Category: Nation

Japan’s former foreign minister Fumio Kishida, a longtime stalwart of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), is all set to become the country’s next prime minister after he was elected party president on Wednesday, last week. Kishida, 64, beat the head of Japan’s COVID-19 vaccination program, 58-year-old Taro Kono, in a runoff poll among LDP lawmakers and rank-and-file party members, winning by 87 votes.

Kishida was installed as LDP leader after a deal among party power-brokers—despite what many political observers say is his lack of personal appeal and much broader public support for Kono. Kishida was supported by one of the LDP’s largest factions, but only led Kono by one vote in the first round of party voting. Yoshikazu Kato, a director of a Tokyo-based research and consulting firm Trans-Pacific Group (TPG), believes Kishida’s team was able to secure more votes with help from supporters of ultraconservative candidate Sanae Takaichi—who was vying to become Japan’s first female prime minister.

Takaichi came in third and was eliminated from the race in the first round, along with moderate party executive Seiko Noda who fell to fourth. “Kishida and Takaichi, both of them, and both of their teams, have already decided if things have gone to the second round what they are going to do,” Kato tells TIME. “This is the secret to why Kishida accomplished such a big win.”

Ultimately, Kishida may have been more palatable to the LDP’s conservative elders, than Kono—who is more liberal and supports legalizing same-sex marriage and phasing out nuclear power, observers say.

Kato adds that Kishida was the first candidate to join the race to succeed Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga, who had bowed out from the leadership race earlier this month amid anger over his government’s COVID-19 response. “From the beginning until today, Kishida has been very consistent and confident, and very much ready for what happens next,” he says.

Since the LDP dominates the lower house of the National Diet, Japan’s legislature, Kishida is virtually guaranteed to become prime minister next month. The LDP’s new leader is also expected to secure the party another four years in power in the general elections this fall. The main opposition party—the Constitutional Democratic Party (CDP)—has struggled to poll above 10%.

Tougher on China?

Observers say Japan’s incoming leader will have to address long-standing issues such as the aging population and threats brought on by China’s increasing assertiveness in the region, on top of helping the country recover from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Tokyo’s diplomatic ties with Beijing have also been strained. Japanese leaders have spoken out in support of Taiwan, and criticized increased Chinese incursions into territory around islands in the East China Sea that are claimed by both Japan and China.

Kishida, a nine-term member of the House of Representatives, was in charge of foreign affairs for more than four years under Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Japan’s longest-serving foreign minister. He had met with his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi several times—which Kato believes may bode better ties between the two countries.

Although he has advocated continuing dialogue with China, Japan’s top trading partner, Kishida has promised to take a harder line militarily and supports boosting Tokyo’s defense budget amid the threat posed by Beijing. However, Kato says, “Kishida is not pro-China or anti-China, but he is a person who can talk.”

Kishida advocates ‘new capitalism’

On Japan’s economy, Kishida says the country needs a “new capitalism” to help narrow a wealth gap that has grown with the COVID-19 pandemic. He has called for a major stimulus package, as well as setting aside of $90 billion to fund scientific developments and renewable energy. He has also advocated moving away from the deregulation of business that began in the early 2000s.

While the economy grew faster than expected after Suga announced he would not continue his term, its continued recovery may be slowed by the surge of coronavirus infections in July and August.

Regarded by political peers as a moderate, Kishida will have to win back the public’s support and improve the approval ratings of the government to do this. However, Kishida’s personality could make it harder for him to get his message across to the Japanese public, says Kato—especially compared with the more forthright Kono.

Kingston, of Temple University, says attending to Japan’s wealth inequality will help improve the LDP’s image, which will boost its chances of maintaining power when the general election comes in November. Kishida has to “hit the ground running,” Kingston says. “He has to deliver. He has promised these things.”

Prime Minister Narendra Modi and leaders from US, Australia and Japan attended the first in-person summit of Quad leaders and said that the four democracies would act as a “force for global good” and ensure peace and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific as well as the entire world.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi along with his counterparts from the US, Australia and Japan on September 24 attended the first in-person summit of Quad leaders hosted by U.S. President Joe Biden and said that he firmly believed that the grouping of four democracies would act as a “force for global good” and ensure peace and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific as well as the entire world.

In November 2017, India, Japan, the U.S. and Australia gave shape to the long-pending proposal of setting up the Quad to develop a new strategy to keep the critical sea routes in the Indo-Pacific free of any influence, amidst China’s growing military presence in the strategic region.

Prime Minister Modi, in his speech called it a ‘historic meeting: promising that The Quad was going to be a “force for global good,” and will work for peace and stability. He recalled the four countries came together the first time after the major Tsunami destroyed so many coastlines in the Indo-Pacific, and now it is coming together as Covid is threatening the world, and “we have come together for humanitarian reasons.”

Opening the summit, Mr. Biden said the four democracies have come together to take on common challenges from COVID-19 to climate. “This group has democratic partners who share world views and have common vision for the future,” he said. “We know how to get things done and are up to the challenge,” he added. In a short and crisp opening address, Prime Minister Modi said that he was confident that “our participation in Quad will ensure peace and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific as well as the entire world”.

The four countries have common democratic values, Modi said, and have decided to take a positive approach on issues ranging from supply chain to Covid-19. ‘The Quad’ as it is referred to, was scheduled to touch upon a variety of subjects like 5G technology, climate change, critical infrastructure, supply chains and regional security. Afghanistan as well as North Korea’s ballistic missile launches were also expected to be important subjects of discussion. Senior Biden officials over the days leading up to the Quad summit, have been trying hard to word the message from the The Quad saying it “stands for something and not against something; it is not targeting any one country.”

The officials have also emphasized that The Quad does not have a military or security dimension to it. But its history says otherwise. Initiated in 2007 by then Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or The Quad aimed to achieve the goal of peace and security in the region. However, the same year, the Quad nations, joined by Singapore took part in naval exercises, but then broke up when Australia withdrew from formal discussions in 2008. President Donald Trump revived The Quad in 2017. The group held its first foreign ministerial meeting in New York on September 26, 2019.

President Biden has now elevated the partnership from a ministerial level engagement to a summit, with a virtual meeting taking place March 12, 2021, where the four leaders discussed COVID-19, climate change, and security challenges like North Korea. After the first meeting, the Quad announced the launch of three senior-level working groups: the Quad Vaccine Experts Group, the Quad Climate Working Group and the Quad Critical and Emerging Technology Working Group.

According to officials, the Sept. 24 meeting of the The Quad would result in new initiatives on space; sharing information on illegal fishing and on issues associated with maritime domain awareness;  taking steps to help monitor climate change and promote a variety of issues associated with estuaries and fisheries; a “robust” cybersecurity effort which is already underway with the State Department but which will be enhanced to the leader level; taking steps to bolster critical infrastructure resilience against cyber threats;  and advancing a very high-level group on specific capabilities and technologies.

Japan’s business publication Nikkei reported last week that a draft of the Quad summit joint statement would “agree to work toward creating a safe supply chain for semiconductors.” Speaking at the UN on Tuesday, Biden has said that the Quad would be elevated to meet challenges in emerging technologies, among others. India’s goals of inviting hi-tech manufacturing mesh with the US and the Quad plans. Other critical issues like vaccine deliverables and health cooperation, green shipping, and infrastructure are also part of The Quad’s cooperation agenda.

United Nations– India and its three allies in the quest for Security Council reform have called for a determined push for the adoption of a text for conducting the negotiations and to set a time-frame for the changes.The foreign ministers of the G4 group “expressed their strong determination to work towards launching text-based negotiations without further delay in the IGN (Intergovernmental Negotiations), on the basis of a single document, with a view to its adoption in the General Assembly,” according to their joint statement issued after a meeting on Wednesday.

They also “decided to intensify dialogue with all interested Member States, including other reform-minded countries and groups, in order to seek concrete outcomes in a definite time-frame,” the statement said. The reform process known as the Intergovernmental Negotiaitons (IGN) has been crippled by its failure to adopt a negotiating text on which to base the discussions and proceed.

External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and Foreign Ministers Carlos Alberto Franco Franca of Brazil, Heiko Maas of Germany and Motegi Toshimitsu of Japan met on the sidelines of the high-level meeting of the Assembly to evaluate the progress of the negotiations for reforms and map out future strategy.

The four countries work together for reforming the Security Council and support each other for permanent seats on a reformed body. A small group of countries known as United for Consensus (UfC) has blocked the IGN from adopting a negotiating text so the reform process can proceed. The UfC is led by Italy and includes Pakistan.

The Security Council last underwent changes in 1965 and since then the membership of the UN has increased from 117 to 193 with many of the new members coming from Africa, where the UN has most peacekeeping operations. The four ministers “expressed their strong support to the Common African Position (CAP) as enshrined in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration” of the African Union.

The documents call for expanding the Council to give African nations two permanent seats.

The ministers said that it was essential “to reform the Security Council through an expansion of both categories, permanent and non-permanent seats, to enable the Security Council to better deal with the ever-complex and evolving challenges to the maintenance of international peace and security, and thereby to carry out its duties more effectively.”

The permanent membership of the Council is stuck at five — giving the leaders of the winning side in World War II a grip on its agenda — often leading to its immobilisation because of their veto powers. (IANS)

When the Taliban captured power back in 1996, one of its first political acts was to hang the ousted Afghan President Mohammed Najibullah in Ariana Square in Kabul.  The newly-installed government played a triple role: judge, jury and hangman, all three rolled into one. Fast  forward to August 15, when the Taliban, in its second coming, assumed power ousting the US-supported government of Ashraf Ghani, a former official of the World Bank, armed with a doctorate in anthropology from one of the most prestigious Ivy League educational institutions: Columbia University. In a Facebook posting, Ghani said he fled to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) seeking safe haven because he “was going to be hanged” by the Taliban.

If that did happen, the Taliban would have earned the dubious distinction of being the only government in the world to hang two presidents. But mercifully, it did not. Ghani, however, denied that he had bolted from the presidential palace lugging several suitcases with millions of dollars pilfered from the country’s treasury. Meanwhile, when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan during 1996-2001, only three countries recognized its legitimacy: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and UAE.

But now 20 years later, the first four countries most likely to provide legitimacy to a Taliban government may include China and Russia (two permanent members of the Security Council), along with Iran and Pakistan, while others could follow. At a meeting of the 15-member Security Council on August 30, a resolution condemning the “deplorable” terrorist attack on the Kabul airport, was backed by 13 countries, with two abstentions: China and Russia. But since they didn’t exercise their vetoes, the resolution was adopted 13-2.

Predictably, Taliban has now pledged a new era and a promise to cooperate with the Americans, perhaps as part of a strategy to gain international legitimacy– and eventually a seat in the UN General Assembly, a seat now held by the ousted Ghani government. Still, its sordid past—including public floggings and executions, enforced disappearances and violations of basic civil liberties—may come back to haunt the Taliban.

Dr. Simon Adams, Executive Director of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), told IPS there is no evidence that Taliban version 2.0 will be any different from the original Taliban, despite their attempts to convince the world that this time around they will be more user-friendly. For decades, he pointed out, the Taliban have been responsible for war crimes, and when they last ruled Afghanistan, they perpetrated crimes against humanity.

Last time they were in government, Taliban forces systematically persecuted the country’s vulnerable Hazara minority and stripped millions of women and girls of their universal human rights. The Taliban have not changed, he argued. Beyond the glare of TV cameras and press conferences, Taliban fighters are already carrying out summary executions and evidence has already emerged of a recent massacre of Hazara men, said Dr Adams.

As an armed extremist group, as perpetrators of atrocities and as a state power, the Taliban stand in direct opposition to everything that the United Nations stands for. “They belong in handcuffs, not sitting in the UN General Assembly hall”, he declared. James M. Dorsey, Senior Fellow at the National University of Singapore’s Middle East Institute, told IPS there is no doubt that the Taliban will claim Afghanistan’s UN seat once they form a government.

They cannot do so before that. In terms of the International Criminal Court (ICC), there is equally no doubt that the Taliban have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. “The problem is they are in good company: China, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia, just to name a few”. Asked why the US wants to deal with a Taliban government that is not legally recognized by Washington, Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken said the US has been “engaged with the Taliban for some time diplomatically going back years in efforts, to try to advance a peaceful settlement of the conflict in Afghanistan”. “Going forward, we will judge our engagement with any Taliban-led government in Afghanistan based on one simple proposition: our interests, and does it help us advance them or not?”.

“If engagement with the government can advance the enduring interests we will have in counterterrorism, the enduring interest we’ll have in trying to help the Afghan people who need humanitarian assistance, in the enduring interest we have in seeing that the rights of all Afghans, especially women and girls, are upheld, then we’ll do it,’ said Blinken, leaving the door open for a political relationship with the Taliban government.

He said if a future Taliban government upholds the basic rights of the Afghan people, if it makes good on its commitments to ensure that Afghanistan cannot be used as a launching pad for terrorist attacks “directed against us and our allies and partners, and in the first instance, if it makes good on its commitments to allow people who want to leave Afghanistan to leave, that’s a government we can work with” “If it doesn’t, we will make sure that we use every appropriate tool at our disposal to isolate that government, and as I said before, Afghanistan will be a pariah,” he declared.

Samir Sanbar, a former UN Assistant Secretary-General, who served under five different secretaries-generals, told IPS: “I do not recall (the former) Taliban government seeking recognition or claiming a seat during the 1996 General Assembly session, attended by U.S. President Bill Clinton”. But he did remember the former Permanent Representative of Afghanistan seeking a U.N. job. “If the Taliban decides to claim the Afghan seat, the UN’s Credentials Committee will have to review that claim”. Sanbar said the Taliban delegation would also need U.S. visas to visit New York, which would require the blessings of the Biden administration.

He also pointed that the UAE may not recognize the current Taliban, as it did in 1996, because it is now hosting the ousted Afghan President Ashraf Ghani. Sanbar said it will be interesting to watch what happens at the upcoming 76th session of the General Assembly which opens on September 21.

Thalif Deen, Senior Editor at the UN Bureau of Inter Press Service (IPS) news agency, is the author of a newly-released book on the United Nations titled “No Comment – and Don’t Quote Me on That.” Published by Amazon, the book is mostly a satire peppered with scores of anecdotes– both serious and hilarious. The link to Amazon via the author’s website follows: https://www.rodericgrigson.com/no-comment-by-thalif-deen/

Germany’s center-left Social Democrats won the biggest share of the vote in a national election Sunday, narrowly beating outgoing Chancellor Angela Merkel ‘s center-right Union bloc in a closely fought race that will determine who succeeds the long-time leader at the helm of Europe’s biggest economy. Media reports here suggested, Germany is embarking on a potentially lengthy search for its next government after the center-left Social Democrats narrowly beat outgoing Chancellor Angela Merkel’s center-right bloc in an election that failed to set a clear direction.

SPD leader Olaf Scholz said he had a clear mandate to form a government, while his conservative rival Armin Laschet remains determined to fight on. The Social Democrats’ candidate Olaf Scholz, the outgoing vice chancellor and finance minister who pulled his party out of a years-long slump, said the outcome was “a very clear mandate to ensure now that we put together a good, pragmatic government for Germany.”

The two parties have governed together for years. But Mr Scholz says it is time for a new coalition with the Greens and liberals. Preliminary results gave his party a narrow election win over the conservatives who suffered their worst-ever performance. Despite getting its worst-ever result in a federal contest, the Union bloc said it too would reach out to smaller parties to discuss forming a government, while Merkel stays on in a caretaker role until a successor is sworn in.

Election officials said early Monday that a count of all 299 constituencies showed the Social Democrats received 25.9% of the vote, ahead of 24.1% for the Union bloc. No winning party in a German national election had previously taken less than 31% of the vote. Armin Laschet, the governor of North Rhine-Westphalia state who outmaneuvered a more popular rival to secure the nomination of Merkel’s Union bloc, had struggled to motivate the party’s base and suffered a series of missteps. “Of course, this is a loss of votes that isn’t pretty,” Laschet said of results that looked set to undercut by some measure the Union’s previous worst showing of 31% in 1949. But he added that with Merkel departing after 16 years in power, “no one had an incumbent bonus in this election.”

Laschet told supporters that “we will do everything we can to form a government under the Union’s leadership, because Germany now needs a coalition for the future that modernizes our country.”  Both Laschet and Scholz will be courting the same two parties: the environmentalist Greens, who were third with 14.8%; and the pro-business Free Democrats, who took 11.5% of the vote.  The Greens traditionally lean toward the Social Democrats and the Free Democrats toward the Union, but neither ruled out going the other way.

The other option was a repeat of the outgoing “grand coalition” of the Union and Social Democrats that has run Germany for 12 of Merkel’s 16 years in power, but there was little obvious appetite for that after years of government squabbling. “Everyone thinks that … this ‘grand coalition’ isn’t promising for the future, regardless of who is No. 1 and No. 2,” Laschet said. “We need a real new beginning.” The Free Democrats’ leader, Christian Lindner, appeared keen to govern, suggesting that his party and the Greens should make the first move. “About 75% of Germans didn’t vote for the next chancellor’s party,” Lindner said in a post-election debate with all parties’ leaders on public broadcaster ZDF. “So it might be advisable … that the Greens and Free Democrats first speak to each other to structure everything that follows.”

Baerbock insisted that “the climate crisis … is the leading issue of the next government, and that is for us the basis for any talks … even if we aren’t totally satisfied with our result.”  Due to Germany’s complicated electoral system, a full breakdown of the result by seats in parliament was still pending. Germany’s leading parties have significant differences when it comes to taxation and tackling climate change.  Foreign policy didn’t feature much in the campaign, although the Greens favor a tougher stance toward China and Russia.

Whichever parties form the next German government, the Free Democrats’ Lindner said it was “good news” that it would have a majority with centrist parties. “All of those in Europe and beyond who were worried about Germany’s stability can now see: Germany will be stable in any case,” he said. In two regional elections also held Sunday, the Social Democrats looked set to defend the post of Berlin mayor that they have held for two decades. The party was also on course for a strong win in the northeastern state of Mecklenburg Western-Pomerania. For the first time since 1949, the Danish minority party SSW was set to win a seat in parliament, officials said. Likely coalitions in Germany will either see the SPD or CDU/CSU forming a government with the Green Party, which took 14.8% of the votes, or the liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP), with 11.5%.

The party had campaigned on a message of stability for the country after Merkel, seen as a steady pair of hands over the past nearly 16 years, steps down. But it is now coming to terms with what it itself called a bitter night of losses. Merkel’s own seat in northeast Mecklenburg-Vorpommern has flipped to the Social Democrats after the outgoing chancellor held it for 31 years. Merkel, who over 16 years cemented her position as one of the world’s most successful political leaders, will stay in job until a coalition deal is negotiated — and that could take months.  After Merkel’s election win in September 2017, it took more than five months for a government to be formed.

Merkel, who has won plaudits for steering Germany through several major crises, won’t be an easy leader to follow. Her successor will have to oversee the country’s recovery from the coronavirus pandemic, which Germany so far has weathered relatively well thanks to large rescue programs.

The United Nations has condemned the Taliban for what its “increasingly violent response” to dissent, weeks after the group’s rapid takeover of Afghanistan.  Demonstrations have taken place across Afghanistan since the fall of Kabul on 15 August, demanding respect for women’s rights and greater freedoms. Taliban fighters have used batons, whips, and live ammunition against protesters, the UN said in its report. “We call on the Taliban to immediately cease the use of force towards, and the arbitrary detention of, those exercising their right to peaceful assembly and the journalists covering the protests,” a spokeswoman for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said in a press statement.

Taliban fighters swept across Afghanistan in August, capturing provincial centers and eventually the capital Kabul itself in less than two weeks.  The US then led an airlift from the capital’s international airport, evacuating more than 120,000 people before pulling out its own forces on 31 August. The Taliban takeover follows two decades of US military operations in Afghanistan, after American and allied forces ousted the group from power in 2001 following the 9/11 attacks.

UN spokeswoman Ravina Shamdasani criticised the Taliban’s crackdown on demonstrations in a press briefing last week.  Demonstrations have grown since 15 August, she said. But on Wednesday the Taliban banned unauthorized gatherings, and they ordered telecommunications companies to shut off mobile internet in Kabul.  It is crucial the group listen to Afghan women and men on the streets “during this time of great uncertainty”, she said.

The press statement also noted the deaths of at least four people – including a boy – and the violent dispersal of demonstrators in recent weeks.  It also criticized violence against journalists. Reporters told the BBC this week they had been beaten, detained and flogged by the Taliban when they tried to cover the protests. The UN report comes amid growing concerns about Afghanistan in the wake of the Taliban takeover.  The UN’s World Food Programme said 93% of households in the country were not eating enough food. A drought has exacerbated supply problems, causing the loss of some 40% of the wheat crop.

The Wall Street Journal reports that aid workers fear the entire population could fall into poverty within months.  And UN body UNESCO warns that the country faces a “generational catastrophe” in education, after two decades of progress for children – especially girls. Unconfirmed reports suggest the Taliban plan to hold a ceremony to inaugurate their new government on Saturday, after announcing its leadership this week.  It is the day the US will hold events to mark the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks.

Close to 3,000 people died that day. Islamist militant group al-Qaeda masterminded the attack, led by Osama Bin Laden – who was at the time in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban.  Ken McCallum, director general of the UK intelligence agency MI5, has told the BBC that the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan has likely “emboldened” UK terrorists.  President Joe Biden had initially set 11 September 11 as the deadline for the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, before the Taliban takeover forced the US to speed up its withdrawal.

Yoshihide Suga is bowing out as prime minister of Japan, amid increasing anger over his government’s handling of COVID-19 in the wake of the Tokyo Olympics. He announced Friday that he will not seek re-election as leader of the Liberal Democrat Party (LDP) at the end of September. Suga, 72, became prime minister just one year ago after long-serving Prime Minister Shinzo Abe stepped down over health concerns. He said during a party meeting Friday on that he wanted to focus on the coronavirus pandemic instead of continuing on as the head of the LDP. With a general election upcoming in the fall, Suga’s resignation paves the way for a new leader of the world’s third-largest economy.

Why is Suga stepping aside after just a year in office?

Suga’s popularity has plummeted over his handling of the coronavirus pandemic; Japan is currently battling its largest wave of the virus since the pandemic began. “Suga’s insincere and ambiguous comments and actions on containing the pandemic every single day have made Japanese citizens very frustrated,” says Yoshikazu Kato, a research fellow at the Rakuten Securities Economic Research Institute in Tokyo. “The public nowadays basically does not trust the government at all.” Suga hoped the Olympics would help boost his popularity, but despite a record medal count for Japan, his ratings sank even lower. The number of COVID-19 cases has surged to all-time highs in recent weeks in Japan, due to the more contagious Delta variant. The Japanese public, angry over Suga’s decision to hold the international event in the midst of a pandemic, has increasingly ignored government pleas to stay at home. Support for the Prime Minister was below 30% in both July and August, according to polls by local media.

“Suga has long been under pressure due to criticism of his coronavirus response and a host of other issues,” says Kristi Govella, the Deputy Director of the Asia Program at the German Marshall Fund of the United States. “But the ground really shifted over the last couple of weeks and his support from within the party eroded quickly.” Experts say that LDP members began to worry that having Suga as party leader could cost them seats in the general election, which must be held before the end of November. “My guess is that he was persuaded” to step aside, says Jeff Kingston, the Director of Asian Studies at Temple University Japan.

Who will be Japan’s next prime minister?

Fumio Kishida, a frontrunner to win the Liberal Democratic Party’s (LDP) leadership election and become Japan’s next prime minister, is pictured on Sept. 14, 2020 in Tokyo, Japan. Eugene Hoshiko–Pool/Getty Images Japan has a parliamentary system, and the LDP and its allies have a strong majority in the lower house of the legislature, the National Diet—which means whomever wins the LDP leadership race will become the next prime minister. However, the new leader will have only a few weeks before he or she will have to face Japanese voters in a general election. Despite Suga’s deep unpopularity, the LDP still dominates politics in Japan, so whomever is picked in the party leadership election is likely to win a four-year term in office.

Several contenders have already indicated they were interested in running for LDP leadership. With Suga gone, even more candidates may emerge, and it’s unclear who is likely to come out on top, observers say. Former Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida—who had already said that he would challenge Suga for the party’s presidency—is currently the frontrunner, but that could change quickly as others enter the race, Govella says. Kingston says that although Kishida really wants the job and has made some big promises, like a huge coronavirus stimulus package, he has “zero charisma.” “He’s just an unimpressive guy,” says Kingston. A recent poll by Nikkei Asia found that Taro Kono, a former foreign minister and the country’s vaccine czar, and Shigeru Ishiba, former secretary-general of the ruling party, were ranked as top choices for the LDP’s next presidency. But Kingston says Kono’s is involvement with the vaccination drive—which many in Japan perceived as too slow to start—may hurt his chances, and it’s not clear if Ishiba wants the job.

Japan’s Internal Affairs and Communications Minister Sanae Takaichi has expressed interest in running for the LDP’s top spot, and former defense minister Tomomi Inada has indicated her interest in the past. Kato, of the Rakuten Securities Economic Research Institute, says that although some experts believe Takaichi might be Japan’s first female Prime Minister, she’s unlikely to win this round. Observers have also named Shinjiro Koizumi, the country’s charismatic environment minister and son of former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi as a possible contender, but Kingston says the 40-year-old politician is “just too young.” “Suga’s resignation opens up the race. A lot of people who were hanging back… now, these people are probably going to be reconsidering,” says Kingston.

What does this mean for Japan?

Suga served as his predecessor’s cabinet secretary for eight years before he became prime minister. His decision to step aside marks the end of an era for Japan. “Suga’s resignation actually means the end of the longest administration in Japanese constitutional history—Abe’s administration,” Kato says. Despite uncertainty over who will take over the LDP from Suga, experts say that the change in leadership might not be all that significant. “I think there are signs that the LDP is going to retain its majority, but they figure they’ll do better under a fresh face, rather than Suga who’s been looking pretty weary lately,” says Kingston. Says Govella: “Despite Suga’s departure, we are likely to see a great deal of continuity in Japanese politics given the dominance of the LDP and the need for the next prime minister to focus on Japan’s coronavirus response.” (Courtesy: TIME)

Where did the Taliban find funds to sustain themselves over a two-decade war with the US? With the Americans gone and the Afghan opposition collapsed, what military assets do the Taliban have?

In returning to power in Kabul over the weekend, the Taliban demonstrated both the success of a lightning military offensive against Afghanistan’s then government, as well as their remarkable resilience in the face of onslaughts by the world’s most powerful military for 20 years.

When they were driven out of Kabul in November 2001, the Taliban had been in power for a little over five years, and in existence for only seven. What makes them the fighting force that outlasted the United States in its longest ever war, and defeated the Afghans who received equipment and training worth over $80 billion from the Americans? Where have the Taliban found the funds to sustain themselves over a two-decade war with an adversary with almost limitless resources? Flourishing drug trade In a May 2020 report, the United Nations Security Council estimated that “overall Taliban annual combined revenues range from $300 million to upwards of $1.5 billion per annum”. It said that while the figures for 2019 were lower, officials “were careful to note that the Taliban used resources effectively and efficiently and were not experiencing a cash crisis”.

The primary source of the Taliban’s funds has been the drug trade, as report after report has shown over two decades. Their income suffered in recent years because of the “reduction in poppy cultivation and revenue, less taxable income from aid and development projects, and increased spending on “governance” projects”, the UNSC report said. However, “while heroin cultivation and production have provided the bulk of Taliban revenue for many years, the emergence of methamphetamine in Afghanistan is giving impetus to a major new drug industry with significant profit margins,” the report noted.

According to the report, “interdiction of methamphetamine was first recorded by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) in 2014 (9 kg) and has continued on a sharp upward trajectory, with 650 kg interdicted in the first half of 2019”. Methamphetamine, the report said, “was stated to be more profitable than heroin because its ingredients are low-cost and it does not require large laboratories”. The Taliban, it said, “were reported to be in control of 60 per cent of methamphetamine laboratories in the key producing provinces of Farah and Nimruz”.

The report quoted officials as saying “the system of heroin smuggling and taxation organised by the Taliban…stretched across eight of Nangarhar’s southern districts from Hisarak to Dur Baba, on the border with Pakistan”. “In each district, smugglers paid a tax to district Taliban commanders of 200 Pakistan rupees (approximately $1.30), or its equivalent in afghanis, per kilogram of heroin. Smugglers were provided documentation by each Taliban commander certifying payment of tax before proceeding to the next district and repeating the same process. Afghan officials stated that the smuggling routes thus helped to financially empower each district Taliban commander.”

In a report published last year, UNODC said “Afghanistan, the country where most opium is produced, which has accounted for approximately 84 per cent of global opium production over the past five years, supplies markets in neighbouring countries, Europe, the Near and Middle East, South Asia and Africa and to a small degree North America (notably Canada) and Oceania.” In September 2020, Radio Free Europe reported on a confidential report commissioned by NATO, which concluded that the Taliban “has achieved, or is close to achieving, financial and military independence”, which “enables [it] to self-fund its insurgency without the need for support from governments or citizens of other countries”. Besides the illicit drug trade — overseen by Mullah Muhammad Yaqoob, the son of Taliban founder Mullah Muhammad Omar, a shadowy figure who is expected to play an important role in the new government — the Taliban had “expanded its financial power in recent years through increased profits from illegal mining and exports”, the report said.

It estimated that the militant movement earned “a staggering US $1.6 billion” in the year ending March 2020. Of this, $ 416 million came from the drug trade; over $ 450 million from the illegal mining of iron ore, marble, copper, gold, zinc, and rare earth metals; and $ 160 million from extortion and taxes in the areas and on the highways it controlled. It also got $ 240 million in donations, largely from Persian Gulf nations. To launder the money it earned, it imported and exported consumer goods worth $ 240 million. The Taliban also own properties worth $ 80 million in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the report said. Weapons from Pak and loot The Taliban do not appear to have had any dearth of weapons to fight the Afghan and US forces. Support from Pakistan has always been key, but the Taliban did not rely on any single source of arms and ammunition.

Journalists such as Gretchen Peters, Steve Coll, and others have repeatedly pointed to the support of the ISI and Pakistan army to the Taliban, directly and through the Haqqani network, a sprawling Islamist mafia based in Pakistan’s tribal areas and in Afghanistan, comprising fighters, extremist religious schools, and shady businesses with powerful connections to Arab countries in the Gulf and in Pakistan. American leaders and generals have openly accused Pakistan of diverting to the Taliban funds that it received to fight against the fundamentalist movement.There are other players too. In September 2017, then Afghan Army Chief General Sharif Yaftali told the BBC that he had documents to prove that Iran was “supplying weapons and military equipment to the Taliban in western Afghanistan”.

A November 2019 report by the US Defense Intelligence Agency noted that since “at least 2007, Iran has provided calibrated support — including weapons, training, and funding — to the Taliban to counter US and Western influence in Afghanistan, combat ISIS-Khorasan, and increase Tehran’s influence in any post-reconciliation government”. Beyond these external avenues, the Taliban has also been able to arm itself with the weapons and ammunition that the US has provided to the Afghan forces over the years. America’s Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), a Congress-backed watchdog, noted in an analysis in 2013 that nearly 43 per cent of the firearms — 2,03,888 of the 4,74,823 — provided to the Afghan forces were unaccounted for. “Given the Afghan government’s limited ability to account for or properly dispose of these weapons, there is a real potential for these weapons to fall into the hands of insurgents, which will pose additional risks to US personnel, the ANSF, and Afghan civilians,” the analysis said.

US military assets with Taliban No figures are available for what kind of American military assets, and in what numbers, have fallen into Taliban hands. The US Government Accountability Office said in a report in 2017 that between 2003 and 2016 the US funded 75,898 vehicles, 5,99,690 weapons, 208 aircraft, and 16,191 pieces of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance equipment for the Afghan forces. In the last few years, 7,000 machine guns, 4,700 Humvees, and over 20,000 grenades have been given to the Afghan forces, SIGAR data show. SIGAR’s July quarterly report mentioned that the Afghan Air Force had a total of 167 aircraft, including jets and helicopters that were “usable/in-country” as of June 30. This included 23 A-19 aircraft, 10 AC-208 aircraft, 23 C-208 aircraft, and three C-130 aircraft, besides 32 Mi-17, 43 MD-530, and 33 UH-60 helicopters.

On August 17, two days after the Taliban took control of Kabul, White House National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said, “We don’t have a complete picture, obviously, of where every article of defence materials has gone but certainly, a fair amount of it has fallen into the hands of the Taliban.” Stijn Mitzer and Joost Oliemans, conflict analysts specialising in modern-day weaponry and military tactics who have worked for websites such as Janes, Bellingcat and NK News, have used open-source intelligence to track the equipment that is proven to have fallen into Taliban’s hands. According to them, the Taliban now possess two warjets, 24 helicopters, and seven Boeing Insitu ScanEagle Unmanned Vehicles that were with the Afghan forces earlier. Additionally, according to them, between June and August 14 the Taliban captured 12 tanks, 51 armoured fighting vehicles, 61 artillery and mortar, eight anti-aircraft guns, and 1,980 trucks, jeeps, and vehicles, including over 700 Humvees.

All of this — in addition to the fact that the forces of the erstwhile Afghan government have surrendered everywhere in the country and the old Northern Alliance opposition is a shadow of its former self — makes the Taliban more powerful than it ever was. It is now “much more militarily powerful”, Jonathan Schroden, a military operations analyst who directs the Countering Threats and Challenges Program at the CNA Corporation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research and analysis organization based in Arlington, Virginia, told The Indian Express. “It effectively converts them from a lightly armed guerrilla movement to a pseudo-conventional army.” According to Dr Schroden, among the military equipment that the Taliban now has, the D-30 howitzers are probably the most lethal. “It is concerning both as a waste of US taxpayer money and as a potential source of weapons for the myriad terrorist groups that have ties to the Taliban,” he said. And “there is a non-zero possibility of groups like al-Qaeda or the Pakistani Taliban getting their hands on some of the weapons.”

The United States is willing to work with the Taliban if they respect “basic rights” of its people – of women and girls, specifically – and do not harbor terrorists, secretary of state Antony Blinken said in an interview to CNN on Sunday.

Missing from the list is the insistence on a peaceful, negotiated settlement after the Taliban’s swift return to power. “A future Afghan government that upholds the basic rights of its people and that doesn’t harbour terrorists is a government we can work with and, and recognise,” Blinken said in response to a question if the Biden administration would ever consider recognising the Taliban-led government.

“Conversely, a government that doesn’t do that, that doesn’t uphold the basic rights of its people, including women and girls… that harbors terrorist groups… that have designs on the United States… that’s not going to happen,” he said.

When and if in government, they might need assistance from the international community and support of the international community, the secretary said, adding, “none of that will be forthcoming, sanctions won’t be lifted, their ability to travel won’t happen” if they are not sustaining the basic rights of the Afghan people and if they revert to supporting or harboring terrorists who might strike the US.

A negotiated, peaceful and political settlement has been a key part of the world’s wishlist – certainly for the US, India and the UN Security Council – for recognizing and working with the Taliban, along with respect to basic rights and severing all ties with terrorists.

During a visit to India in July, Blinken said at a news conference, “There’s only one path (for the Taliban to seek international recognition), and that’s at the negotiating table to resolve the conflict peacefully and to have an Afghanistan emerge that is governed in a genuinely inclusive way and that’s representative of all its people.”

A US representative to the UN Security Council was more forthright during a briefing of the body on August 6. “We will not accept a military takeover of Afghanistan,” said Ambassador Jeffrey DeLaurentis of the US permanent mission to the UN.

Six months after seizing power from the elected government, Myanmar’s military leader on Sunday, August 1st declared himself prime minister and said he would lead the country under the extended state of emergency until elections are held in about two years.

“We must create conditions to hold a free and fair multiparty general election,” Senior Gen. Min Aung Hlaing said during a recorded televised address. “We have to make preparations. I pledge to hold the multiparty general election without fail.”

He said the state of emergency will achieve its objectives by August 2023. In a separate announcement, the military government named itself “the caretaker government” and Min Aung Hlaing the prime minister.

The state of emergency was declared when troops moved against the elected government of Aung San Suu Kyi on Feb. 1, an action the generals said was permitted under the military-authored 2008 constitution. The military claimed her landslide victory in last year’s national elections was achieved through massive voter fraud but offered no credible evidence.

The military government officially annulled the election results last Tuesday and appointed a new election commission to take charge of the polls.

The military takeover was met with massive public protests that has resulted in a lethal crackdown by security forces, who routinely fire live ammunition into crowds. As of Sunday, 939 people have been killed by the authorities since Feb. 1, according to a tally kept by the independent Assistance Association for Political Prisoners. Casualties are also rising among the military and police as armed resistance grows in both urban and rural areas.

Moves by The Association of Southeast Asian Nations to broker a dialogue between the military government and its opponents have stalled after an agreement at an April summit in Jakarta to appoint a special envoy for Myanmar.

Min Aung Hlaing said that among the three nominees, Thailand’s former Deputy Foreign Minister Virasakdi Futrakul was selected as the envoy.

“But for various reasons, new proposals were released and we could not keep moving onwards. I would like to say that Myanmar is ready to work on ASEAN cooperation within the ASEAN framework, including the dialogue with the ASEAN special envoy in Myanmar,” he said. ASEAN foreign ministers were expected to discuss Myanmar in virtual meetings this week hosted by Brunei, the current chair of the 10-nation bloc. Myanmar is also struggling with its worst COVID-19 outbreak that has overwhelmed its already crippled health care system. Limitations on oxygen sales have led to widespread allegations that the military is directing supplies to government supporters and military-run hospitals.

At the same time, medical workers have been targeted by authorities after spearheading a civil disobedience movement that urged professionals and civil servants not to cooperate with the government.

Min Aung Hlaing blamed the public’s mistrust in the military’s efforts to control the outbreak on “fake news and misinformation via social networks,” and accused those behind it of using COVID-19 “as a tool of bioterrorism.”

It’s not often that a line-item foreign policy budget decision can be low-cost, high-impact, and send positive ripple effects throughout the international system. Fortunately, the Biden administration is currently facing just such an option, nested within debates over UN reform and the UN Development System. Specifically, a $34 million annual commitment would signal a new era of U.S. global leadership engagement toward ending the COVID-19 pandemic, tackling climate change, and promoting inclusive and resilient national recovery strategies in more than 160 countries around the world.

The context is the recently renovated UN Resident Coordinator (RC) system, which supports country-level coordination of the UN family of 34 distinct organizations­—ranging from the World Health Organization to UNICEF to the World Food Program—working with 162 countries, mostly emerging markets and developing economies. As the UN Development System’s most senior representatives in each country, reporting directly to the UN secretary-general, RCs are responsible for driving integrated UN support to local efforts tackling the interwoven economic, social, and environmental challenges of sustainable development.

When current UN Secretary-General António Guterres and Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed took office in 2017, one of their foremost priorities was to streamline efforts across the vast network of development-focused UN agencies, funds, and programs helping countries pursue the Sustainable Development Goals, the Paris Climate Agreement, and other key global accords. In 2018, UN member states agreed to a new strategy for integrating UN support in relevant countries, anchored in a pivotal update of the UN Resident Coordinator role. Previously, the RC function was managed by the United Nations Development Program, one of the larger UN entities. As of 2019, the RC role was repositioned to lead more independently between UN entities, under the auspices of the secretary-general and oversight of the deputy secretary-general.

By most accounts, the initial years of the overall reform process have registered some important successes. A recent independent assessment highlighted the new RC system as a particularly important step forward, especially in the context of ensuring integrated UN country team responses to the COVID-19 crisis. There are also early signs of improved support to help countries tackle the longer-term practical challenges of advancing sustainable development.

Despite the progress, there is one key problem. The new system is not properly funded.

In 2018, Secretary-General Guterres proposed an annual RC system budget of $281 million, including $154 million of “assessed” contributions, meaning funding commitments that countries agree to make mandatory and to share based on ability to contribute. The United States, for example, currently funds 22 percent of the UN secretariat’s assessed contributions, as the largest national contributor. A 22 percent share of $154 million would imply roughly $34 million of predictable U.S. annual support for the RC system serving 162 countries.

These numbers are tiny in the context of the aggregate UN system budgets, which add up—when counting all forms of contributions—to more than $56 billion per year. This multi-billion aggregate is in turn modest again when mapped to a global scale of 8 billion people: it works out to roughly $7 per person per year for the entire UN system.

Amid its own multi-trillion dollar domestic recovery budgets, why wouldn’t the U.S. government support such a targeted effort to improve multilateral efficiency on shared global interests like ending the pandemic, tackling climate change, and promoting inclusive economic recovery for all? The quick history is that the previous administration made “voluntary” contributions to the initiative, but rejected discussion of any increase in assessed UN contributions, whatever the purpose. The current administration has signaled a much stronger desire to support UN efforts, especially on issues aligned with its own priorities, but the RC system does not yet seem to have risen to the front burner of U.S. political attention.

It’s a timely moment for this to change. It is widely understood in UN circles that a shift in U.S. policy stance could unlock the global stalemate and help deliver effective and reliable development system reform. More broadly, it would send a vivid signal to American allies and potential partners that the country is willing to pay its fair share to help update multilateral efficiencies in advancing local sustainable development priorities in countries around the world. This is entirely consistent with the administration’s theme of “Building Back Better.” It also promotes U.S. security interests, by directly helping the UN reduce many underlying risks for conflict across diverse geographies.

The consequences of a lack of U.S. support also need to be considered. Not only would it put key UN reforms in jeopardy at a crucial moment. It would also risk signaling to the world that, even under the most fiscally progressive of administrations, the U.S. is no longer willing to work with other countries on relatively low-cost, high-impact international reforms to help other countries promote their own sustainable development ambitions. This would be penny-wise, pound-foolish policy symbolism in the extreme. In the end, this is about the kind of values-based multilateralism that should characterize U.S. and American leadership. If the U.S. doesn’t close this gap, others might—with quite different motivations for making this type of commitment.

As a final point, the U.S. has impressive partners leading the UN system right now. Over the past four and a half years, the UN secretary-general and deputy secretary-general have carried a major weight on the world’s behalf to keep the embers of international cooperation burning. They have both just signed on to a second five-year term. We applaud their dedicated ongoing leadership as humanity stands at a pivotal moment in charting the future of global cooperation. The U.S. can demonstrate support of this leadership team and make a relatively easy—yet decisive—contribution by committing to fund its ongoing fair share of the RC system. This can form a keystone in modernizing multilateral efforts toward sustainable development for all.

From an international humanitarian perspective, the first half of 2021 has been disappointing. We’re no further ahead in ending the conflict in Syria and Yemen. From the fledgling democracy that it had become, Myanmar has descended into what most of its people had hoped was a bygone era of military rule. And in Ethiopia, where its Prime Minister, Ably Ahmed, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2019, armed conflict in Tigray is preventing the 2020 winners of the very same prize, the World Food Programme, from delivering the food needed to stop at least 350,000 Ethiopians from starving to death.

These are not the only conflicts raging in 2021. There are many in Africa and a few still linger on in Asia and South America. And once again, Afghanistan, the country that defied Alex the Great, the Brits, the Russians and now the Americans and NATO, is set to move center stage on the humanitarian front.

Since its founding in 1945, Canada has always looked to the United Nations to head off armed conflict and to alleviate the human suffering that it causes. That includes preventing the use of hunger as a weapon of war. Canada’s contribution to UN peacebuilding has dropped considerably since 1970, when its proposal for 0.7% of a donor country’s GNI was accepted as the target for foreign aid. Nevertheless, it is still among the top five donors to the World Food Programme. Canadians expect the UN to do its job.

UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres and WFP Executive Director, David Beasley, have repeatedly warned that unless war and armed conflict is ended, people could starve to death in several countries. They have appealed to the leaders of opposing sides and those fighting proxy wars to let UN humanitarians and their NGO partners do their job. In early February 2021, soon after the fighting started in Ethiopia’s Tigray Region, David Beasley visited Addis Ababa.

He was assured that immediate access to Tigray would be granted for WFP and other humanitarian workers, as well as safe passage for its convoys of food aid trucks. Well, that didn’t happen for months. The first WFP plane with humanitarian workers only landed in Makelle, Tigray’s capital, on July 22. As for the convoys of WFP food aid trucks, they’re frequently attacked or blocked en route and don’t have anything like free passage.

So why is the UN so ineffective at ending conflicts, or even getting access granted for humanitarian supplies? It’s all to do with the principles on which the UN was founded: noninterference in the internal affairs of sovereign States. So, are UN humanitarians just supposed to stand by when a government decides to attack and kill off some of its citizens, or let large numbers starve to death when famine looms? No, not since the World Summit of 2005, when governments unanimously adopted R2P or the Responsibility to Protect.

In the aftermath of the 1994 Rwanda genocide and the 1995 Srebrenica massacre, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan insisted that the traditional notions of sovereignty had been redefined: “States are now widely understood to be instruments at the service of their peoples”, he argued. In his report “We the People” on the role of the United Nations in the 21st Century, he posed the following question: “If humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond to a Rwanda, to a Srebrenica – to gross and systematic violations of human rights that offend every precept of our common humanity?”

Yet despite the widespread human suffering in Syria, Yemen, Myanmar and Ethiopia, the Responsibility to Protect has not been invoked. More work needs to be done on R2P, including an expansion of its scope. So too on “humanitarian intervention”, which does not always require the deployment of foreign forces to mitigate human suffering.

And the voluntary agreement by P5 Security Council members (Britain, China, France Russia and the United States) to withhold their veto power when resolutions to stop genocide and crimes against humanity are being considered is another ad hoc effort to prevent the wholesale slaughter of humankind. But with more and more ordinary people around the world standing up and making it known to their governments that crimes against humanity and dying from starvation is not acceptable, it is clear that the piecemeal approach that we’ve cobbled together over the last half-century falls well short of today’s expectations. A total overhaul and reorganization of the UN humanitarian system is required as a first step.

In September, when the UN General Assembly reconvenes, Antonio Guterres will be reconfirmed as UN Secretary General. For the next 5 years, he will have the opportunity to bring about some the changes to the UN System that he keeps speaking about without having to worry if any of the P5 will oppose his second term in office. He will have to move fast on Agenda 2030, the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, or SDGs. With less than a decade to go, these are far from being attained. We must reduce inequality; it’s a major cause of conflict.

Covid-19 is the biggest challenge the world has faced since the Spanish Flu, a century ago. It has affected everyone and everything we do. It has increased the number of food insecure people around the world by149 million, according to WFP; so close on 1 billion of us now go to bed hungry. And despite anti-Covid vaccines having been developed in record time, variants will keep emerging and we’ll be playing catch-up for years to come.

Climate change, an even bigger challenge, is already on us and is set to intensify. Extreme weather has devastated parts of north-western America and neighbouring Canada this Spring resulting in unbearably high heat and wildfires. Abnormal floods in China and Germany have resulted in unusually high mortality and devastated towns and cities in both countries.

So, while 2021 will end up as a disappointing year for multilateralists, the challenges that lie ahead in 2022 and beyond will be even greater. Despite the odds, UN humanitarians and their NGO partners have already saved many lives in 2021. But years of experience show that a revamped United Nations System is critical if we are to deal effectively with the challenges of the 21st century.

Trevor Page, resident in Lethbridge, Canada, is a former Director of the World Food Programme. He also served with the UN refugee agency, UNHCR and what is now the UN Department of Political and Peace Building Affairs.