- Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Mastodon (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Nextdoor (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
Month: September 2024
How propaganda outlets cover — or ignore — aspects of US election
Washington — When Kamala Harris and Donald Trump met in a presidential debate on Tuesday, they spoke about a range of foreign policy issues, including China and Russia’s war in Ukraine.
But while the debate attracted large audiences and coverage in the United States and Europe, Beijing and Moscow’s state-run media were relatively quiet on the event.
The minimal coverage is a contrast to the presidential debate between Joe Biden and Trump in June.
Chinese media
After that debate, Beijing-run outlets — like media around the world — were flooded with coverage of Biden’s poor performance.
But Harris-Trump coverage was noticeably slimmer in state-run outlets such as Xinhua, the Global Times and the People’s Daily newspaper, China media analysts say.
The shift is a subtle but significant distinction, according to China media analysts, that reflects how the Chinese Communist Party, or CCP, employs its propaganda apparatus.
The relative lack of coverage wasn’t all that surprising to Kenton Thibaut, a senior resident China fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab in Washington.
The Chinese government is probably still figuring out how to move forward following Biden’s abrupt withdrawal, said Thibaut. She believes that’s a primary reason for the reduced coverage of this week’s debate.
“This is really reflective of how China handles changes in foreign policy issues,” Thibaut said. “They just stick to very fact-based coverage, basically restating what the candidate said, until they — the propaganda department and such — can figure out basically how to cover it globally and domestically.”
Another reason for the reduced coverage may have to do with democracy itself, according to China experts.
“The presidential debate is important for U.S. democracy, and democracy is always a sensitive topic for the CCP,” Anne-Marie Brady, a professor and specialist in Chinese politics at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, told VOA in an email.
Jonathan Hassid, an Iowa State University professor who specializes in Chinese media, agreed.
“Chinese media does not like covering democratic successes,” Hassid told VOA. “Democratic failures are highlighted, but the successes are not.”
That helps explain the difference between the coverage of the two debates. During the first debate, which by many accounts was a fiasco, Biden sounded hoarse and frail, and his repeated fumbles highlighted concerns over the 81-year-old’s capacity to serve another four-year term as president.
In coverage of that debate, Chinese state media relied on narratives about how democracy doesn’t work well, Hassid said.
For instance, Hu Xijin, a Chinese media commentator and former state media editor, wrote, “Objectively speaking, the low-quality performance of these two old men was a negative advertisement for Western democracy.”
By contrast, Hassid said, this week’s debate may have been perceived as a better display of democracy.
Still, China also didn’t even feature that largely in the latest debate.
While Harris didn’t go into much detail, she said that “a policy about China should be in making sure the United States of America wins the competition for the 21st century.” Trump, meanwhile, has previously proposed tariffs up to 100% on Chinese products.
When asked about Harris and Trump’s views about tariffs on imports from China, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning on Wednesday said she had no comment.
“The presidential elections are the United States’ own affairs,” she said. “That said, we are opposed to making China an issue in U.S. elections.”
A spokesperson for China’s Washington embassy replied to VOA’s request for comment with a similar statement: “On the issue of the U.S. election, China’s position is consistent and clear. China has no intention and will not interfere in it. At the same time, we hope that the U.S. side will not make accusations against China in the election.”
Russian media
Russia — another propaganda powerhouse — also didn’t offer much coverage of the debate. “But that doesn’t mean that they don’t drop in plenty of spin,” according to Darren Linvill, co-director of Clemson University’s Media Forensics Hub.
Based on his analysis of Russian state media coverage of the debate, Linvill said outlets such as RT and Sputnik were focused on downplaying Harris and playing up Trump.
There were some outliers, such as a Sputnik article in which a psychiatrist claimed Harris was trying to “hide her imposter syndrome” during the debate. But most of the coverage was subtler, Linvill said.
Articles tended to be anodyne and not necessarily critical of either side, Linvill said, but they still reveal Moscow’s well-documented preference for Trump.
U.S. officials are again warning about Russian efforts to influence this year’s election. Last week, the Justice Department accused two Russians who work at the Kremlin-backed RT of money laundering by funneling nearly $10 million to a conservative Tennessee-based media outlet that is a leading platform for pro-Trump voices.
While it’s important to monitor disinformation in the lead-up to and during an election, according to Thibaut, the period immediately after is perhaps even more important, especially if the election is close.
“This is a prime time for threat actors to take advantage of information, the polarizing narratives, the charged-up atmosphere to really sow social division,” Thibaut said.
“We have to really remain vigilant after the election as well.”
…
Ukraine rushes to repair damaged energy plants in time for winter
Ukraine is preparing for winter, which energy experts predict will be the most difficult since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022. Russia’s intense rocket attacks over the spring and summer destroyed 90% of Ukraine’s thermal generation capacity, and Ukrainians are rushing to restore damaged power plants. Lesia Bakalets in Kyiv reports on those efforts. Camera: Vladyslav Smilianets
…
US presidential debate resonates across South Asia amid flurry of regional news
washington — In a testament to the global influence of U.S. politics, this week’s televised debate between former president Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris broke through an intensely busy news cycle in South Asia to garner extensive coverage across most major news outlets.
The pivotal showdown between the two contenders vying to succeed Joe Biden as U.S. president resonated with audiences across the region, overcoming a nine- to 10-hour time difference from Washington and competing with a barrage of pressing domestic headlines:
In India, opposition leader Rahul Gandhi made a high-profile visit to the United States. In Bangladesh, interim leader Muhammad Yunus delivered his second major speech to the nation. And in Pakistan, the National Assembly speaker suspended security officials over the controversial arrest of five lawmakers in the Parliament building.
Yet amid this flurry of regional developments, leading newspapers and TV stations from Karachi to Dhaka provided considerable coverage of the debate, reflecting heightened regional interest in the outcome of the U.S. presidential contest.
“The news cycle in these countries is so fast, and the issues they are dealing with internally are so intense that probably their focus has shifted from what is happening elsewhere,” said Awais Saleem, a former Pakistani journalist now a professor at Lamar University in the U.S. state of Texas.
“Nonetheless, [the U.S. election] is still keenly observed and keenly watched because whatever happens in the U.S. invariably has an effect in other parts of the world, and South Asia is no exception,” Saleem said.
India
Take India, the region’s most populous country and largest media market. Major Indian outlets, such as NDTV and CNN’s local affiliate, dedicated significant coverage to the debate, even while prioritizing Gandhi’s remarks in Washington. Aaj tak, another leading channel, had a correspondent reporting on the debate from the spin room in Philadelphia.
Large-circulation newspapers provided more substantial coverage, even while relying on international wire services for content.
The Times of India, India’s largest newspaper, featured a video analysis of the debate on its homepage. The Hindu, another major paper, ran multiple articles, including one focusing on Trump’s pledge to end the Ukraine war and another on Hollywood’s “applause” for Harris.
While much of the coverage was routine, some stood out. In addition to broadcasting the debate live, NDTV produced at least 10 stories and segments dedicated to what it termed a “fiery presidential showdown.” These included highlights and key quotes, and major takeaways.
While Indians are as divided over Trump and Harris as Americans, most local outlets widely reported on the American media’s verdict that Harris had outperformed Trump.
Ahead of the debate, many Indians were skeptical of Harris, said Ashutosh, a veteran Indian journalist and co-founder of Satya Hindi. To find out how Harris did, Satya Hindi devoted a 30-minute segment featuring a U.S.-based Indian American academic, Ashutosh said.
The verdict: Harris won the debate.
“There now is a feeling that Kamala Harris is not a weak candidate,” said Ashutosh, who goes by one name.
India, like other South Asian countries, lacks an American-style tradition of live election debates. The concept intrigues many but faces cultural and political obstacles, experts say.
On Satya Hindi, another guest, journalist Shravan Garg, questioned their feasibility. Would Indian TV channels “dare” to host live debates and would politicians “agree” to participate, he asked.
Atul Singh, founder and editor-in-chief of Fair Observer, an international citizen journalism and civic education platform, said Indian interest in U.S. elections has surged in recent years, spurred by globalization and more recently by the Indian ancestry of Harris and Usha Vance, the wife of Republican vice-presidential nominee J.D. Vance.
But he said the level of interest varies across the country. States with stronger ties to the U.S., such as Gujarat, a source of migration to the U.S., and Maharashtra, a manufacturing hub for exports to the U.S., are gripped by U.S. election fever. In more rural regions such as Bihar, with fewer connections to the U.S., enthusiasm is far more subdued.
“So it depends on which part of the country you’re in,” Singh said. “I’d say some areas in India simply don’t care, and others, the ones that are part of the global economy, are absolutely obsessed.”
Pakistan, Bangladesh
In neighboring Pakistan and Bangladesh, the debate received far less coverage despite comparable public interest.
Geo TV, Pakistan’s leading TV news channel, ran an international segment on the debate, reporting on the candidates’ “combative demeanor.” A wire story on its website noted that foreign policy “largely took a backseat.”
Leading English language newspaper Dawn highlighted the debate as its top international story, reporting how Harris put Trump “on the defensive at a combative presidential debate.” A wire fact check about the debate was included among its “must read stories” on its homepage
Express Tribune, another leading newspaper, picked up multiple wire service stories about the debate, posting three short video compilations on its websites, including a video of viral memes generated by Trump’s comment that migrants were eating people’s cats and dogs in Ohio.
Atif Khan, a Pakistani journalist, said Harris’ unexpected emergence as the Democratic nominee helped boost Pakistani public interest in the U.S. presidential election.
“Every political discussion on television now involves a mention of the U.S. election,” Khan said. “There is talk about Trump. There is talk about Kamala Harris.”
While Pakistani media generally don’t cover elections in neighboring countries, some local outlets are already planning their U.S. election coverage and trying to secure U.S. visas for their reporters, he said.
“Pakistanis think that a change of president will inevitably have direct implications for not just Pakistan but also the region,” he said.
Underscoring the Pakistani media’s interest, Saleem, the Lamar University professor, noted receiving weekly invitations from various outlets to discuss the U.S. election campaign.
Bangladesh
In Bangladesh, the debate’s coverage was overshadowed by continuing reverberations from the August 5 collapse of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s government.
While interim leader Yunus’ speech dominated headlines on Wednesday, leading outlets provided more substantive coverage of the debate, drawing on international wire stories and analysis.
Prothom Alo, Bangladesh’s largest media outlet, called the debate, “the most important moment” before the November 5 election.
Daily Star, one of the most reputable outlets, ran at least four stories, including a fact check and a video analysis.
Daily Ittefaq, a Bengali language newspaper, ran a summary of U.S. media accounts of the debate, reporting that even the conservative Fox News had declared Harris the winner.
Singh, founder of Fair Observer, said the post-Hasina political turmoil in Bangladesh likely contributed to the relatively thin coverage.
“They’ve got their own fish to fry,” he said.
But, he added, political elites in Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka – all dependent on the International Monetary Fund, the global finance agency, largesse – are keenly watching the U.S. election campaign.
“They are in economic crisis, so they follow the election for practical reasons,” he said.
VOA’s Bangla, Deewa and Uru services contributed to this article.
…
US and British leaders meet as Ukraine pushes to ease weapons restrictions
Washington — United States President Joe Biden and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer are meeting Friday amid an intensified push by Ukraine to loosen restrictions on using weapons provided by the U.S. and Britain to strike Russia.
The talks come amid signs that the White House could be moving toward a shift in its policy, and as Russia’s President Vladimir Putin warned that Ukraine’s use of long-range weapons would put NATO at war with Moscow.
Ukrainian officials renewed their pleas to use Western-provided long-range missiles against targets deeper inside Russia during this week’s visit to Kyiv by U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and U.K. Foreign Secretary David Lammy. Blinken said he had “no doubt” that Biden and Starmer would discuss the matter during their visit, noting the U.S. has adapted and “will adjust as necessary” as Russia’s battlefield strategy has changed.
The language is similar to what Blinken said in May, shortly before the U.S. allowed Ukraine to use American-provided weapons just inside Russian territory. The distance has been largely limited to cross-border targets deemed a direct threat out of concerns about further escalating the conflict.
While the issue is expected to be at the top of the leaders’ agenda, it appeared unlikely that Biden and Starmer would announce any policy changes during this week’s visit, according to two U.S. officials familiar with planning for the leaders’ talks who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss the private deliberations.
In addition to Blinken, Biden also has hinted a change could be afoot. In an exchange with reporters earlier this week about whether he was ready to ease weapons restrictions on Ukraine, he responded, “We’re working that out now.”
Putin warned Thursday that allowing long-range strikes “would mean that NATO countries, the United States, and European countries are at war with Russia. … If this is so, then, bearing in mind the change in the very essence of this conflict, we will make appropriate decisions based on the threats that will be created for us.”
His remarks were in line with the narrative the Kremlin has actively promoted since early in the Ukraine war, accusing NATO countries of de-facto participation in the conflict and threatening a response.
Earlier in the year, Putin warned that Russia could provide long-range weapons to others to strike Western targets in response to NATO allies allowing Ukraine to use their arms to attack Russian territory, saying it “would mark their direct involvement in the war against the Russian Federation, and we reserve the right to act the same way.”
Starmer, in response to the Russian leader’s Thursday comments, said on his way to the U.S. that Britain does not seek any conflict with Russia.
“Russia started this conflict. Russia illegally invaded Ukraine. Russia could end this conflict straight away,” Starmer told reporters. “Ukraine has the right to self-defense and we’ve obviously been absolutely fully supportive of Ukraine’s right to self-defense — we’re providing training capability, as you know.”
“But we don’t seek any conflict with Russia — that’s not our intention in the slightest,” Starmer said.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has pressed U.S. and allied military leaders to go much further. He argues that the U.S. must allow Ukraine to target Russian air bases and launch sites far from the border as Russia has stepped up assaults on Ukraine’s electricity grid and utilities ahead of the coming winter.
Zelenskyy also wants more long-range weaponry from the United States, including the Army Tactical Missile System, known as ATACMS, for strikes in Russia.
ATACMS wouldn’t be the answer to the main threat Ukraine faces from long-range Russian glide bombs, which are being fired from more than 300 kilometers (185 miles) away, beyond the ATACMS’ reach, said Lt. Col. Charlie Dietz, Pentagon spokesperson.
American officials also don’t believe they have enough of the weapon systems available to provide Ukraine with the number to make a substantive difference to conditions on the ground, one of the U.S. officials said.
During a meeting of allied defense ministers last week, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said he did not believe providing Ukraine with long-range weapon systems would be a game-changer in the grueling war. He noted that Ukraine has already been able to strike inside Russia with its own internally produced systems, including drones.
“I don’t believe one capability is going to be decisive, and I stand by that comment,” Austin said.
“As of right now, the policy has not changed,” Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder, Pentagon press secretary, said Thursday.
Starmer said he was visiting Washington for “strategic meetings to discuss Ukraine and to discuss the Middle East.” It’s the prime minister’s second meeting with Biden since his center-left government was elected in July.
It comes after Britain last week diverged from the U.S. by suspending some arms exports to Israel because of the risk they could be used to break international law. Both countries have downplayed their differences over the issue.
Biden and Starmer’s meeting also comes ahead of this month’s annual meeting of global leaders at the United Nations General Assembly. The Oval Office meeting was scheduled in part to help the two leaders compare notes on the war in Ukraine, languishing efforts to get a cease-fire deal in Gaza and other issues ahead of the U.N. meeting.
The White House also has sought in recent days to put a greater emphasis on the nexus between the war in Ukraine and conflict in the Middle East sparked after Iranian-backed Hamas militants in Gaza launched attacks on Israel on Oct. 7.
The Biden administration said this week that Iran recently delivered short-range ballistic weapons to Russia to use against Ukraine, a transfer that White House officials worry will allow Russia to use more of its arsenal for targets far beyond the Ukrainian front line while employing Iranian warheads for closer-range targets.
In turn, the U.S. administration says Russia has been tightening its relationship with Iran, including by providing it with nuclear and space technology.
“This is obviously deeply concerning,” White House national security spokesperson John Kirby said of the missile transfer. “And it certainly speaks to the manner in which this partnership threatens European security and how it illustrates Iran’s destabilizing influence now reaches well beyond the Middle East.”
your ad hereIS-claimed attack kills 14 Shiite Muslims in Afghanistan
Islamabad — Taliban authorities in Afghanistan confirmed Friday that gunmen killed at least 14 Shiite Muslims and injured six others in an overnight attack in a central province. A local affiliate of the Islamic State claimed responsibility for the deadly shooting.
Zabihullah Mujahid, the Taliban government spokesperson, confirmed the casualties resulting from what he denounced as a “barbaric act” against Afghan civilians in the province of Daykundi.
“While we extend our deepest condolences to the victims of the incident, we are making serious efforts to apprehend the perpetrators and ensure they are held accountable,” Mujahid stated on social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter. His statement came hours after local media quoted area residents and sources as confirming that the violence had resulted in the deaths of at least 14 people and injuries to several others.
The Islamic State group said through its Amaq news agency that “soldiers” of its Afghan offshoot, the Islamic State Khorasan, also known as IS-K, were behind the shooting. It claimed that “15 Shiite [Muslims] were killed, and six others wounded.”
Daykundi residents said the victims had gathered to welcome pilgrims returning from the Shiite holy site of Karbala in Iraq.
Richard Bennett, the United Nations special rapporteur on the Afghan human rights situation, denounced Thursday’s violence.
“Yesterday’s appalling ISKP-claimed killings of #Hazara from #Daykundi…. bears hallmarks of int’l crimes,” Bennett said Friday on social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter. “I’m alarmed about the spate of ISKP-claimed attacks. Need for prevention, protection & (international) accountability #Afghanistan,” he wrote, using an acronym for IS-K.
The Taliban regained control of Afghanistan three years ago and say their counterterrorism operations have since “almost decimated” IS-K in the country. However, U.S. officials and recent United Nations reports dispute the claims, identifying IS-K as a growing terrorism threat to the region and beyond.
Earlier this month, IS-K claimed a suicide bombing in the Afghan capital that killed six people. In May, the group took responsibility for an attack by gunmen in the central Bamiyan province that killed three Spanish tourists and their local translator. In March, IS-K claimed that it was behind an attack on a Moscow concert hall that killed 145 Russians.
Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid reiterated in a statement last week that “concerns raised by Western countries and institutions regarding the presence and escalating threat” of IS-K in Afghanistan were “unfounded and driven by propaganda.”
Mujahid claimed that “the entire Afghan territory remains firmly under the control of the Islamic Emirate, leaving no room for independent or external groups to operate.” The Taliban refer to their administration as the Islamic Emirate.
No country has officially recognized the Taliban government in Kabul, mainly because of human rights concerns and extensive restrictions the Islamist Taliban have placed on women’s access to education, work, and public life at large.
…
European politicians say migration is out of control; numbers tell a different story
BARCELONA, Spain — Unauthorized migration to European Union countries dropped significantly overall in the first eight months of this year, even as political rhetoric and violence against migrants increased and far-right parties espousing anti-immigration policies made gains at the polls.
There was, however, a spike in migrant arrivals to the Canary Islands, a Spanish archipelago close to the African coast that is increasingly used as an alternate stepping stone to continental Europe.
Irregular migration dominated the European parliamentary elections in June and influenced recent state elections in eastern Germany, where a far-right party won for the first time since World War II. The German government this week announced it was expanding border controls around its territory following recent extremist attacks.
What do the numbers show?
Despite the heated debates, irregular crossings over the southern borders of the EU — the region that sees the most unauthorized migration — were down by 35% from January to August, according to the latest preliminary figures compiled by the United Nations’ International Organization for Migration.
Nearly 115,000 migrants — less than 0.03% of the EU’s population — have arrived without permission into the EU via Mediterranean and Atlantic routes so far this year, compared to 176,252 during the same period last year, the U.N. says. In contrast, more than a million people, most of them fleeing conflict in Syria, entered the EU in 2015.
Data shared by the EU’s border and coast guard agency Frontex shows a similar trend: Unauthorized crossings over the region’s southern borders fell 39% overall this year compared to last year.
“The emergency is not numerical this year, nor was it last year,” Flavio di Giacomo, a spokesperson with the IOM office for the Mediterranean, told The Associated Press.
Camille Le Coz, an associate director of the nonprofit Migration Policy Institute in Europe, said irregular migration is “getting way too much attention compared to the scope of the issue and compared to other issues Europe should be tackling, such as climate change.”
The most commonly used route for migrants is from North Africa, across the dangerous Central Mediterranean to Italy. Yet roughly 64% fewer migrants disembarked in Italy this year than during the same period in 2023, according to IOM and Frontex numbers.
Experts say that’s a result of the EU-supported crackdown in Tunisia and Libya, which comes at a price for migrants, many of whom are systematically rounded up and dumped in the desert.
How long the downward trend will hold remains to be seen, however. Smugglers are always quick to adapt and find new routes around border controls. In the Eastern Mediterranean, the second-most-used route, smuggling networks are now using speedboats in increasingly aggressive ways to avoid controls and targeting islands farther away from the Turkish coast in the central Aegean, according to Greek authorities.
The number of migrants arriving in Greece by sea and overland during the first eight months of the year rose by 57%, U.N. data shows.
An alarming spike in the Atlantic
Meanwhile, irregular migration from West Africa to the Canary Islands via the Atlantic, the third-most-used route, has more than doubled: More than 25,500 migrants — mostly from Mali, Senegal and other West African countries — had arrived in the islands as of August 31, the U.N. says.
Countless other migrants have gone missing along the route, where rough winds and strong Atlantic currents work against them. Several migrant boats, carrying only the remains of Malian, Mauritanian and Senegalese citizens, have been found this year drifting as far away as the Caribbean and off Brazil. Precise numbers are hard to verify, but the Spanish migrant rights group Walking Borders has reported more than 4,000 dead or missing.
The trend has Spanish authorities on alert for the fall, when conditions in the Atlantic are most favorable for the journey. The treacherousness of the route seems to have done little to dissuade would-be migrants, whose ranks have swelled to include people from Syria and Pakistan, according to rescuers.
“There are situations that need to be addressed, like the situation in the Canary Islands,” Le Coz acknowledged.
A humanitarian crisis
The adult migrants who successfully make it to the Canaries usually keep moving, headed for the promise of jobs and safety in mainland Spain or other European countries farther north. But that is not the case for thousands of unaccompanied minors. Under Spanish law, these young migrants must be taken under the wing of the local government, leading to overcrowded shelters and a political crisis. Earlier this year, island leaders fought unsuccessfully to have other regions of Spain share the responsibility.
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez recently traveled to three West African countries in an attempt to curb migration. In Senegal, he and President Bassirou Diomaye Faye signed agreements to promote temporary work opportunities in Spain for Senegalese nationals and vocational training in Senegal. They also agreed to step up police cooperation.
No magic solutions
Current anti-immigrant sentiments notwithstanding, Europe’s aging population, declining birth rates and labor shortages have only increased the need for immigrant workers to sustain pensions and boost economic growth.
And as long as migrants lack opportunities in their own countries, their exodus will continue. Add to this the growing instability and conflict in parts of Africa, the Middle East and Asia that have displaced millions.
“There is no magic deterrence,” Le Coz said. “Migrants end up taking the toll of all of this: They are risking their lives, doing jobs in Europe where they face uncertain legal status for years and are vulnerable to all sorts of exploitation.”
While long-term solutions to tackle unauthorized migration are being implemented, such as temporary work programs for migrants, they are still falling short.
“That’s one step in the right direction, but this needs to happen at a much larger scale, and they need the private sector to be more involved,” Le Coz added.
…
Rajapaksa clan heir runs for Sri Lanka president after family forced out of power
COLOMBO, Sri Lanka — When an uprising ousted Sri Lanka’s president, many saw it as the end of his powerful family’s hold on the island nation after more than 12 years of rule.
Now, as Sri Lanka prepares to elect a new leader, Namal Rajapaksa is running for president. The 38-year-old is the son of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa and the nephew of the ousted President Gotabaya Rajapaksa.
Namal Rajapaksa is presenting himself as an agent of change, but many see his bid for presidency as an attempt by the controversial political dynasty to regain power.
By mid-2022, the clan’s political career seemed in ruins. Some of its members were forced into hiding in military camps after angry protesters stormed their residences. Others simply gave up their seats in the government as people blamed them for hurtling the country of more than 20 million people into an economic crisis.
Two years later, the family — shunned and pushed to political wilderness — is trying make a comeback via the Rajapaksa heir apparent who is styling himself as someone who could deliver Sri Lanka into a prosperous future.
But for Namal Rajapaksa, it’s more than just a political choice — it’s a deeply personal one. He wants to shed the widespread allegations that the Rajapaksa clan ran the country as a family business that led to the economy crashing in 2022 — as well as the guilty verdict on corruption charges against them.
“The corruption charges are not something common to my family or to myself. If you look at all politicians in this country or in the world, including our region … all have been accused of being corrupt,” Namal told the Associated Press on a recent afternoon. “People will understand, you know, because if you look at the current stage, everyone is blaming each other.”
Sri Lanka was once an economic hope in South Asia, before it plunged into an economic crisis in 2022 when unsustainable debt and the COVID-19 pandemic led to a severe shortage of essentials. The crisis morphed into a popular uprising, with angry street protesters taking over the president’s and prime minister’s offices and other key buildings, forcing Gotabaya to flee the country and later resign.
Many blamed the Rajapaksas.
The family still had a big parliamentary majority, and voted Ranil Wickremesinghe to serve the remainder of the presidential term. Wickremesinghe ensured them protection in return for their support to pass laws in Parliament, enabling the clan to mark a return in politics.
“We didn’t run away, we never ran away. It’s just that some people thought we were hiding,” said Namal.
Namal’s prospects for a political comeback appear grim, as the main contest appears to be between three other candidates: Wickremesinghe, the parliamentary opposition leader and a left-leaning politician with a powerful alliance.
Alan Keenan, senior consultant on Sri Lanka at the International Crisis Group, said the younger Rajapaksa’s bid for the presidency is a test run that would establish “his position as the heir apparent” of the political dynasty.
“I think they [the Rajapaksas] know that Namal will not win. But his candidature effectively reasserts the family’s ownership of the party,” Keenan said.
The Rajapaksa family has been a mainstay in Sri Lankan politics for decades. They influenced nearly everything — from bureaucracy to courts, police, business and sports.
Namal Rajapaksa’s father was a prime minister and then a two-term president from 2005 to 2015. Even though Mahinda Rajapaksa was adored by the country’s majority Buddhist Sinhalese for defeating the ethnic Tamil separatists after a 26-year bloody civil war, allegations of human rights violations and corruption led to his defeat in 2015.
The family, however, returned more powerful four years later, when Mahinda’s brother was elected president. Gotabaya Rajapaksa whipped up majority Buddhist Sinhalese sentiments after the 2019 Easter Sunday bombings, blamed on Islamic extremist groups, killed 290 people.
But the family’s popularity quickly eroded under a tanking economy and alienation among ethnic Tamils, Muslims and other minorities.
With hopes to reinvent himself as a young, modern leader removed from his family’s tainted past, Namal Rajapaksa’s efforts mirror that of his father, who still enjoys considerable support among some voters who credit him for crushing the Tamil separatists.
Like his father, Namal Rajapaksa wears the trademark outfit that highlights his Buddhist Sinhalese culture, with a maroon scarf around his neck, a sarong and a white robe. During campaigns he can be seen touching his father’s feet in reverence, a practice most locals consider noble. He is also promising to free the island nation from its debt crisis, create more jobs and eradicate corruption by digitizing the administrative systems.
Still, many in Sri Lanka are done with the family, and public opposition to Rajapaksa’s candidacy is particularly palpable among the Tamil community that makes up about 11% of Sri Lanka’s population.
The group was crushed in a 2009 government offensive headed by Mahinda and Gotabaya Rajapaksa to end the separatist civil war that broke out in 1983 and left at least 100,000 on both sides, with many more missing. Though not all Tamils were part of or supported the rebel group, their defeat has effectively become a political defeat to the community. They also blame the Rajapaksas for alleged human rights violations against civilians during the war.
Vellaiyan Sivaprakash, a Tamil who works as an auditor in central Sri Lanka, said he constantly lived in fear of violence during the Rajapaksa rule and doubted whether he could live in Sri Lanka anymore.
“Their rule was like a monarchy and they behaved like princes and treated us like slaves,” Sivaprakash said. “They should never come back to power.”
Rajapaksas still have a large chunk of supporters who appreciate their role in ending the war and in big infrastructure projects including a road network, an airport and a seaport built on high-interest Chinese loans.
Even though many of them believe Namal Rajapaksa has no chance of winning, they are banking on his future prospects.
“I will vote for Namal because I got my job under his father’s government. He is still young and one day he can be the president,” said R. M. Lasantha, who works as a pipe fitter at the state-owned petroleum corporation.
Some Sri Lankans say it would take the Rajapaksas at least a decade to make a political comeback.
“Their name is associated with corruption and bankruptcy, so rebuilding [their image] is a major challenge,” said Manilal Ranasinghe, who works in the tourism industry.
“At the same time,” Ranasinghe said, “we know that Sri Lankans have a short memory.”
…
Pope wraps up Asia-Pacific tour, defies health fears along the way
Singapore — Pope Francis wrapped up an arduous 12-day tour of the Asia-Pacific on Friday, defying health concerns to connect with believers from the jungle of Papua New Guinea to the skyscrapers of Singapore.
The 87-year-old pontiff flies home to Rome from Singapore, completing his longest trip in duration and distance since he became head of the world’s estimated 1.4 billion Roman Catholics more than 13 years ago.
The Argentine pope has relied on a wheelchair since 2022 because of knee pain and sciatica. He had a hernia operation in June 2023, and earlier this year he battled flu and bronchitis.
Occasionally, during his four-nation trip, the pope struggled to keep his eyes open when listening to late-night liturgical readings or to remain engaged during formal military parades.
But he was clearly energized by more freewheeling exchanges — cheerfully goading young people to shout out their agreement with his calls to help those in need.
In a lively final inter-religious meeting with young Singaporeans, the pope urged them to respect other beliefs, avoid being slaves to technology and to get out of their comfort zones.
“Don’t let your stomach get fat, but let your head get fat,” the pope said, raising a laugh from his audience.
“I say take risks, go out there,” he said. “A young person that is afraid and does not take risks is an old person.”
The historic tour, initially planned for 2020 but postponed by the COVID-19 pandemic, has included 43 hours of flight time and a distance of 32,000 kilometers.
But neither the pace — 16 speeches and up to eight hours of time difference — nor the heat, nor multiple meetings have forced any rescheduling of his international odyssey.
On a trip that took him to the outer edges of the church’s world, the pope delivered a sometimes uncomfortable message for leaders not to forget the poor and marginalized.
In Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim-majority state, he visited the Istiqlal Mosque to deliver a joint message against conflict and climate change.
In sweltering Papua New Guinea, he donned a bird of paradise headdress in a remote, jungle village where he told inhabitants to halt violence and renounce “superstition and magic.”
Addressing political and business leaders, he insisted that the country’s vast natural resources should benefit the entire community — a demand likely to resound in a nation where many believe their riches are being stolen or squandered.
And in staunchly Roman Catholic East Timor, he addressed nearly half the population, drawing about 600,000 rapturous believers in the tropical heat to a celebration of mass on the island’s coast.
Francis addressed East Timor’s leaders, hailing a new era of “peace” since independence in 2002.
But he also called on them to do more to prevent abuse against young people, in a nod to recent Catholic Church child abuse scandals.
In the affluent city-state of Singapore, the pope called for “special attention” to be paid to protecting the dignity of migrant workers.
“These workers contribute a great deal to society and should be guaranteed a fair wage,” he said.
There are an estimated 170 million migrant workers around the world. Most live in the Americas, Europe or Central Asia.
But the Argentine pope was otherwise full of praise for the “entrepreneurial spirit” and dynamism that built a “mass of ultra-modern skyscrapers that seem to rise from the sea” in his final destination.
Sandra Ross, 55, a church administrator in Singapore, said she was still “feeling the warmth and joy” after attending mass led by the pope.
“I was deeply touched by Pope Francis’ courage and dedication to his mission, despite his health challenges. His spirit and enthusiasm are truly inspiring,” she said.
…
US presidential debate resonates across South Asia amid regional news
washington — This week’s U.S. televised debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris broke through an intensely busy news cycle in South Asia to garner attention across most major news outlets.
Indian opposition leader Rahul Gandhi visited the United States. Bangladesh’s interim leader, Muhammad Yunus, delivered his second major speech to the nation. And Pakistan suspended security officials over the controversial arrest of lawmakers from Parliament.
Despite these significant developments and a nine- to 10-hour time difference from Washington, the pivotal showdown between the two contenders to succeed Joe Biden as U.S. president still drew high interest, underscoring the significance of U.S. electoral politics for the region.
“The news cycle in these countries is so fast and the issues they are dealing with internally are so intense that probably their focus has shifted from what is happening elsewhere,” said Awais Saleem, a former Pakistani journalist who is now a professor at Lamar University in the U.S. state of Texas.
“Nonetheless, [the U.S. election] is still keenly observed and keenly watched, because whatever happens in the U.S. invariably has an effect in other parts of the world, and South Asia is no exception,” Saleem said.
India
Take India, the region’s most populous country and largest media market. Major Indian outlets, such as NDTV and CNN’s local affiliate, dedicated significant coverage to the debate, even while prioritizing Gandhi’s remarks in Washington. Aaj Tak, another leading channel, had a correspondent reporting on the debate from the spin room in Philadelphia.
Large-circulation newspapers provided more substantial coverage, even while relying on international wire services for content.
The Times of India, India’s largest newspaper, featured a video analysis of the debate on its website. The Hindu, another major paper, ran multiple articles, including one focusing on Trump’s pledge to end the Ukraine war and another on Hollywood’s “applause” for Harris.
While much of the coverage was routine, some stood out. In addition to broadcasting the debate live, NDTV produced at least 10 stories and segments dedicated to what it termed a “fiery presidential showdown.” These included highlights, key quotes and major takeaways.
While Indians are as divided over Trump and Harris as Americans, most local outlets widely reported on the American media’s verdict that Harris had outperformed Trump.
Ahead of the debate, many Indians were skeptical of Harris, said Ashutosh, a veteran Indian journalist and co-founder of news outlet Satya Hindi. To find out how Harris did, Satya Hindi devoted a 30-minute segment featuring a U.S.-based Indian American academic, Ashutosh said.
The verdict: Harris won the debate.
“There now is a feeling that Kamala Harris is not a weak candidate,” said Ashutosh, who goes by one name.
India, like other South Asian countries, lacks an American-style tradition of live election debates. The concept intrigues many but faces cultural and political obstacles, experts say.
On Satya Hindi, another guest, journalist Shravan Garg, questioned their feasibility. He asked whether Indian TV channels would “dare” to host live debates and whether politicians would “agree” to participate.
Atul Singh, founder and editor-in-chief of Fair Observer, an international citizen journalism and civic education platform, said Indian interest in U.S. elections has surged in recent years, spurred by globalization and more recently by the Indian ancestry of Harris and Usha Vance, the wife of Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance.
But he said the level of interest varies across the country. States with stronger ties to the U.S., such as Gujarat, a source of migration to the U.S., and Maharashtra, a manufacturing hub for exports to the U.S., are gripped by U.S. election fever. In more rural regions such as Bihar, with fewer connections to the U.S., enthusiasm is far more subdued.
“So it depends on which part of the country you’re in,” Singh said. “I’d say some areas in India simply don’t care, and others, the ones that are part of the global economy, are absolutely obsessed.”
Pakistan
In neighboring Pakistan and Bangladesh, the debate received far less coverage despite comparable public interest.
Geo TV, Pakistan’s leading TV news channel, ran an international segment on the debate, reporting on the candidates’ “combative demeanor.” A wire story on its website noted that foreign policy “largely took a backseat.”
Leading English language newspaper Dawn highlighted the debate as its top international story, reporting how Harris put Trump “on the defensive at a combative presidential debate.” A wire fact check about the debate was included among its “must read stories” on its homepage.
Express Tribune, another leading newspaper, picked up multiple wire service stories about the debate, posting three short video compilations on its websites, including a video of viral memes generated by Trump’s comment that migrants were eating people’s cats and dogs in Ohio.
Atif Khan, a Pakistani journalist, said Harris’ unexpected emergence as the Democratic nominee helped boost Pakistani public interest in the U.S. presidential election.
“Every political discussion on television now involves a mention of the U.S. election,” Khan said. “There is talk about Trump. There is talk about Kamala Harris.”
While Pakistani media generally don’t cover elections in neighboring countries, some local outlets are already planning their U.S. election coverage and trying to secure U.S. visas for their reporters, he said.
“Pakistanis think that a change of president will inevitably have direct implications for not just Pakistan but also the region,” he said.
Underscoring the Pakistani media’s interest, Saleem, the Lamar University professor, noted receiving weekly invitations from various outlets to discuss the U.S. election campaign.
Bangladesh
In Bangladesh, the debate’s coverage was overshadowed by continuing reverberations from the August 5 collapse of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s government.
While interim leader Yunus’ speech dominated headlines on Wednesday, leading outlets provided more substantive coverage of the debate, drawing on international wire stories and analysis.
Prothom Alo, Bangladesh’s largest media outlet, called the debate “the most important moment” before the November 5 election.
Daily Star, one of the most reputable outlets, ran at least four stories, including a fact check and a video analysis.
Daily Ittefaq, a Bengali language newspaper, ran a summary of U.S. media accounts of the debate, reporting that even the conservative Fox News had declared Harris the winner.
Singh, founder of Fair Observer, said the post-Hasina political turmoil in Bangladesh likely contributed to the relatively thin coverage.
“They’ve got their own fish to fry,” he said.
But, he added, political elites in Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka – all dependent on International Monetary Fund largesse – are keenly watching the U.S. election campaign.
“They are in economic crisis, so they follow the election for practical reasons,” he said.
…
Warships in South China Sea signal Germany’s willingness to counter China’s threats
Pakistan police officer kills blasphemy suspect in custody
quetta/islamabad — A police officer in Pakistan’s southwestern Balochistan province shot and killed a man Thursday who was being held in custody on blasphemy allegations.
The fatal shooting happened inside a highly protected police station in the provincial capital of Quetta, a day after the victim, a Muslim, was arrested for allegedly making derogatory remarks about the Prophet Muhammad.
A senior local police officer, Muhammad Baloch, told reporters that they had arrested the policeman involved in the shooting and registered a murder case against him. He did not name the detainee.
On Wednesday, witnesses reported that when the blasphemy suspect, Abdul Ali, was taken into custody in the Kharotabad neighborhood, a mob of dozens of residents quickly surrounded the police detention facility and demanded that he be handed over to them so they could kill him.
Police officials reported the protesters also had thrown a grenade at the building, but the resulting blast did not cause any casualties. They said the violence forced them to transfer Ali to the police station in the central garrison area of Quetta, where he was fatally shot “inside the lockup by an on-duty policeman” on Thursday.
Activists of a religious party later prevented Ali’s family from burying him in his hometown of Pishin, about 50 kilometers from Quetta, forcing those attempting to carry out the burial to flee the graveyard along with the body.
In Islamabad, the national capital, an Islamic party senator, Abdul Shakoor Khan, while speaking in the upper house of parliament, expressed solidarity with the alleged killer. Khan vowed to help get him a lawyer for his legal battle.
“We will not tolerate anyone issuing blasphemous remarks against the Holy Prophet,” Khan said.
Blasphemy is a highly sensitive issue in majority-Muslim Pakistan, where mere allegations have led to mobs lynching scores of suspects, even some in police custody. Insulting the Quran or Islamic beliefs is punishable by death under the country’s blasphemy laws, though no one has ever been officially executed.
Thursday’s killing of a blasphemy suspect in custody by a police officer, however, is the first of its kind in Pakistan.
In early June, a 73-year-old Pakistani man from the minority Christian community died in a hospital a week after being violently attacked by a mob following blasphemy accusations in his native Sargodha district in central Punjab province.
Days later, on June 20, a Muslim man from Punjab was visiting the scenic Swat Valley in the northwestern Pakistani province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa when a mob violently lynched him for allegedly desecrating Islam’s holy book, the Quran.
Domestic and international rights groups have long sought reforms in the blasphemy laws, arguing they are often misused to settle personal vendettas or to target Pakistani minority communities.
Hundreds of suspects, mostly Muslims, are languishing in jails in Pakistan because of fear of retaliation from religious groups deters judges from moving their trials forward.
…
Drought-stricken Zimbabwe proposes culling elephants to address food shortages
Harare, Zimbabwe — Zimbabwe’s government said Thursday it is considering a proposal to cull its elephant population to address food shortages and reduce the effects of an El Nino-induced drought.
“Zimbabwe has more elephants than our forests can accommodate,” said Sithembiso Nyoni, Zimbabwe’s minister of environment, climate, and wildlife. “We are having a discussion with ZimParks [Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Authority] and some communities to do like what Namibia has done, so that we can cull the elephants and mobilize the women to maybe dry the meat, package it, and ensure that it gets to some communities that need the protein.”
Zimbabwe is one the five countries in southern Africa that the World Food Programme said has been hit hard by El Nino drought, leaving millions of people food-insecure. The proposal to cull elephants in Zimbabwe follows Namibia’s recently announced plans to cull 723 wild animals — including 83 elephants — to mitigate the effects of the drought and distribute the meat to communities facing food shortages.
Much as Namibia’s decision attracted condemnation from conservationists, Zimbabwe’s proposal to cull elephants will paint the country in a bad light, said Farai Maguwu of the Center for Natural Resource Governance.
“Elephants are protected by international conventions, such as CITES [the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species]. They are in a world heritage,” said Maguwu. “So, one does not just decide to say, ‘I want to slaughter them.’ They are not like goats, which a person can just say, ‘I want to slaughter a goat and feed my family.’ There are rules and procedures.”
Maguwu said officials in Harare have long fought to change those rules.
“Zimbabwe has always been pushing for the right to kill elephants,” said Maguwu. “We all know when you look at how our natural resources are being plundered right now, like minerals, the whole idea is to sell ivory. It’s not even about the communities there.”
Maguwu also said that “there is a lot that government can do to cushion the people from the impacts of drought rather than killing elephants. I think they should stop that move.”
Zimbabwe said it has about 100,000 elephants against its carrying capacity of about 45,000 and has not been able to sell some of the jumbos because of CITES.
Minister Nyoni said Zimbabwe’s culling would fall within the confines of the country’s law.
“If Zimbabwe had a way, we would sell our elephants for ivory yesterday,” said Nyoni. “The people who prevent us from selling our ivory are people who have already finished and killed off their own animals. They don’t have elephants. And they don’t have the experience of this human wildlife conflict that we are facing. And those are people who influence the decision of CITES. So, it is a problem that Zimbabwe is facing. … There is a thinking that we move out of CITES and then do our own thing. There are consequences for doing that. Zimbabwe would like to be independent; we would like to take charge of our own animals. But we can’t because we are part of the global village.”
Nyoni added that Zimbabwe would continue to negotiate with other CITES members so that Harare is allowed to trade in ivory and elephants by CITES.
Efforts to reach CITES for comment did not yield results Thursday.
…
VOA interview: Chairman speaks on Republicans’ Afghan withdrawal report
WASHINGTON — U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul’s office recently released detailed findings of an investigation into the chaotic August 2021 U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, which has been criticized for poor planning.
Speaking with Saba Shah Khan of VOA’s Urdu Service, McCaul, a Republican from Texas, denied that the latest probe is a “political exercise” that coincides with a tight presidential race. He said its purpose is to ensure that “an evacuation will never happen like this again.”
On Tuesday, the committee’s ranking Democrat, Representative Gregory Meeks from New York, issued a statement criticizing the report as a collection of “cherry-picked witness testimony” that excludes “anything unhelpful to a predetermined, partisan narrative about the Afghanistan withdrawal.”
“The Majority did not involve the Minority in this report, nor have they even provided a draft copy to us,” he wrote.
In the following interview, McCaul accuses White House officials of “stonewalling” the investigation and mentions his September 3 decision to subpoena Secretary of State Antony Blinken for testimony even though findings of the full report were released Monday.
“We’re still not finished with the investigation,” McCaul told VOA on Tuesday.
State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller last week issued a statement to The Hill stating that Blinken was unable to testify on the dates requested and offered “reasonable alternatives” to comply with McCaul’s request.
The following has been edited for length and clarity.
VOA: Why is the Foreign Affairs Committee report on U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan being released now? With less than two months left to Election Day, some would say the report is politically driven.
U.S. Representative Michael McCaul: It’s been three years since the … chaotic evacuation. The first year, the majority — at that time, the Democrats — did nothing to investigate. So, I’ve had two years to put this very comprehensive, complete, historic account of what happened together. In the meantime, we served many subpoenas. We’ve had to threaten contempt proceedings. And I would have liked to have had this done a year ago. The administration has been, you know, stonewalling us and slowing down the delivery of the report. In fact, we’re still not finished with the investigation.
VOA: In light of the report, what do you think the Biden administration could have done differently to avoid the chaos and mayhem that unfolded during the withdrawal?
McCaul: That’s one of the key takeaways here. The military is on the ground doing their job. That’s to pull out by July [as dictated by a predetermined date of withdrawal negotiated by the prior administration]. The intelligence community sees what’s happening. They report this information. It gets a little bit manipulated when it gets to the higher level. And then it is amplified that everything’s fine in Afghanistan, when, in fact, on the ground, the conditions are getting very bad.
The State Department is required by law to come out with an evacuation plan called the NEO [Noncombatant Evacuation Operations]. They kept resisting this because they thought evacuation means failure. So, they wait until the very day that the Taliban is overrunning Kabul before they finally initiate an evacuation plan. That is why it was so chaotic. That is why the 13 servicemen and women were left behind — with Taliban, by the way — to work with them to help Afghans get out.
VOA: The report says that [President Joe] Biden kept Zalmay Khalilzad on as special representative [for Afghanistan reconciliation from September 2018 to October 2021], making it clear Biden embraced the [February 2020] Doha Accord. Sir, was that a good decision?
McCaul: The complaint I had — and Zal and I, you know, I’ve known him for a long time, and I have respect for him — but he did not include the Afghan government in the Doha talks. So, it was just between Zal Khalilzad and the Taliban. That sent a terrible message to the Afghan government. They felt like they were sidelined. … The Doha Agreement had conditions. Most important is the Taliban cannot hit U.S. forces. They were continuing to do that. But according to President Biden’s press guy [former State Department spokesperson Ned Price], Doha was “immaterial” as to the evacuation. He was going to go to zero — that means zero troops, zero contractors, zero air power — one way or the other. That was going to happen. He made that decision on day one.
VOA: The [Doha] negotiations and the decision to leave Afghanistan was made during the Trump administration. Chairman, do you think….
McCaul: … that isn’t accurate, because the Taliban were in violation of the Doha conditions. Twenty-five hundred troops were left on the ground — General [Kenneth] McKenzie and [Mark] Milly said that was sufficient to stabilize, along with 6,500 NATO and air power and contractors. That they could stabilize both Bagram and HKIA [Hamid Karzai International Airport] when it went to zero. That’s when it changed.
VOA: The date of withdrawal was decided by the Trump administration…
McCaul: … if conditions were met, which they weren’t …
VOA: … do you think that it is fair to hold the Biden administration solely responsible for the failure?
McCaul: And we don’t. We actually fault Zal Khalilzad. We list a lot of top D.O.D. [Department of Defense] and State Department officials that Congress, in a resolution, will condemn for their actions. Zal Khalilzad, he’s a dear friend, but by not letting the Afghan government participate — to me, that was a major error. And a lot of this, by not executing a plan of action to get out and evacuate, according to the top generals and the intelligence community, was the fatal flaw, leaving behind Americans, Afghan allies, and most importantly, the women.
VOA: The report also says that the U.S. did not keep track of whether the Taliban were following the Doha Agreement. In your opinion, how could the U.S. have made Taliban comply?
McCaul: In my opinion, they were in violation at the time the president made the decision to go to zero. But according to his press spokesperson, that was immaterial to the withdrawal. It was going to happen one way or the other. What people don’t understand is it’s not just the military being pulled out, it’s the air cover, it’s the contractors. When everything is pulled out, the Afghan army was virtually defenseless.
VOA: It is also said in the report that Afghanistan is a hotbed of terrorist activities. Can U.S. leave Taliban to their doings? And what is the way forward?
McCaul: It’s very, very dangerous. I was the chairman of Homeland Security Committee. What we’re seeing now, and we saw it before, is the Haqqani [network and] Taliban protecting Zawahiri, [the] number two Al-Qaeda [figure], who was taken by drone strike not too long after the evacuation. We know that they were collaborating — ISIS-K and Taliban — because United States is a common enemy.
Most disturbingly is Bagram, the prisons in Bagram. They [the Taliban] released thousands of ISIS prisoners that have now gone to the Khorasan region — that’s Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan — [for] external operations. Just recently, the FBI indicated to us that eight of them have been detained in the United States coming across the southwest border. … So, when Americans think Afghanistan is some faraway, distant land, it is all interconnected and it does threaten the homeland.
VOA: What is the way forward? What do you think the U.S. strategy should be to handle this?
McCaul: Number one, we don’t want to see this happen again. This was not a political exercise for me. As a [former] federal prosecutor, I just wanted to get to the facts and the evidence, wherever that took me. I didn’t have conclusions in advance. … So, to answer your question, we want to propose a new way to do this legislatively, through Congress, so that an evacuation will never happen like this again. Saigon was bad. This is worse.
VOA: The report quotes a study that 118 girls were sold as child brides in Afghanistan, in a village. And, in the same village, 116 parents are waiting for a buyer. So, my question to you is that it seems like there is no hope for women and girls in Afghanistan. What is your suggestion? And what can the U.S do?
McCaul: I mean, can you imagine being 25 years old as a woman and never lived under Sharia law, and now you have to go backwards to the stone age? And that’s essentially what has happened there. I got four busloads of the American School of Music girls out through Abbey Gate, because I knew the Taliban — the way they feel about women and music — their days would be numbered. Now, it’s very difficult. Do you normalize the Taliban? Do you treat them as a foreign terrorist organization?
I think any aid or assistance we give to Afghanistan has to be conditioned on treatment of women and children. And they should be allowed to go to school, they should be allowed to go outside their homes, they should not be beaten. Just fundamental rights.
This story originated in VOA’s Urdu Service.
…
Exclusive interview: US boosts diplomacy, security support in Somalia
MOGADISHU, SOMALIA/WASHINGTON — In an exclusive interview, U.S. Ambassador to Somalia Richard Riley shed light on the ongoing diplomatic efforts and security challenges facing the East African nation, including U.S. efforts to find a peaceful diplomatic solution to the ongoing dispute between Somalia and Ethiopia.
Somalia and Ethiopia have been in a dispute that was ignited at the beginning of this year when Ethiopia signed a memorandum of understanding, or MoU, with the breakaway region of Somaliland — a deal Somalia sees as an infringement on its sovereignty.
The agreement gives Ethiopia leasing rights to a large portion of the Red Sea coastline in Somaliland.
During the interview conducted at the U.S. Embassy in Mogadishu, Riley, who was sworn in to his post in May, shared with VOA his insights on the U.S. commitment to finding peaceful resolutions and supporting the Somali government in combating terrorism.
Diplomatic resolution
“We are very much aware and working collaboratively to make sure there is a diplomatic resolution of this current situation,” he said. “It is an unfortunate situation, very disruptive, and started … with this MoU between Somaliland and Ethiopia. Of course, we do not recognize it, and we are trying to solve it through diplomatic channels.”
Turkey, a key Somali partner, has been trying to mediate the dispute between the neighboring countries, holding two rounds of talks in Ankara that ended without an agreement.
The Ethiopian and Somali foreign ministers who represented their countries at the meeting did not hold direct talks. Turkey’s foreign minister shuttled between them.
Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan described the talks at the time as “candid, cordial and forward-looking.”
Abdi Aynte, a former Somali minister of planning and international cooperation who was involved in the negotiations, said the only thing the two sides agreed upon was to reconvene on September 17.
“The core issue remains Ethiopia’s refusal to annul the MoU with Somaliland, which is Somalia’s position, and if Ethiopia continues to insist on its position of not withdrawing from the MoU, I think there is nothing to expect from any talks between the two countries,” Aynte said.
Another analyst who spoke with VOA earlier this year, Cameron Hudson, who is a researcher at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, questioned the United States’ commitment and ability to quell tensions in the volatile region.
Riley said he is hopeful, though, that a solution may come from the third round of talks in Turkey.
“There are negotiations ongoing,” he said.
Concerns about potential conflict
Fears have been growing in Somalia that the boiling tensions could turn into an armed conflict between Ethiopian soldiers currently stationed in Somalia and Somalis.
Riley said such confrontation is “unacceptable.”
“No one can accept there would be any kind of conflict, much less war,” he said. “That is why everybody in the international community is working nonstop. We certainly are, from the United States and from Washington, to find the proper resolution of this conflict between Ethiopia and Somalia. This is absolutely needed. It is needed soon very quickly, and you have the full power and support, Somalia does, to make sure there is a proper diplomatic solution.”
Ethiopian troops became part of the African Union mission, known as ATMIS, in Somalia in January 2012. Under the mission, at least 3,000 Ethiopian soldiers officially operate as part of an AU peacekeeping mission fighting al-Shabab. An additional 5,000 to 7,000 Ethiopian soldiers are stationed in several regions under a bilateral agreement.
Last month, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 2748, which allows ATMIS troops to stay in Somalia through December 2024.
Somalia says all Ethiopian troops should be out of the country by the end of 2024, especially after the expiration of ATMIS. Somali Prime Minister Hamza Abdi Barre said last month that Ethiopian forces would not be part of the upcoming African Union Support Mission in Somalia, or AUSSOM, unless Ethiopia withdraws from the controversial memorandum of understanding.
Commitment to Somalia’s security
Riley said the U.S. is Somalia’s largest donor and security partner, providing tens of billions of dollars over the years in personnel, equipment and funding. “The United States, for example, just forgave over $1 million of Somali sovereign debt,” he said.
He added that the U.S. will extend full support to any mission whose objective is to make Somalia a peaceful place.
“We absolutely have always strongly supported the current ATMIS force here. We are very grateful to the troop-contributing countries, who have provided very brave personnel for many years to assist the federal government to bring stability and security here,” Riley said. “We are looking forward to this transition so that it is a proper one, it is well organized, and it is efficient, and it does the job. That is the main issue to make sure that the mandate of the follow-on force under AUSSOM will be suited to the need.”
Two urgent issues
He said there are imperative challenges in Somalia that the U.S. wants to help the country handle.
“There are two immediate urgencies: to ensure that the Somali National Army and armed forces, including the police, receive all the resources they need to fight against horrific terrorist groups like al-Shabab and ISIS,” he said. “The other challenge is to ensure that the economy of Somalia continues to grow, with more investment and connectivity to international markets. Somalia needs both physical and economic security.”
This story originated in VOA’s Somali Service in collaboration with VOA’s Horn of Africa Service. Reporters Abdulkadir Abdulle and Abulkadir Zupeyr contributed to the report from Mogadishu.
…