GOP in the dark as Trump weighs emergency declaration

 

Trump is unlikely to announce such a move Tuesday night in the Oval Office but could do so in the coming days in an effort to find a face-saving way out of the shutdown.

 

By ELIANA JOHNSON, BURGESS EVERETT and HEATHER CAYGLE

 President Donald Trump is keeping everyone in suspense as he considers whether to declare a national emergency to fund his border wall.

Republican support for an emergency declaration is growing in some corners of the party, as GOP leaders and White House officials view it as a way out of a shutdown fight they’re losing. Others are unsure, viewing it as the kind of end run around Congress for which the Republican Party criticized former President Barack Obama for doing.

And many key Republicans are in the dark ahead of Trump's Oval Office address Tuesday, as Congress and the White House limp through a government shutdown now in its 18th day.

But House Republicans didn't even ask Vice President Mike Pence about the potential emergency order when he and other top administration officials briefed them on Tuesday night. Instead, GOP lawmakers were told that food stamps would continue to be paid out despite the shutdown, and the IRS will still issue tax refunds, all part of the White House's effort to minimize the impact of the budget impasse.

Though Trump has yet to make a decision, he is unlikely to declare a national emergency in his Oval Office address Tuesday evening, according to two sources with direct knowledge of the plans.
Trump and Pence will travel to Capitol Hill on Wednesday to meet with Senate Republicans, all part of the White House's campaign to keep rank-and-file Republicans in line behind the president.

Trump will also continue his so-far-fruitless negotiations with House and Senate leaders to reopen the government and build his border wall, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) — fresh off their prime time rebuttal of Trump — aren't going to yield anything on the Trump project.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) wouldn't say whether he'd back a Trump emergency order following the GOP meeting with Pence on Tuesday. Like Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), McCarthy tried to blame Democrats for the shutdown.
"Let's wait to see what the president says," McCarthy said. "These hypotheticals never play out well."

McCarthy also noted Trump has stated that he doesn't want to issue an emergency declaration and would rather achieve a legislative solution to the crisis.

"My advice is more to Nancy Pelosi and Schumer — stop playing games," McCarthy insisted.

Senate Homeland Security Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said he wasn't sure which way Trump was leaning on the emergency order, despite chairing a key immigration panel had not yet been read in by the White House

"If there's one thing that Candidate Trump had a mandate on it's securing the border and building the wall," Johnson said. "That's why President Trump is talking about declaring a national emergency. Because he's not getting the Democrats to really put the money where their mouth is. They all say they want border security, just not that kind."

Some of the president's advisers argue an emergency declaration of a border crisis — to free up billions of dollars for Trump's border wall — would allow Republicans to reopen the federal government without looking like they've caved to Democrats. Trump allies believe it would send an unmistakable message to the president's base that he’s dead serious about border security.

It would also allow Trump and Republicans to save face, they note privately. GOP leaders on Capitol Hill know support for the shutdown is slowly eroding inside the party, as more moderate Republicans call for an end to the crisis. And so they're advising Trump to make the case for executive action over the next few days should he decide to deploy it.

It's clearly a fallback plan, but Republicans are preparing for its possibility.

“I’m sure he’d rather do it through a meeting, a productive one, between him and Schumer and Pelosi. I think they both feel that’s maybe not materializing soon,” said Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.). “If he sees no agreement coming, I think he’ll push the envelope.”

Stephen Miller, the outspoken immigration hawk and senior Trump adviser, is taking a leading role writing Trump’s remarks.

Still, there is internal disagreement in the White House about whether declaring a national emergency is a good idea — and, if Trump chooses to do so, about the appropriate timing and venue for such a declaration.

Several of the president’s outside advisers, including his former campaign chairman Stephen Bannon and former deputy campaign manager David Bossie, are urging him to take the more extreme course.
Others, however, are urging caution, telling the president that a legal challenge to his actions would be almost assured, putting Trump on course for a bare-knuckled fight with House Democrats and a grueling series of court challenges.

White House Counsel Pat Cipollone is among the voices urging caution when it comes to declaring a national emergency. The White House is studying options short of an emergency declaration but that would nonetheless give the president broad power to act.

The White House counsel’s office has been reviewing the legality of an emergency declaration since last Thursday, according to a source familiar with the process. They’ve been examining three potential avenues that would allow the president to mobilize personnel and tap into funds that are currently available for purposes not involving border security.

And as the president and his aides have considered the matter, the counsel’s office has also urged them to take actions to strengthen a potential legal defense, from making public references to a national security crisis on the Southern border to holding meetings on the matter in the White House Situation Room.

“These are things for lawyers to use in their briefs when they have to defend this,” said a source familiar with the discussions.

Democrats have already suggested declaring a national emergency to build the wall would be unconstitutional, arguing that Trump has no proof that an emergency actually exists and no authority to move around already-appropriated federal funds without congressional approval. Pelosi and Schumer will follow Trump’s address with their own rebuttal and will be sure to hit that point.
Pence told NBC's "Today" that Trump had not made a decision yet on how to proceed. Trump, however, will "explain to the American people that we have a humanitarian and security crisis at our southern border," he said.

"It is a real crisis," Pence said. "Tonight he will tell the American people why Congress should act."
Pence and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen will brief House Republicans Tuesday night before meeting with GOP senators on Wednesday. Multiple GOP leadership aides said they expected the House GOP conference to be open to the idea.

"I think that if Pence and Nielsen come in and do a hypothetical walk-through to members about how the process would work, and we could re-open the government by the end of the week, even tonight, so that paychecks weren't affected, I think members would take that," said a GOP leadership aide. "This emergency declaration could be an out for everybody."

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a traditional GOP ally, is urging Congress and Trump to reopen the government, one of the clearest signs yet of concern that the 18-day funding lapse could affect the humming economy. In a letter to lawmakers, Chamber chief policy officer Neil Bradley said that "with each passing day, the situation will only get worse" and called for a broader immigration deal in exchange for border security.

McConnell has yet to weigh in on the prospect of a national emergency declaration. Asked if Trump could or should declare one, the Kentucky Republican ‬said he’d give a speech on Tuesday afternoon and otherwise declined to comment.

However, in his floor remarks, McConnell didn't address the possible emergency declaration, instead dinging Democrats for blocking all Senate floor action until the government reopens.

"Democrat intransigence has made sure that a quarter of the federal government has been shut down for more than two weeks. Now they’re threatening to shut down the Senate, too," McConnell said.

Congress alone has the power of the purse under the Constitution. But presidents are able to use unobligated military funds during a national emergency. Whether such a crisis exists, of course, is hotly contested, with Democrats noting that there are actually fewer border apprehensions this year than in past decades.

By backing what would be an explosive move, GOP leaders could open themselves up to accusations of hypocrisy. For years, they complained about what they viewed as executive overreach on immigration policy by Obama. By supporting an emergency declaration by Trump without proof of an emergency — all to fulfill a campaign promise — Republicans would be greenlighting Trump’s moves to usurp congressional authority.

Trump would almost certainly face an immediate challenge in the courts, with a messy legal battle that could drag out for months if not years.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) ripped Trump during a discussion with reporters Tuesday morning, calling him a “dictator” who is treating the U.S. like an autocratic country where rulers declare “martial law” to impose their will on the people when they can’t get their way.

“A problem exists but not a crisis that would justify him acting unilaterally,” Hoyer said. ““There is no crisis, there is no invasion, there is no clear and present danger.“

Republicans and White House officials who support the idea don’t care. Let the courts deal with it, they say. And Trump wouldn’t be accused of caving, they argue.

On Tuesday morning, Indiana Republican Rep. Susan Brooks said she would back Trump’s decision to declare a national emergency. The moderate-minded lawmaker cited the swelling number of child migrants who have crossed the border.

“I do think that this is a much greater crisis that we’ve seen in the past at the border. So if the president deems that a national emergency, then yes, I would support that,” she said in an interview with radio host Gordon Deal.

Not all GOP lawmakers are sold, however.

Some senior Hill Republicans worry announcing the emergency declaration followed by passage of Democratic spending bills would be viewed as a defeat within the party. Some believe Trump can win a shutdown fight against Democrats if he continues to hold out for $5 billion for the wall. Other Republicans said it could be difficult to endorse a process that circumvents Congress.

"In short, I am opposed to using defense dollars for non-defense purposes," said Texas Rep. Mac Thornberry, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee.

Rachael Bade, Andrew Restuccia, Gabby Orr, Connor O’Brien and Sarah Ferris contributed to this report.

Tucker Carlson says he’s the victim of a powerful bully. Meet the 24-year-old who found the tapes.

© Drew Angerer/Getty Images Protesters rally against Fox News outside the News Corporation building on Wednesday. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

 
Eli Rosenberg-13 March 2019

Madeline Peltz works the night shift at the liberal media watchdog group Media Matters for America. Given the timing of that particular shift, one of her main responsibilities is watching Tucker Carlson’s 8 p.m. show on Fox News.

 

And she’s watched a lot of Tucker Carlson.

Carlson has been in the public eye for some 20 years — first as a print journalist, then a television commentator, founder of the conservative site the Daily Caller, and now, Fox News host, with a prime time slot and a salary in the millions. But people have been confused by Carlson’s tone on Fox since he took over for Bill O’Reilly in 2018, noting concern about diversity and demographics in his show.

Subscribe to the Post Most newsletter: Today’s most popular stories on The Washington Post

After many Carlson-watching hours, the 24-year-old researcher developed a working theory, which she outlined on the nonprofit’s website: that Carlson is using his platform on Fox News to introduce white nationalist ideas to the mainstream, making him a uniquely prominent “mouthpiece for white supremacy.”

Peltz dug into his recent past and discovered a trove of appearances he made on shock jock Bubba the Love Sponge’s radio show between 2006 and 2011. She found a series of misogynistic, racist and homophobic remarks Carlson made, the audio of which Media Matters published this week.

In response, Carlson was defiant, casting himself as the victim of “the great American outrage machine,” a mob of power-seeking organizations and people that he says are waging a political war to censor him.

In reality, credit for the tapes’ publication is due to Peltz: a 20-something in her first adult job who lives in the basement of a Washington, D.C., house she rents with five other people, a few cats and a dog named Noodles.

“I’m not like some high-power wielding globalist,” Peltz said, adopting the conspiracy-inflected jargon of the far-right. “I’m this kid who’s been on the Internet my whole life and knows how to get around it.”

It’s been a busy week at Media Matters, which tracks conservative media trends and has engaged in a years-long effort to cast light on the ways Fox News and its hosts sidestep traditional journalism guidelines.

The organization released the first audio of Carlson on Sunday. In that, Carlson called rape shield laws “totally unfair” and was adamantly supportive of Warren Jeffs, the former leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who is serving a life sentence for child rape. Carlson also said he would “love” a scenario involving young girls sexually experimenting and described women as “extremely primitive.”

The next day, Media Matters for America released another audio file just moments after Carlson’s show began. In that, Carlson said that white men deserve credit for “creating civilization,” called Iraqis a bunch of “semiliterate primitive monkeys,” and spoke about his desire for a presidential candidate to blame the “lunatic Muslims who are behaving like animals.”

There was more on Tuesday. This time, Carlson could be heard joking about having sex with what he thought was an underage beauty pageant contestant.

On his Tuesday night show, Carlson did not address the audio itself. Instead, he took aim at Media Matters, calling it “a George Soros-funded lobbying organization whose sole mission is to punish critics of the Democratic Party.”

© Drew Angerer/Getty Images Traffic on Sixth Avenue near the Fox News headquarters. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

But the tapes have turned up pressure on the show, teeing off an advertiser boycott and a protest in front of Fox News’s headquarters in New York City on Wednesday, which Media Matters helped organize.

When asked for a comment for this story, Fox News spokeswoman Carly Shanahan pointed to Carlson’s statements on his show this week.

Media Matters for America is not currently funded by George Soros; he has not donated to the organization in many years, its president, Angelo Carusone, said in an interview.

While Carlson described it as working to “bully” corporations, it is the fraction of the size of Fox News, whose revenue for 2018 has been estimated to be more than $3 billion. Media Matters has about 80 employees and a budget of about $14 million that mostly comes from private donors, Carusone said.

The group does media analysis from a left-leaning perspective, studying trends and themes to see how political discussions play out in the nation’s media bubbles. Its staff monitors some 50,000 hours of live programming on television and radio every year, and the organization tapes another million hours of audio and video.

Media Matters, which has an active website that highlights and contextualizes some of these moments, drew criticism during the 2016 for what some saw as an attempt to malign coverage that was critical of Hillary Clinton. But it has found a renewed prominence in the Trump era by turning its sights to the new information economy: the rise of conspiracy theories and misinformation online, the increased visibility of fringe right-wing websites and ideas, and an energized conservative media ecosystem that helps amplifies those ideas — a news cycle that often peaks with a tweet from President Trump.

“When we did a power mapping of the landscape at the end of 2016, early 2017, what we found was that so much of what used to be dismissed as the fringes was now where power was being organized: 4chan, Daily Stormer comment sections, subreddits,” Carusone said. “These would never have been considered worthy enough or important enough to monitor [before]. But we looked at it and they were — they were driving a lot of the misinformation and fake news of 2016. They were creating a lot of material that was making it onto Fox News or Donald Trump’s Twitter feed.”

Carusone said the organization had to build some new digital technology to track the online conversations in forums and message boards that he said have such a large effect on the political discourse in the United States.

“It’s basically it’s just a giant DVR for the 'chans, an archive of these message boards,” Carusone said.

And it has been doing studies and using other data to advocate for better practices. It pushed Google to stop allowing what it had assessed as fake-news-purveying websites to use the company’s AdSense program. It has met with the big three technology companies — Facebook, Google and Twitter — Carusone said, but said NDAs prevented him from disclosing more about that. It also works with journalists to publicize problems or issues when other methods of persuasion fail.

“It’s a combination of building up public pressure or direct lobbying,” Carusone said.

Peltz’s project was her idea, Carusone said. He said the organization decided to publish portions of what she had found after deciding it was relevant to understanding Carlson’s current political views.

“We didn’t just try to embarrass him,” Carusone said. “We took things that directly echo his show now, and things that had some relevancy today.”

Carlson has responded by attacking Media Matters for America, along with the Southern Poverty Law Center, whose categorization of hate groups is used widely by media organizations.

He has also been engaged in a long-running feud with CNN; on Tuesday he called anchor Brian Stelter a “eunuch,” multiple times, name-calling that was omitted from the text of his monologue later posted on the Fox News website.

“This is what an authoritarian society looks like,” Carlson said. “It was only a matter of time before they came for Fox News.”

He also took aim at Media Matters’s designation as a tax-exempt nonprofit and urged viewers to call the IRS.

© Justin Lane/EPA-EFE/REX/Shutterstock People rally on Wednesday in front of the Fox News building ( Photo by JUSTIN LANE/EPA-EFE/REX)

“In its original tax application to the IRS, Media Matters claimed that the American news media were dominated by a pro-Christian bias and that they were needed to balance it,” Carlson said. “It has been violating the terms of that status ever since.”

He interviewed Boyden Gray, a former counsel to President George H.W. Bush, who has filed a complaint with the IRS about Media Matters.

“There is something wrong with the IRS,” Gray said. “There is nothing more harmful than to keep silent when you shouldn’t be defending yourself.”

The Daily Caller, which Carlson founded in 2010, also repurposed a story it had written previously about some racist and transphobic slurs Carusone used on a blog in 2005. Carusone had spoken in a derogatory way about “trannies,” “jewry,” and “japs,” in a series of posts.

He wrote about his boyfriend, now husband, saying that “despite his jewry, you KNOW he’s adorable,” in October 2005, for example.

Carusone said the story, which he intended as satire, recirculates every time Media Matters is in the news. And he said that the persona of the blog, which he wrote in college, was designed to parody a “right-wing blowhard.”

“It didn’t work very well and I killed it,” he said. “It’s not funny and it’s not nice.”

Peltz said there’s no doubt in her mind that Carlson has been trying to “thread the needle of mainstreaming overt white nationalism,” while also avoiding the consequences for it. She cited well-publicized instances: when Carlson said immigration was making the country “dirtier,” in December and another segment in which Carlson claimed the South African government was seizing land from white owners, simply because they were white. Carlson has defended that story.
Peltz said she believes the extremism has been escalating.

“It’s clear in the editorial choices that he makes that he covers demographic change as basically the end of white people,” Peltz said. “As someone with one of the largest platforms in media he frequently portrays himself as a victim. And that’s a long tactic of white nationalists, going back all the way to the civil rights struggle in the South.”

She said Carlson’s response to the audio’s publication is a sign that it had an effect. Media Matters says it has more material; it is not clear if the releases will continue.

“There’s a lot of stuff that I don’t think Fox News is super proud of,” Peltz said. “It just took 10 hours a day [listening to] Bubba the Love Sponge to figure out.”

Shivani Vora and Allyson Chiu contributed to this report.

MPs back Brexit delay as votes lay bare cabinet divisions

MPs vote overwhelmingly to request extension to article 50 – but eight ministers vote against motion

 

 MPs vote overwhelmingly to delay Brexit – video

Heather Stewart, Jessica Elgot and Peter Walker-Thu 14 Mar 2019

Brexit is set to be delayed by at least three months, after parliament opted overwhelmingly to request an extension to article 50 on another day of divisive votes that exposed the split in Theresa May’s fractured cabinet.

The prime minister is now expected to bring her twice-defeated Brexit deal back to parliament on Tuesday, after she narrowly retained control of the next steps of the process.

The votes, the last in a series of vital parliamentary decisions on Brexit over several days, mean that Britain’s departure from the EU should not now take place before 30 June and gave the prime minister a window to resuscitate her plan.

But May’s cabinet splintered yet again and eight cabinet ministers, including the Brexit secretary, Steve Barclay, and leader of the house, Andrea Leadsom, voted against the government’s motion extending article 50, preferring to keep the threat of no deal in place. In total, more than half of Tory MPs voted against the motion.

Barclay wound up the debate for the government, saying: “It is time for this house to act in the national interest, it’s time to put forward an extension that is realistic” – before trooping through the no lobby to reject that argument. Government sources insisted he was not intending to resign, despite his unprecedented action.

The shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer, said: “This evening the Brexit secretary voted against his government’s own motion on Brexit, which earlier in the day he had defended in the House of Commons. That’s the equivalent of the chancellor voting against his own budget. This is a government that has completely lost control.”

Labour’s divisions over Brexit were also clearly on display, however. The party whipped its MPs to abstain on an amendment calling for a second referendum – but 24 Labour MPs defied the whips to vote for it; and 17 rebelled to vote against, including several frontbenchers.

Stoke-on-Trent North MP Ruth Smeeth resigned as the parliamentary private secretary to Labour’s deputy leader, Tom Watson, after voting against a referendum.

“This was a really difficult decision to make, but I made a promise to my constituents that I would not consider a people’s vote, and I can’t just pretend this vote is not happening. I need to consider the views of my constituents and vote against the people’s vote,” she told her local paper, the Stoke Sentinel.

Junior shadow ministers Yvonne Fovargue, Emma Lewell-Buck, Justin Madders, and Stephanie Peacock also voted against the second referendum amendment. All were reportedly asked to resign by Jeremy Corbyn’s office following the vote and it was announced that they had stepped down on Thursday night.

The amendment, tabled by former Tory Sarah Wollaston, now of the Independent Group, and signed by around 30 MPs, was voted down by 85 votes to 334.

The official People’s Vote campaign had urged MPs not to support the amendment, arguing it was not yet the time to press the case.

But TIG’s Anna Soubry criticised Labour for declining to support the amendment, saying: “This is a betrayal of Labour party members and voters, Labour MPs, Labour’s conference policy and, most importantly, the British public. The Labour party leadership are determined to deliver Brexit, which would harm our country.”

Asked about whether Conservative MPs who voted against the government’s motion would be disciplined, May’s spokesman said it was clear it was a free vote on Thursday night; but that cabinet ministers who voted against the government motion would now be expected to follow government policy.

“The government’s motion won with a substantial majority, one in the name of the prime minister,” the spokesman said.

“It was a free vote and people were free to exercise their votes as they so choose. But the cabinet is united around allowing the UK to leave the EU with a deal and we need to get on and deliver that,” he said.

Asked if cabinet ministers were now bound by the government’s position to extend article 50, which was passed overwhelmingly by 413 votes to 202, a No 10 spokesman said: “Yes, that is how collective responsibility works.”

The past few days have seen an extraordinary collapse in Tory discipline, with four ex-remainer cabinet ministers abstaining on a whipped vote on Wednesday night, and May forced to offer a free vote on Thursday’s motion to delay Brexit.

The prime minister has consistently emphasised the importance of keeping the threat of a no-deal Brexit on the table, to avoid weakening Britain’s negotiating hand.

But a group of her own ministers threatened to resign en masse if she refused to offer them a vote on requesting to extend article 50.

The government’s motion said that if May’s plan is approved by next Wednesday, the government will request a brief extension until 30 June, to give parliament time to pass the legislation needed to leave the EU.

Government sources indicated another meaningful vote is likely to be held on Tuesday 19 March, with Downing Street working intensively to win over the Democratic Unionist party and the Brexit-backing European Research Group.

If the deal does not pass on Tuesday, May would be likely to set out her request for a longer extension before the European council summit on Thursday. Downing Street said the blame for delay lay with parliament and was against the prime minister’s will.

“The prime minister absolutely wanted and strived for the UK to be leaving the EU on 29 March. Everything she has done since entered office was intended to deliver that,” the spokesman said.
“Now we have to confront the difficult decision that decisions taken by parliament have left us in.”

Earlier, MPs narrowly passed up a chance to seize control of the Brexit process through a series of indicative votes in the Commons, defeating by 312 votes to 314 an amendment tabled by the Labour MPs Hilary Benn and Yvette Cooper, and former Conservative minister Oliver Letwin.

The amendment called for steps to “enable the House of Commons to find a way forward that can command majority support” after Theresa May’s Brexit plan was rejected for a second time on Tuesday.

The Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, said: “After the last few days of government chaos and some defeats, all of us now have the opportunity and the responsibility to work together to find a solution to the crisis facing this country, where the government has so dramatically failed to do so.
“We have begun to hold meetings with members across the house to find a consensus and a compromise that meets the needs of our country.”

There is no EU consensus over how to handle a request for an extension. Before the Commons latest votes, the European council president, Donald Tusk, expressed his backing for an extension beyond the three months that May is initially seeking.

“During my consultations ahead of [the leaders’ summit next week], I will appeal to the EU27 to be open to a long extension if the UK finds it necessary to rethink its Brexit strategy and build consensus around it,” Tusk tweeted.

Watch Live: MPs vote to reject no-deal Brexit by majority of 4 – now what?

13 Mar 2019

MPs have voted against a no deal Brexit by a majority of four, in a non-binding vote. So what happens now?

India: Don’t Misuse Our Forces

Crass politicisation of the Army is this government’s way of perpetuating cardinal sin. The EC must go beyond banning militarised banners, outlaw mention of operations

by Ashok K Mehta--13 Mar 2019

A plethora of sweeping phraseology — “game-changer,” “paradigm shift” and even “calling Pakistan’s nuclear bluff” — has entered the strategic discourse post-Balakot, signalling a turning point in India-Pakistan military balance. Like the surface surgical strikes, the aerial pulverisation of Balakot deep inside Pakistan may turn out to be a one-off also. However, neither the solitary surgical strikes nor the Balakot bombing will end cross-border terrorism. It will curb the menace and lead to diplomatic dividends to prevent India from repeating a military action that the international community fears could trigger the nuclear threshold.

Continuing its 30-year-long counter insurgency campaign, India must frame a sustained strategy based on the political aim of destroying/degrading Pakistan’s terrorist infrastructure while fully sanitising its own side against terrorist strikes. Israelis call this mowing the grass. The strategy must introduce covert capacities for clandestine operations to hurt Pakistan’s military though India will find it easier to disincentivise Pakistan from its fatal attraction to terrorism as an instrument of state policy diplomatically than militarily. Not one country criticised India for the defensive cross-border counter terrorism operations while Pakistan was censured by several countries with even its all-weather ally China merely mentioning “respect for sovereignty.”

Two things are clear: Pakistan cannot be completely isolated diplomatically; terrorist organisations are Pakistan’s strategic assets and military equaliser and while they may lie low for some time, they cannot be wished away.

Pakistan’s decision to release Abhinandan as a peace gesture was the button for de-escalation. A Pakistani delegation will arrive tomorrow for Kartarpur Corridor conversations. It will soon be business as usual as India begins to fight bitter electoral battles for the next eight weeks to determine whether Balakot will give Prime Minister Narendra Modi the decisive majority for another term. Public mood at present is overwhelmingly for his return to power. The imponderable is what will Modi do if there is another mass casualty terrorist attack in the run up to elections whose footprint cannot be traced to Pakistan. Or there is a dramatic Rafale exposure pointing at him.

In the first case, air strikes might appear to be the most appropriate instrument of response once the signature on the envelope is deciphered. The IAF has consistently complained that the inherent flexibility and non-escalatory character of air power has not been recognised (this has to be taken with a grain of salt). It recalls the historic folly of Nehru not employing the IAF in 1962. Former Air Chief Marshal Fali Major this month at the India Today conclave advocated the use of helicopter gunships in support of Army in eliminating terrorists in Kashmir — many of whom are Pakistanis. I have been saying this for over a decade: use armed helicopters to give quick closure to hostile engagements in Kashmir. Air strikes in PoK/Pakistan may not work again as  Pakistan Air Force will not be caught napping. Further, Pakistan’s strategic assets will be re-located close to population centres, some even embedded close to cantonments. IAF may have opened a strategic window but another air strike will be fraught with risks of attrition and escalation.

What stood out during Balakot is that India, while winning the air battle lost the battle of narratives. Pakistan’s DG ISPR, Maj Gen Asif Ghafoor, started his campaign of fake news within minutes of the air strikes against our own disorganised presentations 14 hours later. Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale’s terse statement with no questions taken left multiple doubts after Ghafoor had belittled the damage caused by our air strikes. Similarly MEA spokesperson accompanied by an IAF officer, who did not utter a word, also appeared without anything new or useful to add. Later, at a chaotic tri-service briefing, some picture emerged about the air battles, prospects for escalation (India will respond only if Pakistan escalates) and likely damage assessment — targets that were designated had been destroyed. This was reiterated by the Air Chief who added that IAF does not make any estimate of casualties and it is for the government to give out details of damage and casualties.

In Pakistan, not just Ghafoor but both Prime Minister Khan and Foreign Minister Qureshi were addressing domestic as well as the international audience. No Indian minister said a word at any formal interaction with the media. The military completely lost the media plot, having done impressive daily media briefings during Kargil. Not for nothing is the international media challenging India’s claims of damage and casualties.The government says it has the data but will not put it out as the enemy will find out IAF’s technology advantage. In the perception battle, Pakistan has won hands down.

The rush and race to brand the landmark air strikes as the new normal will be premature.  Twenty-four-year-old Ashutosh — a proficient professional car driver — was highly wound up during Balakot. He told me, “Why can’t we send armed Hindu fighters (RSS) into PoK to take the battle to the other side.” He said he was ready to go to the border to fight Pakistan. I thought he would do a great job. He also said for the next five years, the government should spend all-out on the military instead of development and welfare schemes to make the armed forces big and strong. If only governments had invested 2.5 to 3 per cent on defence for the last 10 years Pakistan would dare not have continued its proxy war. India has spent peanuts on defence and modernisation in the five years of this government. BJP president Amit Shah is militarily so illiterate when he claims that crossing the Rs 3 lakh crore mark in defence is a big achievement when it is only 1.5 per cent of GDP and funds for modernisation are next to nothing after inflation and committed liabilities. Prime Minister Modi constantly raises the OROP flag, which is a welfare measure and not a force multiplier.

Yet both were the first to politicise the Army, milking first the surgical strikes and now going to town over Balakot air-strikes; this time Modi even claiming “Modi ne mara hai.” The IAF, which carried out the air strikes, is forgotten. Crass politicisation of the military is this government’s way of perpetuating cardinal sin. The Election Commission must go beyond banning militarised banners to outlawing mention of military operations. But who cares for the sanctity of an apolitical, professional and secular armed forces as long as elections are won piggy-backing them.

(The writer is a retired Major General of the Indian Army and founder member of the Defence Planning Staff, currently the revamped Integrated Defence Staff)

Indian groups urge boycott of Chinese goods over stance on Masood Azhar

Toys are displayed inside a Chinese toy shop at a market in Kolkata, October 11, 2017. REUTERS/Rupak De Chowdhuri/Files

Krishna N. Das, Neha Dasgupta-MARCH 14, 2019

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - An influential Hindu nationalist group and an Indian traders body called on Thursday for a boycott of Chinese goods after Beijing blocked a move to put a Pakistani militant leader on a U.N. terrorist list following a suicide attack last month.

Regarded by Pakistan as its most reliable friend, China has repeatedly thwarted efforts to implement U.N. sanctions against Masood Azhar, the founder of Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), the group that claimed responsibility for the attack that killed 40 paramilitary police in Indian-controlled Kashmir.

The Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT), which represents 70 million traders, said it would burn Chinese goods on March 19 to “teach a lesson” to China.

“The time has come when China should suffer due to its proximity with Pakistan,” CAIT said in a statement. “The CAIT has launched a national campaign to boycott Chinese goods among the trading community of the country, calling the traders not to sell or buy Chinese goods.”

The United States, Britain and France asked the Security Council’s Islamic State and al Qaeda sanctions committee to subject the Jaish leader to an arms embargo, travel ban and asset freeze.
But China placed a “technical hold” on the proposal, saying it needed more time to consider, using the same stalling tactic it has used in the past.

Mounting impatience with Beijing’s stance was evident on social media on Thursday as #BoycottChineseProducts was the second-highest trending hashtag on Twitter in India.

Similar campaigns in the past have proved ineffectual.

China is India’s second biggest trading partner. Chinese products - from mobile phones made by companies such as Xiaomi Inc to toys - are ubiquitous in India and trade between the countries grew to nearly $90 billion in the year ending March 2018.

The leader of the Swadeshi Jagran Manch, the economic wing of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a Hindu nationalist group with close ties to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), also called for a boycott of Chinese goods.

He also wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi recommending that India hit Beijing with higher tariffs.

“Government of India needs to take immediate action to raise tariff duties on all Chinese imports,”

Ashwani Mahajan said in the letter, seen by Reuters.

“China, which is already under economic stress, thanks to trade war initiated by U.S. and other trade partners of China, will definitely realise the implications of the unjust action of protecting terrorists.”

India’s trade ministry said in an email the country can’t take any unilateral punitive action against a fellow member of the World Trade Organization.

A senior government official, who refused to be named as he was not authorised to speak to media, said there has been a move to “restrict” Chinese imports but that India was not in a position to replace products such as electronics.

Finance Minister Arun Jaitley warned against any hasty reaction.

“It’s a diplomatic issue, and India will take a decision after a careful thought,” Jaitley told CNN-News18. “We’re not a small player on the global stage, but foreign policy issues are tackled in a measured way, not in a knee-jerk manner.”

With just weeks to go before a general election, India’s main opposition Congress party said Modi’s attempts to improve ties with China were not yielding results.

“Weak Modi is scared of Xi. Not a word comes out of his mouth when China acts against India,” Congress President Rahul Gandhi said on Twitter, referring to Chinese President Xi Jinping.

China’s foreign ministry did not immediately respond to a faxed message seeking comment on the boycott calls.

Renu Kohli, an independent economist in New Delhi, doubted whether any boycott would hit critical mass.

“It’s going to fizzle out sooner or later when the consumer realises that their pocket is being hit by costlier domestic products,” said Kohli.

Reporting by Krishna N. Das and Neha Dasgupta in NEW DELHI; Additional reporting by Aditya Kalra in NEW DELHI and Ben Blanchard in BEIJING; Editing by Nick Macfie & Simon Cameron-Moore

India, Pakistan and the changing rules of engagement: here’s what you need to know

India’s airstrikes caused some damage inside Pakistan. AMIRUDDIN MUGHAL/AAP

March 12, 2019 3.08pm EDT

More than 40 Indian security staff lost their lives in a suicide attack on February 14, 2019 in the Pulwama region of Indian-administered Kashmir. The Pakistan-based Islamist militant group Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) claimed responsibility for the attack.

Twelve days later, India launched air strikes against JeM training camps in Balakot, Pakistan. India claimed the strikes inflicted significant damage on infrastructure and killed militant commanders, while avoiding civilians.

India said the strikes were “pre-emptive”, based on intelligence that JeM were planning more suicide attacks in Indian territory. Pakistan denied India’s claims, both about the damage done by their airstrikes and that Pakistan was planning further attacks.

But Pakistan retaliated with an airstrike on what it termed a “non-military installation” in the Indian controlled region of Kashmir. In the ensuing skirmish with the Indian Air Force, an Indian jet was downed and a pilot captured.

These events, in the disputed territory of Kashmir, have brought international attention to the prospect of a nuclear confrontation between India and Pakistan. But why is the decades-long conflict heating up again, and why now?

---

Read more: Nuclear war between India and Pakistan? An expert assesses the risk

---

History of Kashmir

India and Pakistan have been involved in a territorial dispute over Kashmir for decades. The roots of the conflict lie in the partition of British India in 1947, which created the secular state of India and the Muslim state of Pakistan.

The idea behind the partition was for Muslim-majority regions to become a part of Pakistan. But Kashmir was complicated. Although a Muslim-majority state, it was ruled by a Hindu king.

He decided to accede to India in October 1947. This was unacceptable to Pakistan, which launched a war in 1948 to capture Kashmir by force.

A result of the war was a UN-mediated ceasefire line. This divided Kashmir into Indian-administered “Jammu and Kashmir” (J&K) – which constituted two-thirds of the territory – and Pakistan-administered “Azad (free) Kashmir”, which was one-third of the territory.

While the 1948 ceasefire brought an end to the fighting, Kashmir’s status remained unresolved and Pakistan continued to contest the territorial boundaries. India granted J&K constitutional autonomy, while the Pakistan-administered region was a self-governing entity.

---

Read more: Why Kashmir is still ensnared in conflict after 70 years

---

View from Pakistan

Kashmir is central to Pakistan’s national identity as a Muslim state, and therefore it represents unfinished business after the 1947 partition.

Pakistan launched another war against India in 1965, which caused thousands of casualties on both sides. Hostilities between the two countries ended after a diplomatic intervention by the Soviet Union and the United States and a UN-mandated ceasefire.

The 1965 war, the 1971 Indian intervention in Pakistan’s civil war, and the subsequent creation of Bangladesh led to more changes to the territorial borders in Kashmir. The ceasefire line is now designated as the Line of Control (LoC).

The Line of Control divides the Indian and Pakistani territories of Kashmir. Wikimedia Commons

Since the 1990s, Pakistan has supported militant groups such as the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) to attack Indian security forces and civilians.

View from India

Kashmir has also been central to India’s national narrative of unity in diversity propagated by leaders of the independence movement, Jawaharlal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi. Indian leaders have often projected the accommodation of a Muslim majority state in the J&K region as proof of Indian secular democracy.

India’s official position considers the whole of undivided Kashmir as a part of India. And India has not consistently upheld J&K’s constitutionally-guaranteed autonomy. Political instability in the state has been compounded by interference from the Indian government. Indian armed forces in the area have often used force against civilians.

In the 1990s, this led to a mass uprising and insurgency among the Kashmiri population in India. Pakistan exploited this discontent, offering arms, training and funds to both Pakistan-based and local Kashmiri militants.

The insurgency in Indian Kashmir eased in 2003, with a ceasefire and the initiation of an India-Pakistan peace process that led to a relative period of calm.

---

Read more: Kashmir conflict is not just a border dispute between India and Pakistan

---

The peace process came to an end after the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks, carried out by the LeT. But India’s policy of strategic restraint and pressure on Pakistan by the United States to address militancy prevented a worsening of hostilities.

A new government came to power in India in 2014, led by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party. The leadership’s approach to Pakistan and Kashmir has been significantly different from the previous administration, with more emphasis on curbing dissent in J&K and using pre-emptive strikes across the LoC against militant groups in Pakistan’s territory.

Local discontent in Indian Kashmir has also led to an increase in militancy since 2014 with more Pakistani support and a combination of rising local recruitment and an influx of foreign militants.

What does this mean?

The rules of engagement between India and Pakistan are changing. India’s “pre-emptive” air strikes in February were a significant shift away from the previous policy of strategic restraint. This is the first time since the dispute emerged that India has targeted militants inside Pakistani territory.

Pakistan chose to escalate tensions further, a move that had previously been prevented by the US. Pakistani Prime Minister, Imran Khan, has reiterated his desire for dialogue with India. But ceasefire violations across the LoC and the international border have continued unabatedsince February 14k, with both sides reporting civilian casualties.

Diplomatic pressure from the UN and the rest of the international community has forced the Pakistani government to ban some militant groups. Yet, it continues to deny that JeM is active in Pakistan.

Meanwhile, tensions with Pakistan are playing well into Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s promotion of being a “strong leader”, capable of protecting the country from its enemies. This is all part of the strategy leading up to the coming elections.

---

Read more: Kashmir: India and Pakistan's escalating conflict will benefit Narendra Modi ahead of elections

---

The escalatory responses by both governments have shown the actions of the two countries are becoming more difficult to control, particularly with the United States’ lack of involvement in defusing tensions as it disengages from the region.

Is there any truth to rumours of a rift in the Saudi royal palace?

Despite reports of a growing quarrel between King Salman and MBS, it is likely that we are just witnessing business as usual
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman speaks with King Salman in Riyadh in December (Handout/SPA/AFP)

Madawi al-Rasheed-13 March 2019 

Rumours of a rift between King Salman and his son, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), remain unfounded and attributed to unnamed sources.

Recently, a Guardian article suggested that 83-year-old King Salman disapproved of a move by MBS - made while the king was at a summit in the Egyptian resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh - to appoint Princess Reema bint Bandar bin Sultan as ambassador to Washington, replacing his brother, Prince Khalid bin Salman, who became deputy defence minister.

The fact that MBS was not at the airport to welcome his father back home after the February summit was also cited as an indication of a growing rift. 

King in everything but name

MBS was designated deputy king while his father was abroad, as is customary in such circumstances. While King Salman was in Egypt, the Guardian article noted, his entourage was "so alarmed at the possible threat to his authority" that a new 30-person security detail was flown in to replace the existing team.

So, did the king fear that his son might stage a coup and announce himself as the new monarch while he was abroad? 

The king might have thought that MBS went a bit too far, but the future of the throne was more important than the truth

This is unlikely and foolish, as MBS does not need to go so far as to depose his father. He is already king in everything but name, and having already antagonised many royal factions, he would be hesitant to further rock the boat.

Deposing his father would cement MBS as the final destroyer of royal cohesion. He would be reminded of this treacherous act until his death. But he would not feel compelled to do so, regardless, as his father’s old age and unbounded trust allows him to rule as de facto king. 

What is more intriguing is the fact that King Salman has yet to name a deputy crown prince. Should something happen to MBS, Saudi Arabia does not have a deputy. Given that the king is now so old - he was hardly coherent when he read a short statement in Sharm el-Sheikh - a vacuum could emerge if MBS were to disappear. 

Shielded from criticism

Reports of a growing rift remain ambiguous, serving only to strengthen MBS’s grip on power. Saudi royal affairs remain top-secret, and leaks and rumours are eagerly awaited, with a gap in the public’s understanding of how decisions are taken within the royal household.

It is in the interests of MBS to have such rumours circulate in the Western press. The crown prince benefits from the umbrella that his father provides to shield him from mounting criticism at home and abroad. 

The young prince can change his mind about almost any policy issue - from the privatisation of Aramco to abolishing fuel subsidies - when negative consequences emerge. The king can then be portrayed as having expressed objections to his son’s erratic decisions. Salman gets the credit, as he is seen as still being in control, while MBS does not lose face.

A protestor wears a mask of depicting Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman with red painted hands during the demonstration outside the Saudi Arabia consulate in Istanbul, on 25 October, 2018 (AFP)

If King Salman had reservations over how his son was handling the kingdom’s affairs, especially after the gruesome murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul last October, he would have acted immediately. Instead, he toured the kingdom with his son by his side, sending a strong message that he retains the full support of the royal court.  

The king did not puncture the many lies surrounding Khashoggi’s death, from the initial denials of the murder to the “cover-up” team reportedly sent to dispose of the body. King Salman only insisted on a Saudi investigation, just like his son.

The king supported his son and was an accomplice in shielding him from a serious, independent investigation. The king might have thought that MBS went a bit too far, but the future of the throne was more important than the truth. 

Redrawing foreign policy

On larger regional issues, King Salman reportedly had a stronger reaction to the decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, at a time when the Saudis have moved towards greater normalisation with Israel. The king occasionally pointed to the thorny Jerusalem issue, while his son fully endorsed greater economic and military cooperation with Israel. 

Last summer, King Salman reportedly told US officials that a peace plan must include East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state. MBS, however, was clearly not that bothered. His new team of Saudi journalists flooded the media with positive endorsements of the greater cooperation between Saudi Arabia and Israel.

King Salman’s reservations served to offer a semblance of reluctance to appease potential public opposition, when it was clear that Riyadh had adopted a strategy of courting Israel to counter Iran.

Saudi Arabia and MBS: Absolute power, absolute corruption

Read More »

Despite rumours of a rift between father and son, any serious observer of Saudi internal affairs should be wary of believing unsubstantiated reports. While many observers may hope that the king one day sacks MBS, this is an unrealistic prospect. 

Foreign governments should know how to deal with the crown prince now - before he becomes king - rather than waiting to see if his father sacks him. This involves redrawing foreign policy and engaging in new thinking about Saudi Arabia under MBS. 

Western governments, whose economic and financial interests in Saudi Arabia will continue with or without the erratic crown prince, must reconsider their relationship with Riyadh so as not to allow the MBS and his ilk to get away with murder.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.