In northern Syria, a society prepares for war against Turkey

Amid threats from Ankara, not only Kurdish fighters but also civilians are engaged in weapons training and building defences

Women are given basic training on how to use, mount and dismount an AK-47 (MEE/Rojava Information Center)

By Sylvain Mercadier- 23 February 2019 

A group of female volunteers from the HPC-Jin organisation (Civilian Defence Forces - Women) are meeting with other women from the community and are giving them basic training, showing them how to mount and dismount an AK-47, as well as how to use the assault rifle safely.

One by one, the women perform the exercise, which is generally followed by field training. 

"There are 40 members of the HPC-Jin in this area, and they have already trained around 700 women to defend themselves in case of a Turkish attack," explains Hediye Ahmed Abdallah, head of the local unit.

Turkey says Syrian Kurdish fighters will be 'buried in ditches'

Read More »

Abdallah's team is part of the many local initiatives that are providing training to civilians in the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria, a self-proclaimed autonomous region also referred to as Rojava.

Threats of invasion by the Turkish army and its proxy fighters from the Syrian opposition have triggered the initiatives.

In December, US President Donald Trump shocked many of his allies when he announced he planned to withdraw about 2,000 US troops from Syria, where they have waged a campaign in support of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), the Northern Federation's military branch, in the fight against the Islamic State (IS) group.

Turkey has long touted an operation east of the Euphrates river against the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) and Women's Protection Units (YPJ), the main components of the SDF, and Trump's announcement appeared to remove any obstacles to the mission.

Now, not only are Kurdish fighters preparing for battle, but civilians are also determined to fight, engaging in weapons training and building defence lines.

'Human shield operations'

Turkey says it wants to set up a "safe zone" in northeastern Syria, with logistical support from allies after US troops pull out of Syria. Ankara says the zone should be cleared of the YPG and YPJ.

The Turkish administration accuse the two groups of being an extension of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which it views as a terrorist organisation and has vowed to eradicate. 

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan regularly denounces the groups and on Tuesday blasted NATO allies over their ongoing support for the YPG in Syria.

"What kind of NATO alliance is this?" Erdogan asked, speaking during an election campaign rally in southwestern Turkey. 

"You give terrorists around 23,000 truckloads of weapons and tools through Iraq but when we asked, you won't even sell them to us."

As Turkish troops started massing at the borders of the different districts of the Federation following Trump's announcement, the local Syrian population reacted swiftly by organising non-violent protests on the various fronts as a form of defiance. 

"These human shield operations are more a form of demonstration where the people express their total support to the institutions and SDF that represent them," says Mahmoud Kordo, a member of the Future Syrian Party, a local party founded last year.

"The people are highly mobilised and will do anything to defend their land."  

Kordo has organised some of those border protests in Tell Abyad and encouraged the local community to make a show of determination. 

Legacy of Kobane and Afrin

In northern Syria, the high level of mobilisation has allowed the local militias to enjoy strong support from the local population, who often fight by their side. 

"The battle of Kobane was very important for us," says Abdallah.

"Initially, Abdullah Ocalan [the jailed leader of the PKK] had criticised us for not being prepared enough for it, which allowed the terrorists to enter the town. 

Turkey 'shells Kobane' as Kurdish-Arab forces advance on strategic town

Read More »

"The war in Afrin has also been a very important experience for us. There, we had self-defence units fighting alongside the YPG-YPJ.

The siege of Kobane, a majority Kurdish city in Syria, was launched by IS in September 2014 and by the following month its fighters had succeeded in capturing 350 Kurdish villages and towns within the vicinity of the city.

In January 2015, the YPG and its allies, helped by continued US-led airstrikes, retook the city, in an offensive that was considered a turning point in the war against IS.

Afrin, another majority Kurdish city in Syria, was captured from YPG and YPJ forces by the Turkish army in March 2018. 

"Today, we have set up defence lines such as tunnels and trenches. The military training will prevent our women from falling into the hands of Islamists that are allied with Turkey and being sold as slaves," says Abdallah.

"It's not just the women from the self-defence unit that should be prepared, but every single woman in the society."

'Our weapons are also our pens'

The memory of what happened in Kobane and Afrin seems to be on everyone's mind.

"In Kobane, there were massacres. About 420 people were slaughtered by Islamic State terrorists because they didn't know how to defend themselves," says Mahmoud A, a representative of the students of Kobane University. 

A group of young men receives basic self-defence training (MEE/Rojava Information Center)

"Most of those who learned how to use weapons are still alive today."

In those institutions also, basic military training has taken place. Students have organised events and demonstrations. On one occasion, they invited members of the local administration to give updates on the situation. 

Shaho Hassan (co-head of the PYD), Aldar Khalil (foreign relation officer of the TEV-DEM) and Abdelkarim Omar (co-head of the foreign relations office of the self-administration) all came to answer the students' questions in the Rojava University (RU), located in Qamishli. 

"There are 1,000 students in our university. Among them, 200 are refugees from Afrin, where the local university had to close after Turkey's invasion last year," says Massoud Mohammad, a computer engineer, professor and co-chair of the RU. 

"Since Erdogan's threats these last months, there were many fears and confusion among society. Then people got used to it.

“Now, many students are highly mobilised and undertook military training that is provided by the YPG within the university. 

"The RU is part of the society and we are all taking part in this revolution. 

"Any attack against our region calls for a response from us. We have set up many activities to oppose the Turkish threats," adds Mohammad.

Mahmoud A says: "The imminent danger of war has been highly disruptive for the students. Some are scared. Some cannot focus on their studies and quit classes. 

"Although many engaged in the military training, some want to fight with words. Our weapons are also our pens."

Medical training

Another form of non-violent mobilisation is the first aid medical assistance programme that was set-up to train civilians how to treat the wounded. 

Among those volunteers, internationalist activists have stepped in and given instructions to the local population in order to save lives during combat. 

"Some internationalist volunteers have joined the military units, but I wanted to engage in non-violent activities so I undertook first aid medical assistance training in the hospital of Hassakeh," says Mateo, an international volunteer from Europe who joined the Northern Federation last year.

Mateo is an international volunteer from Europe who joined the Northern Federation last year (MEE/Rojava Information Center)

"Now I teach civilians how to stop the bleeding of the wounded, how to maintain a fractured limb and how to move a wounded person without causing more damage.

"We train up to ten volunteers a day in each city."

Local organisations such as the Youth Movement (YM) also play a key role in the preparation to war. 

Many members of the YM have taken part in the building of defence systems, such as the digging of trenches and tunnels in several cities. 

"The YM is present in every city of Northern Syria. It is mixed, with Arabs alongside Kurds as well as every other minorities of the area. They organise ideological and military training for young women and men," explains Mateo.

"They have orchestrated several demonstrations alongside civic and political actions in order to mobilise as many people as possible for the upcoming confrontation with the Turkish army and its proxies."

'Fearless fighters'

If the withdrawal of US forces and other members of the coalition against IS eventually occurs, the Kurds in Syria and their allies will be facing the Turkish army and its proxies once again for the first time since Turkey took over Afrin. 

Mohammad hopes that regional involvement will help strike a deal to avoid a bloodbath.

Threats of invasion by the Turkish army and its proxy fighters from the Syrian opposition have triggered civilians to act (MEE/Rojava Information Centre)

"If Erdogan has a chance to attack, he will. But many things can come in the way of this offensive, like Russia or the United States who can draw red lines," he says.

"Plus, the SDF is not isolated like YPG was in Afrin. It will be a difficult war for Turkey."

In Northern Syria, the Kurds feel the strong ideology derived from Ocalan's philosophy has created an almost organic relationship between parts of the community and its institution. 

"This ideology allows us to lead a popular struggle in our society," says Abdallah.

"When fighters are on the front, they need to know that the whole of society is backing them. It's very important for the morale...

"When the Turkish army will invade, we will go down in the streets with our guns and fight, everyone according to its capabilities will assist the struggle. 

"We are prepared for it. We created committees in all sectors of society. The tunnels and bunkers are ready to counter the airstrikes. Food and medical supplies have been stacked.

"It will be an existential war... We are not afraid to die. It only happens once and we will not die without honour," concludes Abdallah," says Abdallah. 

"In our culture, we cheer when a martyr falls. We do not mourn him or her. It is an honour to be martyred to defend the community," says Kordo.

"If Turkey comes, they will face the most fearless fighters there are."

Kashmir crisis explosive: Peace talks urgent

22 February 2019

he February 14 attack on an Indian military convoy in the disputed Kashmir region once again underlines the importance of a concerted international effort to find a solution to the seven-decade-old crisis. If the international community is unwilling to say the K-word in deference to India, at least it should not fight shy of expressing serious concern over the danger the crisis poses to the world at large.If India and Pakistan, which have been wrangling over Kashmir since they parted ways as two entities from the subcontinent’s womb, are to go for a nuclear war, it is 99 percent probable that the cause for such a war will be Kashmir.
Millions of deaths apart, the nuclear winter, the attendant famine and radiation-induced diseases will not be confined to the two warring nations. The effects will be felt all over South Asia and neighbouring regions, too.  Hence, the urgent need to de-escalate the crisis.

Both India and Pakistan are nuclear powered and claim ownership of the whole of Kashmir, formerly a princely state, one third of which is now controlled by Pakistan.  India claims sovereignty over the state on the basis of an instrument of accession signed by the Maharaja of Kashmir in the wake of an invasion by Pakistani tribal warriors in 1947, months after the partition. Pakistan, on the other hand, insists that Kashmir rightfully belongs to it in terms of the partition formula worked out ahead of Independence.
While Pakistan sees a possible solution in a 1948 UN resolution that calls for a plebiscite in the whole of Kashmir, India favours the bilateral process.  But, of late, India has been avoiding talks on Kashmir, accusing Pakistan of supporting cross-border terrorism. The February 14 attack that killed 41 Indian soldiers at Pulwana in Kashmir was not a Valentine’s Day tryst to ignite a love relationship between India and Pakistan. Rather, the attack has only added to mutual hatred.  That it happened at a time when India was preparing for parliamentary polls in May was unfortunate, for it offered politicians an opportunity to indulge in one-upmanship anti-Pakistan rhetoric, instead of using the political platforms to promote peace with the neighbour. 

Tempers are running high in India, with ultranationalists, who enjoy the ruling Bharatiya Jantha Party’s sympathy, calling for revenge.  In response, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has given a carte blanche to the armed forces to take whatever action is required to wipe out terrorism from the region.  This kind of response will only lead to a further drifting away from a peaceful solution to the problem, the oldest world issue after the Palestinian crisis.
It is wishful thinking to expect Modi to act in a statesmanlike manner, given the exigencies of the elections.  Yet the situation warrants a serious introspection on the causes that led to the February 14 incident.  The attack did not take place in a vacuum.  For the past two years or so, the Modi government, while claiming that it has defeated the Kashmiri militancy that arose in support of independence or union with Pakistan, has been allowing the troops to use excessive force to deal with the rebellion in the Muslim-majority region.  
Human rights groups claim that close to 100,000 people have died since the Kashmiri uprising erupted in 1989. India disputes this figure.
In the past year or so, rights groups say about 3,000 Kashmiri’s have been wounded in the eye by the pellets fired by Indian troops.  In November last year, 19-month-old Habeeba became the youngest victim to suffer eye injury by pellet firing. 

"Tempers are running high in India, with ultranationalists, who enjoy the ruling Bharatiya Jantha Party’s sympathy, calling for revenge.  In response, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has given a carte blanche to the armed forces to take whatever action is required to wipe out terrorism from the region"

The Indian military’s excesses only drive youth to radicalism.  The youth who carried out the suicide attack on February 14, it is said, had been subjected to torture after being picked up Indian troops. 
The Indian media largely report the heroics of the troops, while downplaying the suffering of the Kashmiri people or their agitation against the presence of Indian troops in the region, which is easily the world’s most highly militarised area.  Often the media narrative happens to be a government handout.  With international human rights groups and the media denied entry into Kashmir, it is the social media which largely give the ‘other side’ of the Kashmiri story—about extrajudicial killings, rape, torture and disappearances.  Sometimes, the Indian authorities impose an internet blackout to prevent any dissemination of news.  

There is little dispassionate discussion on the goings on in Kashmir.  A few people like internationally acclaimed author Arundathi Roy have been branded traitors for highlighting the Kashmiri people’s plight and their aspiration for freedom from India.  This week, sections of the Indian media took actor-turned politician Kamal Haasan to task for mentioning the Kashmiri plebiscite. New Delhi often cites the people’s participation in the regular elections it holds in the region to dispel claims that a majority of the people want the region to secede from India.
Last week’s attack also raises a major border security question. From where did the militants get the explosives? India blames Pakistan, probably in a bid to imply that the troubles in Kashmir are instigated by extraneous forces.  Although the Pakistan-based group Jaishe-e-Muhammad has claimed responsibility for the attack, a question arises as to its ability to cross the highly fortified border.   

If the attack had been engineered across the border, then it is a damning indictment on the Indian military’s ability to secure the border.  In this hi-tech surveillance era, surely, the world’s fourth most powerful military should be able to prevent crossborder infiltration.  The line of control (LOC) that divides Kashmir is heavily manned. It is now not possible for a repetition of the 1998 Kargil clash which erupted when Pakistan-based militants crossed the LOC.
The way forward is not finding a military solution to the issue. India and Pakistan should come together and find a way out. 
In his first comment following the February 14 attack, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan said that his government was ready to co-operate with India in investigating the attack and urged New Delhi to come for peace talks.  But he also said New Delhi should reflect on why Kashmiri youth had reached a point where they no longer feared death.   He also had a warning for India. “If you think that you will launch any kind of attack on Pakistan, Pakistan will not just think about retaliation, Pakistan will retaliate.”  This is Modi-like cheap political rhetoric aimed at image boosting, but certainly not at winning the hearts of Indians. 

India has outright rejected Khan’s offer, pointing out the absence of any condemnation of the attack in his statement.  It has also scoffed at his government’s willingness to cooperate in any investigation, saying previous promises had not gone beyond words. However, hardening of positions won’t lead to a thaw in relations.
In Khan, India certainly has a peace partner. He is no stranger to the Indians.  They know him as an affable cricketer, who, incidentally led Pakistan’s cricket team when the then Pakistan President, Zia ul-Haq, visited India to join the then Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi, in cricket diplomacy for peace in 1987. 

Who’s Afraid of Saudi Nukes?

Riyadh’s reckless behavior foments widespread mistrust of its plans to buy nuclear reactors.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman laughs with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G-20 summit in Buenos Aires on Nov. 30, 2018. (Ludovic Marin/AFP/Getty Images)

BY KEITH JOHNSON

 | FEBRUARY 22, 2019, 3:38 PM

The release this week of an explosive report by House Democrats alleging that the Trump administration has sought to help its cronies sell nuclear power technology to Saudi Arabia has dramatically heightened tensions between the White House and lawmakers in both chambers.
But sleaze aside, is there cause for alarm over Saudi Arabia gaining access to the same kind of power-generating technology that more than 30 countries around the world already use?

Both Republican and Democratic legislators and nuclear experts who are increasingly alarmed at Saudi Arabia’s reckless behavior say there is plenty of reason to be concerned.

According to the House report, whistleblowers “have warned about political appointees ignoring directives from top ethics advisors at the White House who repeatedly and unsuccessfully ordered senior Trump Administration officials to halt their efforts” to sell nuclear know-how to Riyadh. The whistleblowers, who were not identified, also warned “of conflicts of interest among top White House advisers that could implicate federal criminal statutes,” the report said.

And in the wake of the gruesome, regime-ordered killing in October 2018 of the Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, anti-Saudi sentiment in Washington that had already been rising due to atrocities in Yemen is boiling over. Lawmakers such as Republican Sen. Marco Rubio have introduced legislation that would, unusually, give Congress the final say on whether to allow nuclear technology exports to Saudi Arabia, adding extra restrictions to the standard accord with the express intent of thwarting Riyadh’s quest for a nuclear bomb.

“If a government is willing to murder a U.S. green-card holder,” Rubio told the Daily Beast, “there’s a legitimate question over whether such a government could be trusted with nuclear energy and the potential weaponization of it.”
On the other hand, Saudi Arabia certainly needs more power. With electricity demand growing by as much as 8 percent a year—needed to run air conditioners, desalination plants, and more—the country is looking to find something other than oil and gas, which currently provide nearly all its electricity, to keep the lights on.

Officials in Saudi Arabia, which can burn as much as one-tenth of its oil production every summer just making electricity, want to preserve that black gold for more lucrative exports. One answer is adding more renewable energy, especially solar power. Another answer is nuclear power, and the country plans to build as many as 16 big nuclear power plants over the next 25 years; Riyadh already has a tender out for the first two plants, attracting the interest of Russia, China, France, South Korea—and, especially, the United States.

America’s nuclear industry, seeing almost zero chance of big new projects at home, is champing at the bit to get into what could be a $100 billion market. One industry executive has called the Saudi foray into nuclear power the “deal of the decade,” and U.S. officials (and Saudi lobbyists) have been pressing the Trump administration to make it easier for U.S. nuclear firms to do business in Saudi Arabia. Top nuclear executives met with President Donald Trump at the White House this month to discuss Saudi Arabia, among other topics.

Trump administration officials argue that America’s nuclear industry should sell reactors to Saudi Arabia—or else Russia or China will, potentially giving Moscow or Beijing a decades-long lucrative, strategic partnership with a keystone state in the Middle East. (On Friday, Saudi Arabia took another big step toward deepening its already tight energy relationship with China, inking a $10 billion deal to build a new refinery.)

In general, selling U.S. nuclear technology has another benefit, too, many experts say: The United States also exports its regulatory regime, safety and security standards, and strict protocols against nuclear proliferation, making American participation in the worldwide scramble for nuclear power a way to boost, rather than undermine, global security.

But in order to sell reactors overseas, the United States needs a formal agreement with the other country regulating just how those nuclear technologies will be used; to date, the United States has nearly 50 such agreements, known as “123 agreements” for the eponymous section of the 1954 Atomic Energy Act. For several years, Washington and Saudi Arabia have been negotiating their own 123 accord. But lately, those efforts have run into a buzz saw—or rather, a Saudi bone saw.
Many experts argue that fears that Saudi Arabia will turn nuclear reactors into breeders for a weapons program are overblown. Reactors use low-enriched uranium, while bombs need highly enriched uranium. And that kind of enrichment program is hard to keep hidden, not to mention costly.
Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel to scrape out plutonium to build a bomb is even costlier.

“There seems to be a conflating of legitimate national security issues with civilian nuclear technology. Saudi Arabia is not Iran. It’s not North Korea,” said Katie Tubb, a nuclear energy specialist at the Heritage Foundation. She says a standard 123 agreement, like the ones the United States has with dozens of other countries, would provide plenty of safeguards and oversight to ensure that Saudi Arabia used the technology responsibly. “There are a lot of steps from having a nuclear power industry to having a bomb,” she said.

So what is the problem with helping Saudi Arabia meet its growing energy demand with foreign-built nuclear reactors, as countries from China to Vietnam to the United Arab Emirates are doing?

“The simple answer is nothing. Civilian nuclear technology can be safeguarded, and it’s not very well suited to producing nuclear weapons material,” said Jon Wolfsthal, formerly a top nonproliferation official in President Barack Obama’s administration and now director of the Nuclear Crisis Group.
Except for one thing, Wolfsthal added: “Saudi Arabia doesn’t just want reactors—it wants the ability to enrich uranium. And that is very sensitive technology.”

All states that have signed on to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), as Saudi Arabia has, theoretically have the right to enrich uranium. Insisting on that right, Saudi Arabia has refused to forswear uranium enrichment as part of any agreement with the United States. That stands in sharp contrast to the UAE, which inked a novel 123 agreement in 2009 that included an explicit ban on any enrichment activities as a safeguard against proliferation. But Saudi Arabia has refused to consider signing on to that so-called “gold standard.”

“The unwillingness to sign up to the ‘gold standard’ gives people pause,” Wolfsthal said.

Holding onto a sovereign right to enrichment is one thing. A much bigger problem is that, the NPT notwithstanding, Saudi officials have openly said they’d build a nuclear bomb of their own if Iran builds one.

“If Iran developed a nuclear bomb, we will follow suit as soon as possible,” Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman said last year.

That’s the main reason that Riyadh’s quest for nuclear power plants causes unease in a way that didn’t happen with other countries that have turned to atomic energy. After its gold-plated nuclear deal with the UAE, for example, the United States signed a 123 agreement with Vietnam—which pointedly did not include the same restrictions.

“Unlike any other potential partner, Saudi officials have been saying, ‘We might need a nuclear weapon,’” said Laura S.H. Holgate, a former U.S. ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

“That’s why it is a very different prospect for us to be thinking about providing even the most peaceful nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia,” said Holgate, now the vice president for materials risk management at the Nuclear Threat Initiative.

US-China trade talks: Will the Chinese keep promises to stop bad behavior?

US President Donald Trump (R) and China's President Xi Jinping (L) along with members of their delegations, hold a dinner meeting at the end of the G20 Leaders' Summit in Buenos Aires, on December 01, 2018. Source: Saul Loeb/AFP

22 February 2019

TALKS between the US and China to end the trade war appear to be in trouble with the March 2 deadline for a deal fast approaching.

In the ongoing trade talks between the US and China, a lack of trust – key to any successful negotiation – appears to be hobbling the ability to reach a deal. Hence it is not clear negotiators will be able to achieve anything substantive before they hit President Donald Trump’s deadline, triggering automatic tariff hikes if there’s no agreement.

As a trade economist, I believe the answer to the trust conundrum lies in learning from an international body the president disdains: the World Trade Organization.

Empty words?

From the American perspective, a key issue is that in the past the Chinese have made all sorts of promises to address US concerns that they later reneged on. Or, China has taken so long to act that when it finally did it made little difference.

Several examples of Chinese promises going unkept readily come to mind.

When China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, it was given “developing country” status. This allowed China to levy high tariffs on imports from the US and Europe even as it benefited from low duties on its exports.

SEE ALSO: The US-China trade war is hurting tech companies on both sides

The understanding at that time was that as its economy grew, China would gradually adopt market-based economic principles and commit itself to the basic tenets of liberalized trade and globalization. But this has not happened.

Sometime after China joined the WTO, the country imposed a 21 percent to 30 percent tariff on cars. It was only this past December, and under pressure because of the current trade talks, that the Chinese finally agreed to temporarily reduce the tariff to 15 percent. In contrast, the corresponding US tariff on Chinese auto imports has long been 2.5 percent.

More generally, also after becoming a WTO member, China promised to open up its banking, telecommunications and electronic payment processing sectors. But action in these areas has either been non-existent or half-hearted.

November 9, 2017 shows US President Donald Trump (L) and China’s President Xi Jinping leaving a business leaders event at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing. Source: Nicolas Asfouri/Shutterstock

Even now, the Chinese telecommunications industry remains very much under government control, and the government has effectively precluded Facebook and Google from offering their services in China.

Concerns about the reliability of the Chinese are not limited to economic and technological matters. To see this, note that on a state visit to the US in 2015, President Xi Jinping promised not to militarize the artificial islands on disputed reefs that the Chinese were building in the South China Sea.

However, we now have clear evidence that he has done exactly what he promised he would not do.

Holding China’s feet to the fire

Given all this, I believe it would be rather naïve on the part of the US to agree to any Chinese promises in the current trade talks without also building a robust enforcement mechanism into any deal.

Indeed, the negotiators themselves seem to understand this, but difficulty finding a way to enforce any agreements – both past and present – is making it harder to come to a deal. And that’s where the WTO and its enforcement mechanisms come in.

For example, China agreed to just such a mechanism with its WTO ascension. This enforcement rule permitted a nation to automatically levy tariffs on certain Chinese goods and services if that country’s domestic market was hurt by those same exports. Unfortunately, like most WTO rules, this rule had a finite life and was allowed to lapse at the end in 2013.

SEE ALSO: Mixed messages after US-China trade talks show ‘no progress’

Even though this mechanism has been infrequently used, President Barack Obama took advantage of it with some success in 2009 to impose tariffs on Chinese-made tires that were harming US manufacturers.

If such an enforcement mechanism can be built into a trade deal, then the US would not have to plead its case before some international body before it retaliated against the Chinese. Instead, when confronted with one or more broken promises, it would have the legal right to act unilaterally to hold China accountable.

That said, since the current negotiations are between two sovereign nations, the key is to devise an enforcement mechanism that is agreeable to both the US and China. Only then will a resulting trade deal be self-enforcing.

Since the US and China are both members of the WTO, another but less potent enforcement mechanism would lie in utilizing its dispute settlement mechanism to address any disagreements that may arise after a deal is reached. The US has had success in the past in using this WTO mechanism as well to hold China accountable.

US President Donald Trump (C), US Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin (2-R), US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer along with members of their delegation hold a dinner meeting with China’s President Xi Jinping (out of frame) at the end of the G20 Leaders’ Summit in Buenos Aires, on December 01, 2018. Source: Saul Loeb/AFP

A deal worth the paper it’s printed on

The venerable Chinese sage Sun Tzu once said that “in the midst of chaos, there is also opportunity.”

The US now has an opportunity to conclude a meaningful trade deal with China that also has enforcement built into it. Therefore, the American negotiators ought to seize this opportunity and ensure a deal isn’t backed primarily by Chinese promises.

Otherwise, it won’t be the last time a US president fumes about unfair Chinese trading practices.

Amitrajeet A. Batabyal, Arthur J. Gosnell Professor of Economics, Rochester Institute of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

'I was like a prisoner': Saudi sisters trapped in Hong Kong recall beatings

Sisters from Saudi Arabia, who go by aliases Reem and Rawan, are pictured at their lawyer Michael Vidler's office in Hong Kong, China February 23, 2019. REUTERS/Aleksander Solum

Anne Marie Roantree-FEBRUARY 23, 2019 

HONG KONG (Reuters) - Two sisters from Saudi Arabia who fled the conservative kingdom and have been hiding out in Hong Kong for nearly six months said they did so to escape beatings at the hands of their brothers and father.

The pair, who say they have renounced their Muslim faith, arrived in the Chinese territory from Sri Lanka in September. They say they were prevented from boarding a connecting flight to Australia and were intercepted at the airport by diplomats from Saudi Arabia.

Reuters could not independently verify their story.

Asked about the case, Hong Kong police said they had received a report from “two expatriate women” in September and were investigating, but did not elaborate.

The Saudi consulate in Hong Kong has not responded to repeated requests from Reuters for comment.

The case is the second high-profile example this year of Saudi women seeking to escape their country and spotlights the kingdom’s strict social rules, including a requirement that females seek permission from a male “guardian” to travel.

The sisters, aged 18 and 20, managed to leave Hong Kong airport but consular officials have since revoked their passports, leaving them stranded in the city for nearly six months, their lawyer, Michael Vidler, said.

Vidler, one of the leading activist lawyers in the territory, also confirmed the authenticity of a Twitter account written by the two women describing their plight.

On Saturday, dressed in jeans and wearing sneakers, the softly spoken women described what they said was a repressive and unhappy life at their home in the Saudi capital Riyadh. They said they had adopted the aliases Reem and Rawan, because they fear using their real names could lead to their being traced if granted asylum in a third country.

They posed for pictures but asked their features not be revealed.

Every decision had to be approved by the men in their house, from the clothes they wore to the hairstyle they chose - even the times when they woke and went to sleep, the sisters told Reuters.

“They were like my jailer, like my prison officer. I was like a prisoner,” said the younger sister, Rawan, referring to two brothers aged 24 and 25 as well as her father.

“It was basically modern day slavery. You can’t go out of the house unless someone is with us.
Sometimes we will stay for months without even seeing the sun,” the elder sister, Reem, said.

In January, a Saudi woman made global headlines by barricading herself in a Bangkok airport hotel to avoid being sent home to her family. She was later granted asylum in Canada.

“BROTHER BRAINWASHED”

Reem and Rawan said their 10-year-old brother was also encouraged to beat them.

“They brainwashed him,” Rawan said, referring to her older brothers. Although he was only a child, she said she feared her younger brother would become like her older siblings.

The family includes two other sisters, aged five and 12. Reem said she and her sister feel terrible about leaving them, although they “hope their family will get a lesson from this and it might help to change their lives for the better.”

Reem and Rawan decided to escape while on a family holiday in Sri Lanka in September. They had secretly saved around $5,000 since 2016, some of it accumulated by scrimping on items they were given money to buy.

Sisters from Saudi Arabia, who go by aliases Reem and Rawan, are pictured at their lawyer Michael Vidler's office in Hong Kong, China February 23, 2019. REUTERS/Aleksander Solum

The timing of their escape was carefully planned to coincide with Rawan’s 18th birthday so she could apply for a visitor’s visa to Australia without her parents’ approval.

But what was supposed to be a two-hour stopover in Hong Kong has turned into nearly six months and the sisters are now living in fear that they will be forcibly returned to Saudi Arabia.

They have said they have renounced Islam - a crime punishable by death under the Saudi system of sharia, or Islamic law, although the punishment has not been carried out in recent memory.

The pair say they have changed locations 13 times in Hong Kong, living in hotels, shelters and with individuals who are helping, sometimes staying just one night in a place before moving on to ensure their safety.

Vidler said the Hong Kong Immigration Department told the women their Saudi passports had been invalidated and they could only stay in the city until February 28.

The department has said it does not comment on individual cases.

The sisters have applied for asylum in a third country which they declined to name in a bid keep the information from Saudi authorities and their family.

“We believe that we have the right to live like any other human being,” said Reem, who said she studied English literature in Riyadh and dreams of becoming a writer one day.

Asked what would happen on Feb 28, after which they can no longer legally stay in Hong Kong, the sisters said they had no idea.

“I hope this doesn’t last any longer,” Rawan said.

Reporting By Anne Marie Roantree; Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan

Dilemma of British Muslims

by Dr SLM Rifai- Feb 22, 2019

Feb 22, 2019

The primary objective of this short article is to examine and evaluate the social impacts and legal consequences of Shamima Begum’s case. It has been reported that Home Office has already sent a letter to the family of Shamima saying that it has decided to revoke British citizenship of Shamima. According to INDEPENDENT newspaper “The Government has deprived Shamima Begum of her British citizenship, allegedly making her stateless and violating international law” (19/2/19). Yet, her new born baby has been given every right to settle in the UK. However, the secretary for justice has said that Shamima Begum has right to return to UK, but she should face the court of law in this country. This contrasting view has created some legal debates in the UK about this issue.

It is reported that the Home Secretary Sajid Javid has got some excessive power to remove the citizenship of any one who is regarded as a threat to the national security of the United Kingdom. He can do this protect the public interest or “public good”. Such an action can be taken by Home Secretary if he feels that such a person could get a nationality of any other country. In this case, Bangladesh government has categorically said Shamima Begun has got no connection to Bangladesh. So, they have declined to accept her back into Bangladesh. With this action of Home Secretary, Shamima Begum will become stateless person soon. Yet, she will be able to join her Husband. Her husband is a Dutch citizen who has been detained for his alleged connection with ISIS. Yet, once he is released Shamima Begun could join her husband to settle in Holland. If this happens removing her of British citizenship will be meaningless. Because she could come back to Britain under Dutch passport. Then this hasty action of Home secretary will be null and void.

Why did Home Secretary take such as a hasty action? It is reported that he wants to please public. He is responding to the public outcry on this case. Yet, contrary to his decision to remove Shamima Begun of her British citizenship there are so many British people including Justice secretary who feels that Shamima Begun should be allowed to return to Britain. They argue that she must be produced in court of law for investigation in accordance with British law. They feel that she must pay the price for her mistakes. They feel that she should be rehabilitated like many other convicted Muslim extremists who have returned from Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.  Yes, she has made some terrible mistakes. She had made some childish decisions. She was a 15 years old girl when she went to Syria with her friends. All  of them are teenage girls. They were 15 years old girl when they went to Syria. It appears that some groups might have inspired, influenced and forced them to go to Syria. There are so many circumstantial factors around these girls’ travel to Syria.

Who brain washed them with radical ideas? Which group did this? Did they get their parents approval to travel? Why did not immigration officials stop them leaving the country at the Airport? Why did not British police stop them from traveling out? What about school authority? What about local authority and social service? Why did not they alert the authorities as soon as these girls were missing? When Shamima Begun travelled out of the UK she was just 15 years old. So, she was not legally responsible at this age. Moreover, she claims that she did not fight in Syria and she claims that she has been a house wife for the last 4 years? Did she engage in any terrorism activities? It is reported that she did not express any regret over what ISIS do? It can be said that her life was under threat from ISIS in Syria. She might have said she did not have any remorse over what ISIS did for fear of her life. It does not make sense to say that she wants to come back to UK and yet, she does not regret what ISIS do? It appears she might have told all this to the media to appease ISIS under duress. Otherwise, she might have been killed by them. People under ISIS do not have freedom to express freely as they want to express.

    I think politicians wants to make some political drama out of this case and yet, I firmly believe that British legal system is one of the best legal systems in the world.  No politician could interfere in the legal system of British judiciary. Thanks God, people in Britain have been protecting the integrity of judiciary for many centuries in this country. Justice is unconditional to all in this country. Immigration judges will investigate this case objectively and if they think that her British citizenship has been unfairly removed, immigration judges will reverse the decision of Home Secretary on this case. I personally feel this decision to remove her British citizenship is not fair decision. This is little bit a harsh decision and it appears somewhat a prejudicial decision.

Suppose if this girl is a British convert. What would be the action of Home Secretary, Will he remove citizenship of Indigenous British girl? Will he make her stateless? I think this case is a wakeup call to all Muslim families in this country. It is a wake-up call for all to monitor how children are taught in religious schools and mosques. This case is a wake-up call to all Muslim community leaders in this country. It is a wake-up call to all Muslim groups to understand British contexts when they speak about Islamic teaching. Today, to speak for Islam and for Muslim community in this British context, Muslim clerics must know not only Islamic texts, but also, they must know how to apply Islamic teaching in these modern social contexts in this country. They must know modern social realities of European contexts to relate Islamic teaching in this new social environment. Unfortunately, today Muslim clerics do not understand modern social challenges of this digital world. Many Muslim clerics find it hard to relate Islamic teaching to modern conditions we live in today in this European continent. This case tells us that Muslim community suffers from some intellectual crisis. Muslim youths are misguided with so many radical ideologies. Shamima Begum is a victim of this Muslim radicalism. I’m sorry for her and for family. She has become victim of this Muslim radicalism. The entire Muslim religious leadership in this country must take some responsibility for this virus of Muslim radicalism.