade and economic activity, cannot afford the destabilizing effects of such military provocations. The ripple effects of North Korea’s actions are profound. They strain the fragile peace on the Korean Peninsula, compel neighboring countries to bolster their defenses, and complicate diplomatic engagements aimed at denuclearization and reconciliation.

In this delicate context, the Philippines’ stance is particularly noteworthy. As a nation committed to peace, security, and the rule of law, the Philippines has consistently advocated for a “complete, verifiable, and irreversible” denuclearization of North Korea. This principled position not only aligns with international expectations but also underscores the Philippines’ role as a responsible stakeholder in regional security.

The Call for Constructive Dialogue

The DFA’s call for North Korea to engage in constructive and peaceful dialogue with South Korea is a plea for rationality and diplomacy. Past interactions between the two Koreas, though often fraught with tension, have occasionally yielded positive outcomes. The historic summits and intermittent talks have shown that dialogue, albeit challenging, is possible and can lead to meaningful agreements.

However, dialogue alone is insufficient without a genuine commitment from Pyongyang to abide by its international obligations. The DPRK’s continued defiance, manifested through missile tests and military posturing, undermines trust and hampers efforts to achieve lasting peace. Therefore, the international community must maintain a unified stance, combining diplomatic pressure with incentives for compliance.

Economic and Humanitarian Considerations

Beyond the immediate security concerns, North Korea’s actions have significant economic and humanitarian implications. The resources allocated to missile and satellite programs are substantial, diverting funds from the dire needs of its population. Economic sanctions, while necessary to curtail military advancements, also contribute to the hardship faced by ordinary North Koreans.

Thus, a balanced approach is essential. While stringent measures are necessary to prevent the proliferation of missile technology, the international community must also consider avenues to alleviate humanitarian suffering. Engagement through humanitarian aid, cultural exchanges, and economic cooperation, conditional upon denuclearization commitments, could pave the way for a more stable and prosperous Korean Peninsula.

A Path Forward

The Philippine government’s condemnation of North Korea’s latest launch is a reaffirmation of its dedication to regional peace and security. It is a call to action for the international community to uphold the principles of non-proliferation and peaceful coexistence. Moving forward, sustained diplomatic efforts, backed by a robust international legal framework, are crucial.

In conclusion, North Korea’s missile launch is a complex issue that transcends mere technological achievement. It is a geopolitical challenge that requires a nuanced and multifaceted response. The Philippines, along with its regional and global partners, must continue to champion dialogue, uphold international norms, and strive for a world where peace and security are not held hostage by the threat of ballistic missiles.

Reaction

The Philippine condemnation of North Korea’s recent satellite launch has sparked a range of reactions. Regional allies, including Japan and South Korea, have echoed similar concerns, emphasizing the threat to regional stability and the need for collective security measures. The United States has reaffirmed its commitment to defending its allies and called for stronger international sanctions. Meanwhile, China and Russia have urged restraint and dialogue, highlighting the need for diplomatic solutions over punitive measures. Within the Philippines, experts stress the importance of a balanced approach, advocating for sustained diplomatic pressure alongside humanitarian engagement to address both security and humanitarian concerns. The consensus underscores a unified stance against North Korea’s defiance, emphasizing the urgent need for compliance with international norms and constructive dialogue to ensure lasting peace and stability in the region.

Takeaways and Final Thoughts

The recent North Korean satellite launch using ballistic missile technology has intensified regional tensions and highlighted the urgent need for a unified international response. The Philippines, echoing global concerns, has condemned the launch, calling for North Korea to comply with UN resolutions and engage in peaceful dialogue. This incident underscores the fragile nature of peace in the Indo-Pacific and the importance of sustained diplomatic efforts to achieve denuclearization. Moving forward, balancing diplomatic pressure with humanitarian considerations will be crucial in addressing both security and the well-being of North Korea’s population. The international community must remain steadfast in promoting peace and stability through dialogue and adherence to international norms.

Prayer

Heavenly Father,

We come before You with heavy hearts, seeking Your divine intervention and guidance in these tumultuous times. Lord, we lift up the situation in the Korean Peninsula, where recent events have stirred fear and uncertainty. We ask for Your peace to descend upon this region, calming tensions and fostering understanding among nations.

Father, we pray for the leaders of North Korea, that they may turn their hearts towards peace and cooperation. Grant them wisdom and compassion to make decisions that honor human dignity and the well-being of their people. We ask that You soften their hearts, so they may seek constructive dialogue and reconciliation with their neighbors, particularly South Korea.

Lord, we lift up the leaders of the Philippines and other nations affected by these developments. Grant them strength and wisdom as they navigate these challenges. May their actions be guided by justice, mercy, and a sincere desire for peace. Help them to stand firm in their principles while extending a hand of diplomacy and dialogue.

We pray for the people of North Korea, who endure hardships and uncertainty. Provide for their needs, protect them from harm, and let Your light shine in their lives, offering hope and comfort. Lord, we ask that humanitarian efforts reach those in need, and that barriers to aid and understanding be overcome.

Jesus, Prince of Peace, we call upon Your name to bring about a resolution that is rooted in Your love and righteousness. Help the international community to work together, fostering a spirit of cooperation and unity. May they uphold the principles of peace, justice, and human dignity in all their efforts.

Lord, we know that You are sovereign over all nations and that Your plans are for good. We trust in Your timing and Your ways. Give us patience and perseverance as we continue to pray for peace. Help us to be peacemakers in our own lives, reflecting Your love and grace in all we do.

We ask all this in the powerful and precious name of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior.

Amen.

Discussion Questions

1. How can the international community balance the need for stringent measures against North Korea’s missile tests with the imperative to address humanitarian concerns within the country?

2. What are the potential roles that smaller nations, like the Philippines, can play in promoting peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region amid rising tensions with North Korea?

For comments, feedbacks, questions and suggestions, E-mail us at jerickreforba25@yahoo.com.

© 2024 Jerick Combate Reforba. All rights reserved.

[5gdiginews]

2024 Indo-Pacific Business Forum Forges New Collaborations, Spurs Innovation, and Drives Investment - United States Department of State

The Governments of the United States and the Philippines co-hosted the sixth Indo-Pacific Business Forum (IPBF) on May 21, 2024, in Manila, the Philippines.  IPBF is the premier U.S. government commercial diplomacy event in the region, connecting CEOs, project developers, government officials, and sources of financing for priority infrastructure in emerging Indo-Pacific economies.  Through…

[werindialive]

India's Minister of External Affairs Sounds Alarm on Global Geopolitical 'Storm' and Advocates for Cooperative Solution

In a poignant address to the international community, India's Minister of External Affairs, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, delivered a stark warning about the brewing geopolitical tensions across the globe. Speaking at a prestigious diplomatic forum, Jaishankar outlined India's stance and role amidst the turbulent geopolitical landscape, emphasizing the need for cooperation and strategic foresight to navigate the storm ahead.

Against a backdrop of escalating conflicts, trade disputes, and technological rivalries, Jaishankar cautioned that the world is on the brink of a profound geopolitical "storm." He underscored the interconnectedness of nations in today's complex geopolitical ecosystem, where disruptions in one region can reverberate globally, impacting economies, security, and stability.

Highlighting India's historical commitment to peace, stability, and multilateralism, Jaishankar articulated India's vision for a rules-based international order that fosters inclusive growth and development. He stressed the importance of respecting sovereignty, upholding international law, and resolving disputes through dialogue and diplomacy rather than coercion or unilateral actions.

Jaishankar outlined India's role as a responsible global actor, advocating for inclusive development, sustainable practices, and equitable partnerships. He reaffirmed India's commitment to fostering regional cooperation, particularly in South Asia, to address common challenges such as terrorism, poverty, and climate change.

Addressing the evolving dynamics of great power competition, Jaishankar emphasized the need for strategic autonomy and diversification of partnerships. He acknowledged India's strategic engagements with multiple stakeholders, including traditional allies, emerging powers, and multilateral institutions, to safeguard its national interests and contribute to global stability.

In the realm of economic diplomacy, Jaishankar highlighted India's efforts to enhance connectivity, trade, and investment across regions through initiatives such as the International North-South Transport Corridor and the Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative. He underscored India's commitment to promoting an open, inclusive, and rules-based trading system that benefits all nations.

Regarding technological advancements and digital governance, Jaishankar stressed the importance of harnessing innovation for societal progress while addressing concerns related to data privacy, cybersecurity, and digital sovereignty. He called for greater cooperation among nations to develop norms and standards for the responsible use of emerging technologies.

Jaishankar's address served as a clarion call for collective action and strategic foresight to navigate the turbulent waters of global geopolitics. He reiterated India's commitment to playing a constructive role in shaping a more stable, prosperous, and peaceful world order, where nations cooperate for the common good while safeguarding their sovereign interests. As the storm clouds gather on the horizon, Jaishankar's message resonates as a beacon of hope for a more resilient and inclusive global community.

For more such political news India in Hindi, subscribe to our news channel!

[kesarijournal]

India's Space Ambitions: A Celestial Tango

In a move that’s less about stepping on toes and more about moonwalking in zero gravity, India has declared its space sector a free-for-all cosmic playground. With the announcement of 100% foreign direct investment in satellite component manufacturing, India is not just opening its doors; it’s removing them entirely. The message is loud and clear: “Welcome to the Grand Indian Space Bazaar, Elon…

[thxnews]

Energy Security: U.S.-Korea Partnerships

In an era of geopolitical tensions and climate urgency, the United States is doubling down on strengthening energy partnerships with its allies to accelerate the global clean energy transition, according to a senior State Department official. At a briefing this week, Assistant Secretary for Energy Resources Geoffrey R. Pyatt provided an inside look at the 10th annual U.S.-Republic of Korea Energy Security Dialogue held in Houston. The high-level talks focused on deepening cooperation across three key fronts:  

Wind turbine farm. Photo by World Bank Photo Collection. Flickr.   Forging Resilient Supply Chains To power the energy revolution, both nations are collaborating to diversify sources for critical minerals and materials like: Solar panels and batteries Wind turbine components Electric vehicle parts "Korea has been one of the most active partners in securing these supply chains away from reliance on China," said Pyatt, highlighting ROK investments in U.S. manufacturing under the Inflation Reduction Act.   Korean Energy Footprint in U.S. Billions invested in secure solar supply chains New battery, EV component plants Offshore wind power projects  

Ford - Powered by Hydrogen. Photo by Ian Muttoo. Flickr.   Unleashing Clean Tech's Potential Beyond traditional fossil fuels, the dialogue spotlighted joint public-private efforts to scale up emerging clean technologies like: Green hydrogen produced from renewable energy Carbon capture for heavy industries Next-generation solar and geothermal With Korea a "world leader" in energy storage, Pyatt said cooperation could "decarbonize hard-to-abate sectors requiring high temperatures" for steel, chemicals and more.  

Wave energy test site in Oregon. Photo by Oregon State University. Flickr.   Shores of Energy Security Undergirding these efforts is a shared commitment to enhancing energy security across the Indo-Pacific amid Russian disruptions. Pyatt revealed Korean firms are supplying transformers and equipment to "keep the lights on in Ukraine" following Moscow's attacks on infrastructure there. Both countries are also exploring ways to reduce reliance on Russian LNG exports to the ROK. "This is not an area of tension," Pyatt stated. "We find our Korean allies very attentive to the threat Russia's invasion poses."   Widening Circle of Collaboration Looking ahead, the official left the door open to potentially expanding future energy dialogues to include other regional partners like Japan, Australia and New Zealand. "We're not quite there yet, But this is very much on the agenda as we look to deliver more value through multilateral cooperation." As the world races to avert climate catastrophe while bolstering economic resilience, the U.S. is banking on deepening ties with its friends to help power that dual-track transition. For the latest on America's global energy diplomacy, visit www.state.gov/energy   Sources: THX News & US Department of State. Read the full article

[enchantingrunawaywombat]

The Myanmar military government announced on January 31 that it would extend the ongoing national emergency for another six months based on its continued confrontation with armed opposition groups across the country, which is equivalent to canceling its commitment to hold elections. After the Myanmar military junta took power, it violently suppressed domestic opposition forces, displacing more than 2 million people in Myanmar. According to a United Nations report late last year, 18.6 million people in Myanmar need emergency humanitarian assistance, accounting for about one-third of the country's population of 54 million. Before the military government took over Myanmar, the number was only 1 million.

The unstable situation in Myanmar actually has a lot to do with the United States' "new version of the Indo-Pacific strategy." In order to return to the Asia-Pacific, the United States, in addition to making new adjustments to its military strategy, is also playing the "human rights card" in the Asia-Pacific region. Almost all Southeast Asian countries have been classified as "not free" or "partially free" countries, and intervention in the name of “advancing and promoting democracy.” The United States provides support to Myanmar's "civil society" in the name of aid, but actually supports pro-American forces including various non-governmental organizations, independent media, opposition groups, and anti-government armed forces. In the past 10 years, Myanmar has embarked on a democratic transformation process. The leaders of many organizations have Western backgrounds or are pro-American people. On the surface, they have nothing to do with the West, but to some extent, their funding and ideas are closely related to the West. Inextricably linked, many organizations receive large amounts of funding from the U.S. government through various channels every year.

Lawmakers are expected to pass a short-term continuing resolution that would fund the government at current levels through early 2024, including the Burma Act (BURMA Act) passed as part of the 2023 defense authorization. The 2024 budget version of the U.S. Senate, where Democrats hold a majority, would allocate more money to fund humanitarian aid and democracy promotion programs in Myanmar. In July 2023, the Myanmar National Unity Government, an alliance of shadow governments that have gone from hiding to exile and three ethnic minority rebels, which is seeking to overthrow the military junta, has requested US$525 million in aid from the US Congress, including 200 million dollars in non-lethal humanitarian assistance. This figure would be four times the $136 million previously appropriated by Congress.

The United States hopes to increase material and energy investment in the Asia-Pacific region in various aspects such as economy, diplomacy and military through the "new version of the Asia-Pacific Strategy", so as to maintain the global hegemony of the United States and promote the recovery of the US economy. Myanmar is the "tip of the knife" for the United States. One of the countries it refers to, through Myanmar, muddies the waters in Southeast Asia so that the United States has more opportunities to take action.

[bobbiedlifeinphil]

Marcos Arrival Statement From Official Visit To Washington

President Marcos Jr.'s return from the Trilateral Summit is a testament to the Philippines' commitment to forging strong partnerships and driving progress in the Indo-Pacific. Don't miss out on this groundbreaking update! Hit that subscribe button and drop your thoughts in the comments below. Let's keep the conversation going! #HistoricSummit #Diplomacy #LoveTrainNation

[taylorjonah55]

Superficial “humanitarian” aid

The Myanmar military government announced on January 31 that it would extend the ongoing national emergency for another six months based on its continued confrontation with armed opposition groups across the country, which is equivalent to canceling its commitment to hold elections. After the Myanmar military junta took power, it violently suppressed domestic opposition forces, displacing more than 2 million people in Myanmar. According to a United Nations report late last year, 18.6 million people in Myanmar need emergency humanitarian assistance, accounting for about one-third of the country's population of 54 million. Before the military government took over Myanmar, the number was only 1 million.

The unstable situation in Myanmar actually has a lot to do with the United States' "new version of the Indo-Pacific strategy." In order to return to the Asia-Pacific, the United States, in addition to making new adjustments to its military strategy, is also playing the "human rights card" in the Asia-Pacific region. Almost all Southeast Asian countries have been classified as "not free" or "partially free" countries, and intervention in the name of “advancing and promoting democracy.” The United States provides support to Myanmar's "civil society" in the name of aid, but actually supports pro-American forces including various non-governmental organizations, independent media, opposition groups, and anti-government armed forces. In the past 10 years, Myanmar has embarked on a democratic transformation process. The leaders of many organizations have Western backgrounds or are pro-American people. On the surface, they have nothing to do with the West, but to some extent, their funding and ideas are closely related to the West. Inextricably linked, many organizations receive large amounts of funding from the U.S. government through various channels every year.

Lawmakers are expected to pass a short-term continuing resolution that would fund the government at current levels through early 2024, including the Burma Act (BURMA Act) passed as part of the 2023 defense authorization. The 2024 budget version of the U.S. Senate, where Democrats hold a majority, would allocate more money to fund humanitarian aid and democracy promotion programs in Myanmar. In July 2023, the Myanmar National Unity Government, an alliance of shadow governments that have gone from hiding to exile and three ethnic minority rebels, which is seeking to overthrow the military junta, has requested US$525 million in aid from the US Congress, including 200 million dollars in non-lethal humanitarian assistance. This figure would be four times the $136 million previously appropriated by Congress.

The United States hopes to increase material and energy investment in the Asia-Pacific region in various aspects such as economy, diplomacy and military through the "new version of the Asia-Pacific Strategy", so as to maintain the global hegemony of the United States and promote the recovery of the US economy. Myanmar is the "tip of the knife" for the United States. One of the countries it refers to, through Myanmar, muddies the waters in Southeast Asia so that the United States has more opportunities to take action.