# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The United Nations Security Council, which typically only leaves New York City to travel to conflict zones, is heading to China later this month. Beijing, which currently holds the rotating presidency of the Council, has planned the trip to showcase the cities of Shenzhen and Guangzhou and to spotlight its contributions to UN peacekeeping around the world. So far, Council diplomats seem content to take the trip without addressing the elephant in the room: the Chinese government's ongoing repression of 13 million Turkic Muslims, one million of whom are arbitrarily detained in "political education camps."

This year, the ambassadors of the 15 member-Council have taken trips to Afghanistan, Myanmar, and Bangladesh, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. In addition to spending time with political leaders in capital cities, the diplomats also met with those affected by conflict and violence. Unfortunately, it appears they won't get that chance in China.

The Chinese government is facing mounting criticism for its persecution of Turkic Muslims, including Uighurs and Kazakhs, in Xinjiang and abroad. Earlier this month, Chinese diplomats faced tough questions from many Security Council ambassadors' counterparts in Geneva, especially the Dutch, Americans, French, British, and Swedish, who demanded a change in its policies in Xinjiang. While Chinese diplomats asserted that the camps amounted to little more than vocational training, there is strong evidence-including research by Human Rights Watch -that indicates otherwise. Those detained have described torture and ill-treatment including beatings, being hung from ceilings, and shackling. Documents show that local government officials running these camps bought thousands of batons, cattle prods, handcuffs, tasers, and cans of pepper spray - hardly the tools for vocational training.

Traveling to China in 2018 and skipping Xinjiang feels akin to visiting Cape Town at the height of apartheid and ignoring prisoners on Robben Island.

If the 14 other countries currently sitting on the Security Council accept China's proposed terms for this trip, they risk enabling abuses in Xinjiang. This trip represents a key test of the idea that great powers can use the fig leaf of sovereignty to get away with atrocities without consequences. Will Council diplomats go along with the charade or use their trip to draw attention to this profound injustice?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The UN Security Council in China: One million Uighurs in detention deserve world's attention | Hong Kong Free Press HKFP

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Akshaya Kumar, Deputy United Nations Director The United Nations Security Council, which typically only leaves New York City to travel to conflict zones, is heading to China later this month. Beijing, which currently holds the rotating presidency of the Council, has planned the trip to showcase the cities of Shenzhen and Guangzhou and to spotlight its contributions to UN ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A secret biography suggests that Abu Ali al-Anbari defined the group's radical approach more than any other person.

Mohammed Hato / AP

Most historians of the Islamic State agree that the group emerged out of al-Qaeda in Iraq as a response to the U.S. invasion in 2003. They also agree that it was shaped primarily by a Jordanian jihadist and the eventual head of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The Jordanian had a dark vision: He wished to fuel a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites and establish a caliphate. Although he was killed in 2006, his vision was realized in 2014-the year ISIS overran northern Iraq and eastern Syria.

Narratives about the origins of Islamic State ideology often focus on the fact that Zarqawi and Osama bin Laden, both Sunni extremists, diverged on the idea of fighting Shiites and on questions of takfir, or excommunication. Such differences, the story goes, were reinforced in Iraq and eventually led to the split between ISIS and al-Qaeda. Based on this set of assumptions, many conclude that Zarqawi must have provided the intellectual framework for ISIS.

Recently, I came to question the conventional wisdom. The groundwork for ISIS was arguably laid long before the invasion, and if there was one person responsible for the group's modus operandi, it was Abdulrahman al-Qaduli, an Iraqi from Nineveh better known by his nom de guerre, Abu Ali al-Anbari-not Zarqawi. It was Anbari, Zarqawi's No. 2 in his al-Qaeda years, who defined the Islamic State's radical approach more than any other person; his influence was more systematic, longer lasting, and deeper than that of Zarqawi.

Read: What ISIS really wants

A month ago, I obtained a 93-page document that chronicles Anbari's life, as well as the extremist landscape around him in 1990s Iraq. Anbari's son, Abdullah, wrote the biography for the internal use of the Islamic State, which published parts of it in its weekly Arabic magazine, Al-Naba, in 2016, shortly after Anbari's killing. Dissidents within ISIS recently spread the full document on social media, which is how I came across it. Abdullah has stated that the biography was based on 16 years of working closely with his father, a diary that Anbari kept, and firsthand accounts of Anbari from fellow ISIS members.

In addition to Abdullah's biography, I'm relying here on a series of lectures that Anbari delivered in 2014 and 2015, and on my notes from interviews with members of the organization and Syrian rebels. All in all, it's become clear to me that Zarqawi was likely influenced by Anbari, not the other way around.

Anbari was born in northern Iraq in 1959 into a Turkified family of Arab and Armenian descent. The household was devout. Abdullah tells the story of when a young Anbari wanted to buy pigeons. His father told him he had to ask the local imam if keeping pigeons was sound from an Islamic-law standpoint. The imam told him it was a "devilish" habit, so he dropped the idea. (In some Arab countries, testimony from pigeon keepers is inadmissible in court; Arabs associate them with dishonesty, as their profession is thought to involve stealing pigeons owned by others and then lying about it.)

Anbari studied Sharia after he completed elementary school, at an institute in the northern Iraqi city of Tal Afar. He graduated from the University of Baghdad in 1982 with a degree in Islamic studies. (He shares an alma mater with the Islamic State's current leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.) After graduation, he joined the Iraqi army, served for seven years, and fought in the Iran-Iraq war. "He obtained military and religious training, a rare combination," his son wrote.

After Anbari's military service, according to the biography, he was assigned to teach a Sharia class in a small, diverse town called Mujama Barzan. One day, a rich citizen of the town invited ghajars-an ethnic group similar to the Roma-to pitch a tent and throw a party with music and dancing. Anbari was enraged by the news; the party seemed to him profoundly sacrilegious. He offered 10 extra marks to any student who did not attend, but that wasn't enough of a statement. Anbari considered killing the ghajars, but he had no gun. He then asked one of his students to bring him gasoline, with the idea that he would burn the ghajars alive inside their tent. Ultimately, he simply delivered a sermon against the ghajars and the planned, profane celebration. Under intense pressure, the rich sponsor sent the ghajars away. But the incident left Anbari thinking: There is something wrong with a government that would even consider allowing such an event to take place.

Hassan Hassan: ISIS is poised to make a comeback in Syria

In the mid-1990s, Anbari moved back to Tal Afar, a mixed city of Shiites and Sunnis. He was assigned to a local school in one of the city's largest Shiite neighborhoods, Khadraa, and later also became an imam at a nearby mosque. He used the pulpit to attack Shiites and Sufis as deviant sects.

Later that decade, he associated himself with Kurdish jihadist organizations in the north. The biography explains that he was influenced by jihadist materials, including audio sermons, coming out of Afghanistan and Chechnya. He developed relationships with three men who later became notable jihadists. One was killed by the Kurdish Peshmerga in Mosul in the early days of the Iraq War, and two became senior leaders of the Islamic State of Iraq, as ISIS was known from late 2006 until it expanded into Syria in 2013.

Around the time of 9/11, support for jihad spiked in Iraq. The success of the attacks was, of course, one factor behind the preinvasion spike-but it was not the only one. In the wake of the Gulf War in 1991, Saddam Hussein's government inaugurated the so-called Islamic Faith Campaign, which promoted Islamization of the public sphere. Seven months before the attacks, the government mobilized Iraqis to join the volunteer-based Jerusalem Army, which had a stated mission of expelling Jews from the holy city. Abu Maria al-Qahtani, one of the founders of al-Qaeda in Syria, once told me that Hussein's persistent anti-American rhetoric galvanized many to fight against U.S. influence before and after the invasion. Al-Qahtani himself was trained by Hussein's regime for a possible suicide mission in Israel.

Anbari was swept along by these trends. After 9/11, he and some of his former students created a "nucleus of an emirate"-a sort of proto-Islamic state-in northern Iraq. The students were trained on the hillsides surrounding Tal Afar by a close associate of Anbari named Iyad Abu Bakr.

Beyond spurring jihadism, the 9/11 attacks seem to have polarized the religious scene in Iraq. Anbari and like-minded jihadists began to see rival Islamists, including the Muslim Brotherhood, as enemies-a position that would become a notable aspect of the Islamic State's ideology. Anbari viewed the Muslim Brotherhood's embrace of political norms and its rejection of al-Qaeda as a betrayal. His fixation with the Muslim Brotherhood is also evident in his audio lectures, in which he refers to its members as "the devil's brothers."

Anbari took great stock in a new set of jihadist books that were circulating in post-9/11 Iraq, primarily ones by Zarqawi's prison mentor, Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, and Abdulqadir bin Abdulaziz, an Egyptian jihadist ideologue. These materials, his son wrote, "polished the sheikh's concepts" and "corrected his creed" on matters such as apostasy and the adoption of man-made laws. Thus, a man who had never embraced moderation rejected the concept as totally anathema to Islam.

Read: The hell after ISIS

What I hope is now clear to readers is that Anbari's extremist views, which were later mirrored by ISIS, were forged before the American invasion of Iraq-and before he met Zarqawi.

According to Abdullah's biography, Zarqawi arrived in northern Iraq from Afghanistan in the spring of 2002. Anbari met him a month later in Baghdad, where Zarqawi was hosted by an envoy of the Kurdish jihadist group Ansar al-Islam and a friend of Anbari's. (This is the first time an ISIS publication has acknowledged that Zarqawi was present in Baghdad before the invasion. Previously, some claimed this chronology was false or politicized-part of the Bush administration's attempts to justify the war by linking Zarqawi to the Hussein regime.) During this period, Anbari moved back and forth from central to northern Iraq to facilitate jihadist activities. "Preparations for jihad were maturing, in terms of finance, men and arms," Abdullah's biography reads. "All this was happening under the rule of the Baath."

"All this" included the preinvasion professionalization of the Islamist movement, as former Baathists, who "repented" before the war, set about organizing new recruits. Abu Muslim al-Turkmani, once a colonel in Hussein's army and the eventual No. 3 in the Islamic State of Iraq's hierarchy, trained an anti-Saddam jihadist group that was then put under Anbari's command. Anbari and Turkmani's men made gun silencers and improvised bombs for Zarqawi.

When the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, Anbari and Zarqawi led separate groups that were not yet part of al-Qaeda in Iraq. (Both pledged allegiance in 2004, Anbari as Zarqawi's deputy.) There's a great deal of evidence that Anbari, not Zarqawi, set the extremist pace, advancing the policies that would characterize ISIS.

Soon after the invasion, Anbari's group in Tal Afar targeted anyone regarded as heretical or obstructive; it attacked Shiites, members of the Muslim Brotherhood, and local informants regardless of what tribe they belonged to.

By contrast, it would take another year for Zarqawi to embrace such extreme sectarianism. After Zarqawi formally pledged allegiance to bin Laden and became the head of al-Qaeda in Iraq, he wrote a letter to al-Qaeda's central leadership articulating a plan to attack Shiite civilians and places of worship. The idea for targeting the Shiites probably came from native Iraqis like Anbari-possibly even Anbari himself. Prior to 2004, Zarqawi's fixation was largely with secular Arab regimes, exemplified by his bombing of the Jordanian embassy in Baghdad in the summer of 2003. Laith Alkhouri, a close watcher of the group and a co-founder of the intelligence company Flashpoint in New York, said Zarqawi found anti-Shiite views instrumental to mobilizing Sunnis in Iraq in 2005, which led him to declare an all-out war against Shiites "wherever they are."

Murad Batal Shishani, a prominent jihadism expert from Zarqawi's hometown, told me that Zarqawi's trials in Jordan in the mid-1990s-for his involvement in a secret Islamist organization-produced no evidence that he held the extremist views associated with ISIS after 2003. In Jordan, "Zarqawi did not deviate from his jihadi peers, only through his character," Shishani said. "He was more radical, he was a thug, and so on, but ideologically he was a lightweight. He was influenced by what was happening around him in Iraq."

Anbari also had a direct role in the transformation of al-Qaeda in Iraq from a foreign-dominated force into one run by Iraqis. Abdullah's biography reveals that Anbari was dispatched by Zarqawi to Pakistan in late 2005, passing through Iran with fake documents, to brief leaders of al-Qaeda there about rumors that the Iraqi branch was alienating fellow jihadists. (The detail about Anbari's journey is a rare admission of the fact that Iran is used as a transit corridor in the region.) When Anbari returned, he presented a plan to merge al-Qaeda in Iraq with other, local forces to establish the Mujahideen Shura Council in January 2006. Anbari headed the council, using his new nom de guerre, Abdullah Rasheed al-Baghdadi.

One year later, the newly "Iraqized" local operation rebranded itself as the Islamic State of Iraq, and the group's attacks against Shiites and Americans rose exponentially.
Read: How ISIS games Twitter
Anbari was arrested by U.S. troops in Baghdad in 2006, and Zarqawi was killed two months later, at which point, of course, his influence came to an end. Although Anbari remained in custody until March 2012, he stayed involved in the jihadist story by recruiting and indoctrinating fellow inmates. After Anbari's release-which the Islamic State of Iraq apparently arranged by bribing Iraqi officials-Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi summoned him to Baghdad and assigned him to a critical mission.

Anbari's new task was to investigate whether the group's branch in Syria, then known as Jabhat al-Nusra, was still loyal to Baghdadi. He found that Abu Muhammad al-Julani, the Syrian branch's leader, was a "cunning person" and "double-faced"-according to an account published by ISIS-so Anbari and Baghdadi plotted against him. The two formed independent relationships with key members of Jabhat al-Nusra, and then Baghdadi unilaterally announced a merger between the two branches. Although the merger didn't last, many of Jabhat al-Nusra's leaders went over to Baghdadi's group. Anbari was also tasked with communicating with al-Qaeda, under the nom de guerre Abu Suhayb al-Iraqi, to resolve the jihadist infighting. The reconciliation effort failed and al-Qaeda formally disavowed ISIS in February 2014.

For Syrian rebels, Anbari was the face of ISIS as he met and negotiated with them from late 2012 through the summer of 2014. After the takeover of Mosul, he turned his full attention to sharpening the organization's ideology. Indeed, he became the ideologue in chief, in which capacity he trained senior clerics, instructed members to draft religious texts, and issued fatwas about major issues affecting the caliphate. Under his supervision, a Jordanian pilot was condemned to immolation, a dark realization of the younger Anbari's desire to burn the ghajars who'd come to Mujama Barzan; Yazidis who came in contact with the group were massacred or enslaved; and two tribes in Syria and Iraq were massacred as a warning against rebellion in the wake of the group's capture of one-third of Iraq and nearly half of Syria. Anbari also labeled Syria's moderate rebels as apostates in 2013, and authored a detailed fatwa against them.

Later on, Baghdadi appointed Anbari to serve as the group's chief of finance, a task that involved regular travels between Syria and Iraq. In March 2016, on one of those frequent trips, Anbari was killed near the Syrian city of Shaddadi, along the Syrian-Iraqi border. According to the biography, American soldiers attempted to capture him in a raid but he blew himself up using a suicide belt. Anbari outlived Zarqawi by 10 years, and out-influenced him.

Perhaps scholars have ignored Anbari's contributions because he was so elusive. He had, for example, around a dozen noms de guerre. For many years the U.S. thought he was at least two different people. Officials had only two pictures of him. When he was captured briefly in Mosul in 2005, his U.S. captors did not know his true identity, because he used fake documents. The second time he was captured, in 2006, they recognized him but only as the local terrorist cleric from Tal Afar, rather than as the leader of the al-Qaeda-dominated Mujahideen Shura Council.

Zarqawi led a jihadist group that later evolved into the Islamic State of Iraq and later still into the Islamic State proper-but it is too simplistic to say that ISIS was Zarqawi's brainchild. Experts who closely tracked Zarqawi's early activism agree that the Jordanian had no clear sectarian vision before he arrived in Iraq, and his ideas before that did not depart from mainstream jihadist worldviews. Nada Bakos, a former CIA analyst and the author of the forthcoming The Targeter: My Life in the CIA, on the Hunt for the Godfather of ISIS , told me that Zarqawi "was a good tactician, not a strategic thinker, and he was responding to the circumstances around him. People near him built the strategy of what he wanted to achieve."

Husham Alhashimi, an Iraqi historian of jihadist groups who advises the Iraqi government on ISIS, studied the insurgency against the United States up close from the outset. He pointed to three Iraqi ideologues who directly shaped Zarqawi's thinking and approach. They had similar profiles to Anbari in terms of religious training and were all wanted by the former regime for their extremist ideas and activities: Abu Abdulrahman al-Iraqi, a former aide to Zarqawi who currently in jail; Nidham Addin Rifaai, who was imprisoned several times, starting in 1978, for involvement in the Salafi Monotheists Movement and who is also currently in jail; and Abdullah Abdelsamad al-Mufti, who has been wanted since 1991 and who is a highly regarded Salafi ideologue in Iraq.

Alhashimi said these Iraqi jihadist clerics advanced ideas eventually rejected by al-Qaeda but embraced by ISIS, including extreme sectarianism and the concept of establishing an Islamic state. "These clerics had a complete school of jurisprudence and methodology, as well as foundational religious texts," Alhashimi said. "Zarqawi was merely a commander who worked according to their approach, which was why his approach diverged from al-Maqdisi and bin Laden after he mingled with the people of Iraq."

What sets Anbari apart from these clerics is that in addition to holding extreme sectarian views at least a decade before Zarqawi's appearance, he had a high-level organizational role within al-Qaeda in Iraq and later within ISIS. He was the longest-serving and highest-ranking cleric within the organization since its inception until his death.

Recognizing the central role of Anbari in the formation of ISIS, and of the events that cultivated leaders like him before the 2003 invasion, establishes that the group was not merely the creation of one cunning Jordanian jihadist. It seems that Zarqawi landed in a country where the ideological contours of the group he would one day lead had already been defined. He was influenced by the existing environment and by the native ideologues who shaped it before him.

The distinction matters. If ISIS grew organically for at least a decade before the U.S. invasion, and before Zarqawi's arrival, that helps explain how it was able to rise in and then dominate a country as demographically diverse as Iraq. The group has deeper roots than has previously been acknowledged.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

Hassan Hassan is a contributing writer at The Atlantic and the co-author of ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A secret biography suggests that Abu Ali al-Anbari defined the group's radical approach more than any other person. Most historians of the Islamic State agree that the group emerged out of al-Qaeda in Iraq as a response to the U.S. invasion in 2003.

# data[].attributes.headline
Multilateral crisis, responding to European Migrant Crisis 

# data[].attributes.subject
Multilateral crisis, responding to European Migrant Crisis 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A recent visit to Nauru revealed the effects of Australia's offshore detention policy and its impact on mental health.

The Krishnalingam family on the roof of an abandoned mansion in Ronave, Nauru. The family applied for resettlement in the United States after fleeing Sri Lanka and being certified as refugees. Credit... Mridula Amin

TOPSIDE, Nauru - She was 3 years old when she arrived on Nauru, a child fleeing war in Sri Lanka. Now, Sajeenthana is 8.

Her gaze is vacant. Sometimes she punches adults. And she talks about dying with ease.

"Yesterday I cut my hand," she said in an interview here on the remote Pacific island where she was sent by the Australian government after being caught at sea. She pointed to a scar on her arm.

"One day I will kill myself," she said. "Wait and see, when I find the knife. I don't care about my body. "

Her father tried to calm her, but she twisted away. "It is the same as if I was in war, or here," he said.

Sajeenthana is one of more than 3,000 refugees and asylum seekers who have been sent to Australia's offshore detention centers since 2013. No other Australian policy has been so widely condemned by the world's human rights activists nor so strongly defended by the country's leaders, who have long argued it saves lives by deterring smugglers and migrants.

Now, though, the desperation has reached a new level - in part because of the United States.

Sajeenthana and her father are among the dozens of refugees on Nauru who had been expecting to be moved as part of an Obama-era deal that President Trump reluctantly agreed to honor, allowing resettlement for up to 1,250 refugees from Australia's offshore camps.

So far, according to American officials, about 430 refugees from the camps have been resettled in the United States - but at least 70 people were rejected over the past few months.

That includes Sajeenthana and her father, Tamil refugees who fled violence at home after the Sri Lankan government crushed a Tamil insurgency.

A State Department spokeswoman did not respond to questions about the rejections, arguing the Nauru refugees are subject to the same vetting procedures as other refugees worldwide.

Australia's Department of Home Affairs said in a statement that Nauru has "appropriate mental health assessment and treatment in place."

But what's clear, according to doctors and asylum seekers, is that the situation has been deteriorating for months. On Nauru, signs of suicidal children have been emerging since August. Dozens of organizations, including Doctors Without Borders (which was ejected from Nauru on Oct. 5) have been sounding the alarm. And with the hope of American resettlement diminishing, the Australian government has been forced to relent: Last week officials said they would work toward moving all children off Nauru for treatment by Christmas.

At least 92 children have been moved since August - Sajeenthana was evacuated soon after our interview - but as of Tuesday there were still 27 children on Nauru, hundreds of adults, and no long-term solution.

The families sent to Australia for care are waiting to hear if they will be sent back to Nauru. Some parents, left behind as their children are being treated, fear they will never see each other again if they apply for American resettlement, while asylum seekers from countries banned by the United States - like Iran, Syria and Somalia - lack even that possibility.

For all the asylum seekers who have called Nauru home, the psychological effects linger.

Nauru is a small island nation of about 11,000 people that takes 30 minutes by car to loop. A line of dilapidated mansions along the coast signal the island's wealthy past; in the 1970s, it was a phosphate-rich nation with per capita income second only to Saudi Arabia.

Mathew Batsiua, a former Nauruan lawmaker who helped orchestrate the offshore arrangement, said it was meant to be a short-term deal. But the habit has been hard to break.

"Our mainstay income is purely controlled by the foreign policy of another country," he said.

In Topside, an area of old cars and dusty brush, sits one of the two processing centers that house about 160 detainees. Hundreds of others live in community camps of modular housing. They were moved from shared tents in August, ahead of the Pacific Islands Forum, an intergovernmental meeting that Nauru hosted this year.

Sukirtha Krishnalingam, 15, said the days are a boring loop as she and her family of five - certified refugees from Sri Lanka - wait to hear if the United States will accept them. She worries about her heart condition. And she has nightmares.

"At night, she screams," said her brother Mahinthan, 14.

In the past year, talk of suicide on the island has become more common. Young men like Abdullah Khoder, a 24-year-old Lebanese refugee, says exhaustion and hopelessness have taken a toll. "I cut my hands with razors because I am tired," he said.

Even more alarming: Children now allude to suicide as if it were just another thunderstorm. Since 2014, 12 people have died after being detained in Australia's offshore detention centers on Nauru and Manus Island, part of Papua New Guinea.

Christina Sivalingam, a 10-year-old Tamil girl on Nauru spoke matter-of-factly in an interview about seeing the aftermath of one death - that of an Iranian man, Fariborz Karami, who killed himself in June.

"We came off the school bus and I saw the blood - it was everywhere," she said calmly. It took two days to clean up. She said her father also attempted suicide after treatment for his thyroid condition was delayed.

Seeing some of her friends being settled in the United States while she waits on her third appeal for asylum has only made her lonelier. She said she doesn't feel like eating anymore.

"Why am I the only one here?" she said. "I want to go somewhere else and be happy."

Some observers, even on Nauru, wonder if the children are refusing to eat in a bid to leave. But medical professionals who have worked on the island said the rejections by the Americans have contributed to a rapid deterioration of people's mental states.

Dr. Beth O'Connor, a psychiatrist working with Doctors Without Borders, said that when she arrived last year, people clung to the hope of resettlement in the United States. In May, a batch of rejections plunged the camp into despair.

Mr. Karami's death further sapped morale.

"People that just had a bit of spark in their eye still just went dull," Dr. O'Connor said. "They felt more abandoned and left behind."

Many of the detainees no longer hope to settle in Australia. New Zealand has offered to take in 150 refugees annually from Nauru but Scott Morrison, the Australian prime minister, has said that he will only consider the proposal if a bill is passed banning those on Nauru from ever entering Australia. Opposition lawmakers say they are open to discussion.

In the meantime, Nauru continues to draw scrutiny.

For months, doctors say, many children on Nauru have been exhibiting symptoms of resignation syndrome - a mental condition in response to trauma that involves extreme withdrawal from reality. They stopped eating, drinking and talking.

"They'd look right through you when you tried to talk to them," Dr. O'Connor said. "We watched their weights decline and we worried that one of them would die before they got out."

Lawyers with the National Justice Project, a nonprofit legal service, have been mobilizing. They have successfully argued for the medical evacuation of around 127 people from Nauru this year, including 44 children.

In a quarter of the cases, the government has resisted these demands in court, said George Newhouse, the group's principal lawyer.

"We've never lost," he said. "It is gut-wrenching to see children's lives destroyed for political gain."

A broad coalition that includes doctors, clergy, lawyers and nonprofit organizations, working under the banner #kidsoffnauru, is now calling for all asylum seekers to be evacuated.

Public opinion in Australia is turning: In one recent poll, about 80 percent of respondents supported the removal of families and children from Nauru.

Australia's conservative government, with an election looming, is starting to shift.

"We've been going about this quietly," Mr. Morrison said last week. "We haven't been showboating."

But there are still questions about what happens next.

Last month, Sajeenthana stopped eating. After she had spent 10 days on a saline drip in a Nauruan hospital, her father was told he had two hours to pack for Australia.

Speaking by video from Brisbane last week (we are not using her full name because of her age and the severity of her condition), Sajeenthana beamed.

"I feel better now that I am in Australia," she said. "I'm not going back to Nauru."

But her father is less certain. The United States rejected his application for resettlement in September. There are security guards posted outside their Brisbane hotel room, he said, and though food arrives daily, they are not allowed to leave. He wonders if they have swapped one kind of limbo for another, or if they will be forced back to Nauru.

Australia's Home Affairs minister has said the Nauru children will not be allowed to stay.

"Anyone who is brought here is still classified as a transitory person," said Jana Favero, director of advocacy and campaigns at the Asylum Seeker Resource Center. "Life certainly isn't completely rosy and cheery once they arrive in Australia."

On Monday, 25 more people, including eight children, left the island in six family units, she said.

Those left behind on Nauru pass the days, worrying and waiting.

Christina often dreams of what life would be like somewhere else, where being 10 does not mean being trapped.

A single Iranian woman who asked not to be identified because she feared for her safety said that short of attempting suicide or changing nationality, there was no way off Nauru.

She has been waiting two years for an answer to her application for resettlement in the United States - one that now seems hopeless given the Trump administration's policies.

Each night, often after the power goes out on Nauru, she and her sister talk about life and death, and whether to harm themselves to seek freedom.
If you or someone you know needs help, support can be found in your area by clicking here: the International Association for Suicide Prevention Want more Australia coverage and discussion? Sign up for the weekly Australia Letter, start your day with your local Morning Briefing and join us in our Facebook group. . In Australia, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.
Mridula Amin reported from Nauru, and Isabella Kwai from Sydney. Lachie Hinton contributed reporting from Nauru, and Damien Cave from Sydney.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Nauru Experience: Zero-Tolerance Immigration and Suicidal Children

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A recent visit to Nauru revealed the effects of Australia's offshore detention policy and its impact on mental health. TOPSIDE, Nauru - She was 3 years old when she arrived on Nauru, a child fleeing war in Sri Lanka. Now, Sajeenthana is 8. Her gaze is vacant. Sometimes she punches adults.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Updated December 01, 2018 20:23:10

More and more countries are choosing to ink agreements with China on its trillion dollar Belt and Road initiative, a global infrastructure push aiming to recreate the glory days of China's ancient Silk Road trade routes.

Chinese state media says more than 100 countries and international organisations have signed Belt and Road cooperation agreements since 2013.

The Victorian Government, the Philippines, Vanuatu and Tonga are some of the most recent recruits.

But what are governments actually agreeing to when they choose to sign on Beijing's dotted line?

Copies of the agreements signed by New Zealand, the Victorian Government, Vanuatu, Cook Islands and the Philippines have been made available to the public, or have been published by journalists.

Let's take a look at what these documents mean in practice, and why China is so keen on countries signing them.

What do the agreements say?

While the agreements vary in their exact wording, they have many things in common - vague language on cooperation, win-win partnerships and "synergy".

If you look at Vanuatu's new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with China, it talks about the two nations' mutual interest in building "a community of a shared future for mankind".

The Victorian Government's agreement refers to something called "the Silk Road spirit", while New Zealand's speaks of "dialogue and fusion among civilisations".

"We're not exactly here talking about the Trans-Pacific Partnership or World Trade Organisation type agreements, with very specific provisions, rights and obligations," Peter Cai from the Lowy Institute said.

"It just gives the Chinese Government a sense of a diplomatic, symbolic victory - a foreign country has ascribed to an important foreign policy initiative of the Chinese President."

Mr Cai said some other Belt and Road-related agreements like the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor are actually quite comprehensive, sitting at the opposite end of the more vague and aspirational MOUs.

Many of the cooperation agreements seen by the ABC list various areas where both the signatory government and China agree to undertake certain actions, but they tend to be of a general nature.

A common thread is the signatory and China agreeing to "work within the Belt and Road initiative" to achieve common development, and "ensure the safe and smooth progress" of infrastructure projects.

"A lot of it is just really conveying a message that another country accepts certain objectives outlined by the Chinese Government," Mr Cai said.

Are they legally binding?

Nearly all of the agreements have a clause near the end either stating explicitly that the MOU has no legal weight, or that it "only expresses the common will" of signatories.

The notable exception here is Vanuatu's agreement, which has no such clause - and while it isn't publicly available, the ABC understands Tonga's document also omits this clause.

Euan Graham, the executive director of La Trobe Asia, said even agreements that included the non-legal clause could still bind signatories to China in more subtle ways.

"The downside of the vague way that these MOUs are framed is that it also binds the other party engaged with China into a friendly relationship," Mr Graham said.

"And there's language, particularly in the state of Victoria MOU, around respecting mutual interests, without defining exactly what those are."

Many of the other MOUs also state that parties "will respect" each other's "interests and major concerns", but how that phrase is interpreted could present difficulties for signatories.

"It then becomes a model of self-censorship - that's the sort of invidious trap in these MOUs," Mr Graham said.

"Once there is a relationship vaguely defined, then it can become kind of a moral trap for the other party to avoid things that are seen as sensitive or which could offend China."

Mr Graham said this could include issues like China's policies in Tibet, Xinjiang and its relations with Taiwan, even though those issues are largely unrelated to the "win-win" investment plans promised by the Belt and Road.

"That's exactly the kind of muddying of the waters that China wants to achieve in this, so that it has a broader geopolitical function to bind those countries."

The Belt and Road MOUs tend to include a section on the "settlement of differences", which states parties should resolve issues through "friendly consultations".

Countries have to give three months' written notice, through diplomatic channels, if they wish to terminate their agreement - but the MOUs can only be terminated after "joint agreement".

Termination will not influence "executing programs", which continue according to the agreed timetable until they are completed.

Why does China want countries to sign on?

It has been suggested that the Belt and Road initiative fundamentally aims to reshape global trade, with the goal of putting China at the centre.

But when it comes to the hype around new countries signing cooperation agreements on the plan - without necessarily agreeing to any associated infrastructure projects - domestic politics in China may be a factor.

"It's nearly all about domestic considerations, it's not really so much about wanting to be the dominant player in Vanuatu, I really don't think that's uppermost in China's mind," Graeme Smith from the Australian National University said.

"Yet another country signing on is another positive headline for Xi Jinping back home."

Peter Cai from the Lowy Institute said the Belt and Road was by far Mr Xi's most important foreign policy goal, and the number of agreements works as a sort of key performance indicator.

"Someone can wave a piece of paper saying 'Yes, we have just signed another country to our initiative' - I mean that's kind of what a Chinese diplomat would be saying," he said.

"It is at least a symbolic concession that a country is actually supporting this initiative, whether anything concrete comes out of it is perhaps another story."

Topics: international-aid-and-trade, trade, world-politics, foreign-affairs, territorial-disputes, china, australia, pacific, philippines, asia

First posted December 01, 2018 06:08:38

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What it means when countries sign onto China's Belt and Road

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Updated December 01, 2018 20:23:10 More and more countries are choosing to ink agreements with China on its trillion dollar Belt and Road initiative, a global infrastructure push aiming to recreate the glory days of China's ancient Silk Road trade routes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
China will retaliate "in proportion" if the United States sanctions its top official in its far-west Xinjiang region over alleged human rights abuses, China's ambassador to the US said, adding Beijing's policies there are to "re-educate terrorists".

Chinese Ambassador Cui Tiankai compared actions in Xinjiang with US troops battling the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS), and told Reuters news agency that China's efforts to combat international terrorism were held to a double standard.

"Can you imagine [if] some American officials in charge of the fight against ISIS would be sanctioned?" Cui said, adding "if such actions are taken we have to retaliate".

Cui did not elaborate on specific actions China might take.

Beijing has faced an outcry from activists, academics, foreign governments and the United Nations over mass detentions and strict surveillance of the Uighur minority and other Muslim groups in Xinjiang.

In August, a UN human rights panel said it had received many credible reports that one million or more Uighurs were being held in what resembles a "massive internment camp that is shrouded in secrecy".

US officials have said the Trump administration is considering sanctions targeting companies and officials linked to China's crackdown on minority Muslims, including Xinjiang Party Secretary Chen Quanguo, who is a member of the powerful politburo and in the upper echelons of China's leadership.

'Normal persons'

Cui said while the United States was using missiles and drones to kill terrorists, "we are trying to re-educate most of them, trying to turn them into normal persons [who] can go back to normal life".

"We'll see what will happen. We will do everything in proportion," he said, responding to a question on how China would retaliate to possible US sanctions on Chen.

Cui's comments are the strongest response yet to US threats on the issue.

Any decision by the US to impose sanctions on such a senior official as Chen would be a rare move on human rights grounds by the United States, which is engaged in a trade war with China but also wants Beijing's help to resolve a standoff over North Korea's nuclear weapons.

US sanctions could be imposed under the Global Magnitsky Act, a federal law that allows the US government to target human rights violators around the world with freezes on any US assets, US travel bans, and prohibitions on Americans doing business with them.

Chinese authorities deny any ethnic or religious repression in Xinjiang. They say strict security measures - likened by critics to near martial law conditions, with police checkpoints, detention centres, and mass DNA collection - are needed to combat the influence of "extremist" groups.

After initial blanket denials of the detention facilities, officials have said some citizens guilty of "minor offences" were sent to vocational centres to improve employment opportunities.

At a briefing in Washington on Monday, a Uighur woman, Mihrigul Tursun, 29, told reporters she experienced physical and psychological torture, including electrocution while strapped to a chair, during 10 months in detention in Xinjiang.

Rejecting Chinese government claims that the detention facilities serve vocational purposes, she said many of the dozens of other women in her cell were "well-educated professionals, such as teachers and doctors".

China's embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Tursun's statement.

Independent assessments of the conditions in Xinjiang are nearly impossible given restrictions on journalists from openly reporting from the region.

UN human rights chief Michelle Bachelet has called on China to allow monitors in Xinjiang, but Beijing has responded by telling her to respect China's sovereignty.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
China vows retaliation if US imposes sanctions over Xinjiang

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
China will retaliate "in proportion" if the United States sanctions its top official in its far-west Xinjiang region over alleged human rights abuses, China's ambassador to the US said, adding Beijing's policies there are to "re-educate terrorists".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Urumqi, China - There are few more difficult places for a foreign journalist to report from in China than Xinjiang.

Especially now.

Security has been bolstered amid a new campaign, which the government says is aimed at eradicating "Islamic extremism" in a province where more than half the population is Muslim.

Two weeks ago state TV aired pictures of what were described as vocational schools showing Muslim men and women being taught language and job skills. Most were Uighur, a Turkic-language people who are ethnically distinct from the Han Chinese.

China's leaders argue harsh measures are needed to prevent violence associated with Uighur separatism; violence that, they say, has claimed the lives of hundreds of Chinese people in the past decade.

Human rights groups say the schools are, in fact, a vast network of re-education camps where detainees are held indefinitely without charge and forced to denounce their faith and recite Communist Party propaganda.

The Economist magazine recently described Xinjiang as "the perfect police state".

During a brief visit there two weeks ago I saw nothing to dispel that view.

'Kill, kill, kill'

The surveillance is all pervasive. Streets bristle with CCTV cameras. In some cities, there are now police posts every 30 metres.

Since I was last there three years ago, there's a new addition to the vast security network of police and elite special forces; a motley collection of shopkeepers armed with wooden sticks who have been trained in security measures. Twice a day outside their premises they rehearse their defensive drills, sometimes shouting, "Kill, kill, kill."

In 2015, it was still possible to talk to local people, albeit discreetly. Not now.

For a Uighur to talk to a foreign journalist is to risk arrest. By coincidence, one of the Public Security Bureau officers assigned to tail us - Michael - had been my minder during my previous visit. And this time he wasn't going to let the Al Jazeera team out of his sight.

He was there to welcome us back as we were attempting to check into a hotel, where I had stayed on previous visits.

The sheepish staff at reception told me my booking had been cancelled on the orders of the local government. A resigned shrug of the shoulders. There was nothing they could do.

Instead, we were offered rooms in a government-owned hotel, where uniformed and plain-clothed police lounge in the sprawling lobby.

Sinister, surreal, absurd

Xinjiang today is both sinister and surreal, but occasionally the absurd makes an appearance. The ringtone on Michael's phone plays George Michael's I'm Never Gonna Dance Again. George Michael became the soundtrack of our brief stay in Kashgar, because his phone never stopped ringing.

Filming and reporting in Xinjiang have always been tightly controlled. But it's in overdrive now.

I was forced to delete countless pictures surreptitiously recorded on my iPhone. One showed a security checkpoint, another a padlocked Uighur shop.

In a near-deserted market, a giddy trio from local TV turned up. The reporter - like Michael - was also a Uighur. She wanted to interview me about my impressions of Kashgar. I declined.

If I had told the truth our visit might have come to an even swifter end than it did. Undeterred, the TV crew tagged along, meaning our group had now grown to 10, decreasing still further any hopes of talking to someone - anyone.

One question hangs in the crisp autumn air: where are all the young men? China's government is, at last, providing some of the answers. After denying the existence of internment camps, state-controlled media now proudly defend the policy; a policy that by many accounts is now being expanded.

Kashgar, closer to Baghdad than it is to Beijing, is the largest Uighur city and is said to have four camps holding 120,000 people. The largest is reportedly in Number 5 Middle School, but I would not get to glimpse even the outside of that school. According to Michael, such camps don't exist in Kashgar.

'Love the Party'

Instead of a re-education camp, we were shown the outside of the Id Gah mosque, the biggest in China. There's been a mosque on this site for more than 600 years. Part of its facade is now peeling.

For the mostly Chinese visitors, the mosque is just another tourist attraction. In the recessed entrance, armed security guards sit beneath a red banner exhorting worshippers too, "Love the Party, love the country."

On a wall opposite the mosque, looped images of President Xi Jinping, taken during his trip to Xinjiang in 2014, are projected onto a giant screen. One shows him surrounded by a group of smiling Uighur children.

It was shortly after this trip that more than 40 people were killed during a bombing and knife attack in the provincial capital, Urumqi. The government blamed Uighur separatists, and the crackdown began.

The ancient part of Kashgar remains closed. It was apparently being rebuilt, just as it was the last time I was here in October 2015. Instead, we were taken to a faux version of the Old City, complete with cultural performances reflecting distant - as opposed to recent - Uighur history.

It was just after my colleague had taken the classic metaphorical image of a caged bird that the mood of our hosts started to change.

'Whose side are you on?'

They suspected - rightly - that we weren't buying into the sanitised narrative. In a small local cafe, where we had stopped for a break, a particularly hostile female official from the local propaganda department demanded to look at everything we had so far filmed.

She turned her ire on my Chinese colleague. "Whose side are you on?" she yelled.

At first, we refused her demand. By now there were 15 uniformed and plain-clothed policemen crammed into the tiny cafe. Playing to the gallery, Ms Yang announced loudly: "We need to keep them in Kashgar for further investigation."

The implication was clear. We would not be allowed to leave unless our material was vetted. At times like this, my immediate concern is for my Chinese colleagues. I have a foreign passport. They don't and have no protection.

We were held for two hours, during which time they inspected every frame we had shot. They managed to ensure our deleted files could not be recovered. It had been a good day for Kashgar's propaganda department.

The surveillance started even before I had left Beijing.

As an accredited journalist, my name had been flagged the moment I checked in for the flight to Urumqi. Four-and-a-half hours later plain-clothed police were waiting for me in the arrivals hall. Given I appeared to be the only non-Asian face I wouldn't have been hard to spot.

An hour later the same men appeared in the lobby of my hotel. One even took the room next to mine, presumably to see if I attempted to interview anyone there.

At first, they stopped us filming innocuous street scenes. They later relented, but only permitted filming in their presence. "Do not talk to anyone," we were repeatedly warned.

Security officers favour casual street style with ironic flourishes. My favourite: "Leave Me Alone."

There was no chance of the Al Jazeera team being left alone in Xinjiang. In the Kashgar hotel, there were at least 20 officers in the lobby, there for just one reason: us.

Surveillance state

Official figures show China's surveillance budget now outstrips the amount spent on defence. I wondered what the cost to Chinese taxpayers had been of the operation to monitor three journalists.

Ordinary Uighurs spend much of their life lining up. Outside Urumqi's international bazaar, Uighurs and Han Chinese lined up at separate security checkpoints. Uighurs are searched more thoroughly. Naturally, we weren't allowed to film any of that.

Unlike my previous visit, we also weren't allowed to film inside a Uighur home. If so, I might have seen if it was true that all knives now have to be chained to walls.

Xinjiang is at the heart of one of President Xi Jinping's signature economic policies; the One Belt, One Road initiative. The plan envisages revitalising the fabled Silk Road trading routes to link China to Europe and the Middle East through vast infrastructure projects.

But for that ambitious plan to work, Xinjiang has to work.

China's leaders say Uighurs are benefiting from poverty eradication programmes. On October 24, the People's Daily reported more than $6bn had been spent on improving the lives of almost two million Uighurs.

But that is still a drop in the ocean compared with what the government is spending on security and surveillance in Xinjiang.

And something else is clearly apparent.

Xinjiang has become another area that is now all but off limits to foreign journalists.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
In China's Xinjiang, surveillance is all pervasive

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Urumqi, China - There are few more difficult places for a foreign journalist to report from in China than Xinjiang. Especially now. Security has been bolstered amid a new campaign, which the government says is aimed at eradicating "Islamic extremism" in a province where more than half the population is Muslim.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
China's open for business and here to help other countries grow - those were just some of the key messages of Chinese President Xi Jinping's opening speech at China's International Import Expo on Monday.

Speaking to a crowd of country leaders and government officials he touted China's commitment to multilateral trade and globalisation.

"The CIIE is aimed at pushing for a new round of high-level opening-up, it is a major measure for China to take the initiative to open its market to the world," President Xi said.

One hundred and 30 countries and regions are participating in the five-day event in Shanghai, with companies hoping to woo China's growing middle class; a 400-million strong market, keen to spend on foreign technology, food and services.

An estimated 300,000 Chinese buyers are also expected to attend the event.

The Australian contingent, which includes Blackmores, Qantas, Coles and Tourism Australia, is led by Trade Minister Simon Birmingham.

A visit from Australia's trade minister signals an end to Beijing's one-year freeze on Australian state visits.

"I look to this as a positive opportunity to highlight China's success, the strength of the Australia-China relationship and the areas in which we can continue to work constructively with China in the future," he said.

"We won't always agree. No two mature countries always agree on every policy position, there are strategic challenges."

Debate over Chinese interference in Australian politics and education has strained diplomatic ties this past year, but Blackmores Asia managing director Peter Osborne said the trade relationship remains strong.

"I think Australia's got an enviable reputation for our quality, for the natural ingredients that we have, and that's how people see us," he said.

But that reputation has suffered in China, says Diane Hu, who heads the department of Australian studies at Beijing Foreign Studies University.

"I lot of people have said that we're seeing a thaw in the tensions between the two countries, but I think we're still very much in a cooling off or 'wait and see' period," she said.

She warns that future trade with China may not come as easy as Australian businesses hope, saying she's witnessed a worsening of public sentiment in both countries.

"A favourable perception is vital. You need to love a country, or at least like a country and trust a country to travel there and also feel confident and reassured enough to send your children there," she said.

"Chinese businesses are also perceiving or starting to perceive Australia as a less favourable destination for investment and also trade."

She said figures showing an increase in trade volume aren't necessarily an accurate measure of relations.

"Areas like tourism and education are fast growing, so trade in these areas is bound to grow. The real question Australia needs to ask is whether our trade growth rate is slowing down. That will take time to discover and that's what we're researching now," she said.

Australian Foreign Affairs Marise Payne will travel to Beijing at the end of this week to meet with Chinese counterpart Wang Yi. It will be her first visit to China in her official capacity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
China 'open for business' as world leaders head to International Import Expo

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
China's open for business and here to help other countries grow - those were just some of the key messages of Chinese President Xi Jinping's opening speech at China's International Import Expo on Monday. Speaking to a crowd of country leaders and government officials he touted China's commitment to multilateral trade and globalisation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
More than one million Uighur Muslims are estimated to be in detention in "counter-extremism centres" in China's far west, the vice chairperson of a United Nations anti-discrimination committee has said, citing credible reports.

Gay McDougall made the comments on Friday as the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination started reviewing China's record over recent years in the Swiss city of Geneva.

Members were "deeply concerned" about reported detentions of ethnic Uighurs and other Muslim minorities, which have "turned the [Xinjiang] Uighur Autonomous Region into something that resembles a massive internment camp that is shrouded in secrecy - a sort of 'no rights zone'," McDougall said at the start of the two-day hearing.

"Another two million have been forced into so-called re-education camps for political and cultural indoctrination," she added.

A Chinese delegation of some 50 officials made no comment.

China says Xinjiang faces a serious threat from rebels and separatists who plot attacks and stir up tensions between the mostly Muslim Uighur minority who call the region home and the ethnic Han Chinese majority.

Earlier on Friday, Yu Jianhua, China's ambassador to the UN in Geneva, said it was working towards equality and solidarity among all ethnic groups.

The Chinese delegation leader also highlighted economic progress and rising living standards among other things.

The session continues on Monday, with conclusions expected later.

Different figures

In her remarks, McDougall said that most of these people have never been properly charged with a crime or tried in court.

While McDougall did not cite her sources, the numbers of people forced into detention and into re-education matched a report that the Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders submitted to the committee.

Other groups have given far lower figures, however.

A submission by the Human Rights Watch advocacy group said there were "at least tens of thousands" in political education centres.

Amnesty International wrote that "at a minimum, tens of thousands, with some sources estimating hundreds of thousands" of Uighurs have been detained.

But UN's McDougall said that members of the Uighur community and others Muslims were being treated as "enemies of the state" solely on the basis of their ethno-religious identity.

More than 100 Uighur students who returned to China from countries including Egypt and Turkey had been detained, with some dying in custody, she said.

McDougall also cited reports suggesting that Chinese authorities are persecuting people for using Muslim greetings, possessing halal food, or for having long beards or headscarves.

In addition, she pointed to reports of mass surveillance and the broad collection of DNA samples and iris scans in the Xinjiang.

Fatima-Binta Dah, a panel member, referred to "arbitrary and mass detention of almost one million Uighurs" and asked the Chinese delegation: "What is the level of religious freedom available now to Uighurs in China; what legal protection exists for them to practice their religion?"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
One million Muslim Uighurs held in secret China camps: UN panel

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
More than one million Uighur Muslims are estimated to be in detention in "counter-extremism centres" in China's far west, the vice chairperson of a United Nations anti-discrimination committee has said, citing credible reports. Gay McDougall made the comments on Friday as the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination started reviewing China's record over recent years in the Swiss city of Geneva.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Chinese President Xi Jinping said during a 2015 visit to Washington that his country had "no intention to militarise" the artificial islands it had built in the strategically important South China Sea.

Air Chief Marshal Binskin dismissed Beijing's claims that its placement of weapons on built-up features in the Paracel and Spratly archipelagoes were purely defensive and said other countries around those waters were entitled to stand up for their legal and territorial rights.

"I don't think there is trust there ... because [according to] all the reports that you see, they are militarising," he said. "They'll put a spin on that and say it's only for defensive reasons. But ... if you didn't build an island, you wouldn't need to defend it. If there are weapons on those islands, they are militarised."

Asked what the militarisation was for, he said: "I think that they are looking to expand into there and I think it is quite obvious what their approach is."

While not naming China, Air Chief Marshal Binskin said, "if you want to be a leader in a region, then you've got to be able to be trusted in your actions".

He said Australia was helping through regular visits to the region to bolster other countries' confidence and capacity to push back against territorial assertiveness.

"So if there is someone that starts to step into the area and quite firmly operate outside the rules-based order, [other countries have] got the confidence to be able to say, 'No this is our territory and we're looking to protect it'," he said.

On the South Pacific, Air Chief Marshal Binskin said Australia welcomed investment from other nations provided it was transparent.

China has become increasingly involved in Australia's near neighbourhood. Air Chief Marshal Binskin stressed he was not singling out any country but said countries had no reason to establish a military presence in the region.

"If you're looking to guarantee food security, warships are not the way to do that. You are better off working as part of the community, help the communities grow their ability to be able to provide food, make sure that fishing is sustainable in the waters," he said.

"Don't destabilise the region ... You will have a better chance of guaranteeing food security and all that rather than some of the other ways that might be more destabilising."

Air Chief Marshal Binskin hands over command of the ADF on Friday to General Angus Campbell after a tumultuous period in which 27,000 ADF personnel have deployed on more than 30 operations.

The period has included the rise of the so-called Islamic State, Russia's annexation of Crimea and the downing of MH17, the sharpened tensions with North Korea.

Major equipping decisions have also being made: a new fleet of submarines, new frigates, massive Triton surveillance drones and high-tech armoured vehicles.

Air Chief Marshal said under his leadership the ADF had worked on the "glue capabilities" that enabled the whole force to deploy quickly and operate effectively as a whole.

The unpredictability of world events seen in the past four years showed why "you don't structure the force for the last operation, you structure it so that you've got the ability to cover a series of contingencies that may face the nation".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Outgoing Defence Chief: China has breached its neighbours' trust

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Chinese President Xi Jinping said during a 2015 visit to Washington that his country had "no intention to militarise" the artificial islands it had built in the strategically important South China Sea.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
June 25
At a college in southern China, Duan Fengyan is studying to be an accountant. She is also getting lessons in how to be a woman in the time of President Xi Jinping.

In a course launched in March, not long after China abolished presidential term limits, Zhenjiang College and the All-China Women's Federation have been teaching female students how to dress, pour tea and sit just so - all in the name of Xi's " new era."

"You must sit on the front two-thirds of the chair - you cannot occupy the whole chair," said Duan, 21, demonstrating. "Now, hold in your belly, relax your shoulders, legs together, shoulders up."

The class, offered only to female students, aims to develop "wise," "sunny" and "perfect" women, where wisdom comes from studying Chinese history and culture, sunniness from oil painting and etiquette classes, and perfection from the application of (never too much) makeup.

The Communist Party wants women educated, yes, but with economic growth slowing and the population shrinking, it is bringing back the idea that men are breadwinners and women are, first and foremost, wives and mothers - so it is teaching young women that this is the norm.

The college launched the New Era Women's School to heed Xi's call for education in traditional Chinese culture, to help women compete in the job market, said Sheng Jie, who runs the program - but also to prepare them for domestic roles. "Women's family role is more important now," she said.

Forty years into China's great economic transformation, Chinese women are, on average, healthier, wealthier and better educated than ever before, but they are losing ground relative to men.

Since the start of Xi's tenure, China's ranking in the World Economic Forum's global gender gap index has dropped significantly - from 69 out of 144 countries in 2013 to a 100th-place finish in 2017.

The country's top cadres do not seem concerned. The party wants women educated, yes, but it is worried that educated women will decide not to marry men and have kids, compounding the surplus of males caused by the one-child policy and potentially destabilizing the country.

"The direction of the future is that women are supposed to play the role of wife and mother in the home," said Leta Hong Fincher, author of " Betraying Big Brother: The Feminist Awakening in China."

Though this thinking has been around for at least a decade - most notably in sexist messaging about marriage - the Zhenjiang program appears to be the first college course in feminine virtue under Xi.

The Washington Post was the first foreign media outlet granted access to the campus and was allowed to interview students - while their teachers listened in.

"According to traditional culture, women should be modest and tender, and men's role is working outside and providing for the family," said Duan, 21, before a class on tea ceremonies.

"I want to be a model for my children."

In his first five years in power, Xi cast himself as a champion of women's rights, declaring, in a speech at a United Nations summit on women, that women's equality is a "great cause."

But his words were undercut by actual policy. China has detained five young feminists and thwarted some LGBT activism. Xi has not made significant progress on getting more women into the highest levels of leadership, nor has he focused on fixing the gender pay gap.

His tenure has been less about pushing for equality than promoting a vision of "harmonious" male-female households with a working father and a virtuous mother who cares for children and the elderly.

The party insists that this reflects the Confucian values at the core of Chinese culture. Critics counter that culture changes and that China should look forward, not back.

"Our traditional culture is filled with restrictions on - and the oppression of - women," said Lu Pin, a prominent Chinese feminist who ran a website that was recently censored. "Can we push women back into the traditional roles?"

People are trying. Last year, news broke that a company in northern China was operating a "traditional culture school" where women were told to "shut your mouths and do more housework" and practiced bowing to their husbands.

"Don't fight back when beaten. Don't talk back when scolded. And, no matter what, don't get divorced," a female teacher there said, according to footage published by Beijing's Pear Video.

"Women should just stay at the bottom level of the society and not aspire for more," another instructor said.

When the story went viral, local officials said its message violated "socialist core values" and called for an investigation.

But Feng Yuan, a Beijing-based campaigner against domestic violence, said the focus on wifely virtue persists - and is promoted.

"At the moment, we only see emphasis on women's family role," she said. "There's never any emphasis on men's role."

In the halls and classrooms of Zhenjiang College, self-improvement is indeed women's work.

The course was the brainchild of the local branch of the All-China Women's Federation and is overseen by women. The students are women. There is no equivalent course for men.

Both teachers and students said that young women should constantly seek to improve their "quality" to stay competitive. Success requires constant "self-cultivation"- not a bad thing when it applies to all genders.

Li Ziyi, a 19-year-old studying early-childhood education, said she'd been taught years ago that, for women, good grades are not enough. "When I was in secondary school, my teacher told us that the college entrance exam is the last fair exam in your life, because it doesn't look at your face," she said.

Yes, handsome men have an advantage, she added, but "society still has a higher requirement for girls."

Her classmate, Wang Caidie, 18, a nursing student, said female nurses are advised to wear "light makeup" to look professional, while male classmates are given no instructions at all.

The double standard was not lost on them, but neither were the lessons in how to sit, stand and serve tea - which they considered fun and useful.

"Even before the job interview starts, we will deliberately pay more attention to how we sit, how we stand up. That is our advantage compared to those who haven't attended these classes," Duan said.

Sheng, the program director, declined to talk much about women's rights - she is a teacher, not a feminist, she said.

Her goal is to teach young women what they need to know and, in so doing, help the nation. "The country is emphasizing traditional culture, so we are providing courses," she said.

"This is a new era. History is moving in a better direction."

Luna Lin in Beijing contributed to this report.
Read more: Xi cleared to rule indefinitely as China officially scraps term limits Despite real progress, Chinese women may be losing ground Comrade, meet Cupid: China's Communist Party plays matchmaker to millennials Today's coverage from Post correspondents around the world Like Washington Post World on Facebook and stay updated on foreign news

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Hold in your belly . . . legs together': Chinese college teaches female students to be 'perfect'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
June 25 At a college in southern China, Duan Fengyan is studying to be an accountant. She is also getting lessons in how to be a woman in the time of President Xi Jinping.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Updated April 29, 2018 11:08:02

As the trade tensions between the US and China roll on, one particular Chinese policy is appearing in news reports more frequently.

Made in China 2025 is a 10-year industrial development plan, but businesses and governments around the world are concerned it will have a dramatic effect on global trade.

Chinese state media has even accused the United States of trying to provoke a trade war in order to undermine the policy.

Ambitious, long-term policy documents don't always attract this much attention, so let's have a look at why this one is different.

What's the plan?

Announced in October 2015, the Made in China 2025 plan is a roadmap for the future of the country's manufacturing sector.

It intends to turn China into a manufacturing super power, and Beijing is keen to pour somewhere in the order of $US300 billion into that lofty goal.

The plan looks to target emerging industries like robotics, the manufacturing of autonomous and electric cars, artificial intelligence, biotech and aviation.

Those industries will be subsidised, handed low-interest loans, rent-free land and tax breaks in order to beat global competitors in the field.

Neale O'Connor, an expert on Chinese technology and manufacturing innovation at Monash University's Malaysia Campus, said China hoped to turn itself into a high-end manufacturer with global trade links.

"There are bold plans not just to dominate the domestic market in China, but actually to be dominant in the world," he said.

"The focus is to help China move from being dependent on international companies and providing low-cost labour to actually becoming an independent and technology-driven economy."

Why is everyone angry about it?

Well, it has been suggested that some aspects of the policy may veer dangerously close to violating World Trade Organisation rules.

For instance, the policy features self-sufficiency quotas in certain hi-tech components, which would make it unnecessary for China to trade with other nations to gain access to that technology.

According to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), this would be a nightmare for countries like South Korea and Germany, since hi-tech exports are so central to their economies.

There's also the question of how China plans to gain the know-how required to make those hi-tech components.

China has been repeatedly accused of stealing the trade secrets it desires, using cyberespionage to strike "US commercial networks in line with Chinese industrial policy goals," according to the Office of the United States Trade Representative.

It has also been accused of using its strict market access rules in order to obtain intellectual property from foreign competitors.

China requires foreign firms to start joint ventures with local companies in order to gain access to its lucrative market. Those companies are also often required to share their intellectual property with the local Chinese company they partner with.

In the end, Chinese firms end up gaining the advanced technology of foreign companies without needing to compete with them in the Chinese market, thanks to heavy government subsidies.

Why is Beijing pushing for this?

China has been the world's factory for years, but it has mainly produced low-end products. "Made in China" is associated with cheap wares and low quality.

The policy aims to fundamentally change that negative perception.

At the same time, China is facing a number of bottlenecks in its economic growth, such as increased labour costs, high staff turnover and low manufacturing efficiency compared to global standards.

China fears countries with lower labour costs like Vietnam could pull the rug out from under it.

ANZ's senior economist for Greater China Betty Wang said turning to smart manufacturing had become increasingly necessary.

"In terms of the export structure of China and the United States, currently Made in China products only have 65 per cent added value, while Made in US products have 85 per cent," Ms Wang said.

"If China wants to maintain its competitiveness in the global supply chain, it must improve its capabilities in this area."

Topics: manufacturing, robots-and-artificial-intelligence, science-and-technology, trade, business-economics-and-finance, world-politics, china, asia

First posted April 29, 2018 05:26:20

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is Made in China 2025 and why is the world concerned about it?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Updated April 29, 2018 11:08:02 As the trade tensions between the US and China roll on, one particular Chinese policy is appearing in news reports more frequently. Made in China 2025 is a 10-year industrial development plan, but businesses and governments around the world are concerned it will have a dramatic effect on global trade.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As China's economy has risen rapidly in the last two decades, its role as a global leader and second biggest ranking economy in the world has been pushing towards a more determined and active foreign policy. Thanks to economic reforms and a change of perspective in dealing with other countries, China has achieved an extraordinary development and it has become one of the main actors at the international level.

Promoting its regional interests and improving its image as a political entity and economic partner have been the reason behindseveral government initiatives aimed at diversifying China's economic, political and cultural strategies. China is currently building strong partnerships across the globe, in Asia, Africa and Europe where the number of Chinese investments has increased significantly in recent years. Also, politically, China has succeeded in improving relations with many countries, strengthening bilateral cooperation in several fields and industries.

China's economic and political advance on the international scene illustrates primarily a conventional type of power, on the basis of which states act internally and externally. There is also another type of power, the soft power, which refers to the attractiveness of a state, its image, its ability to promote its interests throughculture and ideology. Although military and economic capabilities are behind it, soft power plays a very important role for a state's foreign policy, because it facilitates cooperative relations, increases interest in a particular state, and promotes culture and ideas to encourage openness and dialogue between states. As a complement to its growing economy and army, China needs to create foreign policies that will encourage cooperation and trust for further dialogue.

President Xi Jinping emphasized the idea of promoting a new model of China, a responsible one, engaged in peaceful development, determined to protect international justice and dedicated to humanitarian contributions in the world. He has recognized and promoted the importance of building soft power as a necessary tool for a modern globalized world.

Promoting soft power, however, requires a strategy adapted to China's goals and capabilities, and such a strategy is the Belt and Road Initiative proposed by Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2013. This strategy seeks to establish new connections, strengthen bilateral relations, improve dialogue and achieve common goals.

The overall idea is to create an open and inclusive economic space that facilitates economic exchanges and allows the multilateral development of the Eurasian area. At the same time, this initiative could be seen as an attempt to redirect the surplus capital and China's industrial overcapacity, thus helping to reshape Chinese economy. Aiming at65 states with roughly 70% of the global population, BRI is not only an ambitious regional project, but also an attempt to create a new international system based of new instruments such as AIIB, New Silk Road Fund,BRICS New Development Bank, Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and nonetheless China's currency, Renminbi, which has recently become an international currency .

More than an initiative, BRI is a foreign policy strategy that will fulfill a number of regional and global functions and objectives. Firstly, considering its founding ideas and objectives, BRI represents China's contribution as a UN member state to regional development, peacekeeping, and the creation of an inclusive and open economic integration framework. In the opposite direction, BRI will have a positive impact on the Chinese economy by implementing economic reforms and opening up to other states and communities. Secondly, engaging China in this strategy will help improve its image as a responsible and generous state in the opinion of neighboring states which will enhance China's soft power and attractiveness as a political and economic partner.

The success of BRI will thus help to revive China's image and role globally and regionally but will in particular have a positive impact on its structural power. The first perspective of structural power refers to the dependency relation between large economies and small economies which become vulnerable over time and tend to change their behavior according to the preferences of the stronger economy. The second perspective refers to the characteristics of the system and how the rules and institutions in the international system contribute to increasing the structural power of the state with the greatest influence on these rules and institutions. This is the case for the United States and the Bretton Woods institutions, which have influenced the economic behavior of the other states by imposing a set of rules and guidelines at international level in exchange for prosperity and economic integration. Through AIIB and BRI, China can create a similar system and expand its influence on the regional level.

Coming back to soft power, BRI has the potential to enhance China's ability to attract the interest and trust of other states. By increasing visibility and regional involvement, China will show its generosity and demonstrate that it is a viable alternative toother states and institutions. BRI is thus an invitation to build a new economic community based on cooperation between a number of states with different political systems and culture, but with common interests and needs. Therefore, the Belt and Road Initiative is China's response to the expectations and needs of Asian infrastructure and, at the same time, an engagementto create a new regional development system.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Belt and Road Initiative: China's soft power strategy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As China's economy has risen rapidly in the last two decades, its role as a global leader and second biggest ranking economy in the world has been pushing towards a more determined and active foreign policy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
China's trillion dollar plan to dominate global trade

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Australian intelligence and security figures, along with their partners in the United States and New Zealand, have been watching with concern as Beijing deepens its influence with Pacific island governments through infrastructure building and loans.

Beijing has been showering Vanuatu, which has a population of about 270,000, with hundreds of millions of dollars in development money and last week committed to building a new official residence for Prime Minister Charlot Salwai as well as other government buildings.

Multiple sources said Beijing's military ambition in Vanuatu would likely be realised incrementally, possibly beginning with an access agreement that would allow Chinese naval ships to dock routinely and be serviced, refuelled and restocked. This arrangement could then be built on.

One of the most substantial projects funded by Chinese money is a major new wharf on the north island of Espiritu Santo. Jonathan Pryke, a Pacific islands expert with the Lowy Institute, said the Luganville wharf had "raised eyebrows in defence, intelligence and diplomatic circles" in Canberra because while its stated purpose is to host cruise ships, it had the potential to service naval vessels as well.

The wharf is close to an international airport that China is helping Vanuatu upgrade.

Fairfax Media understands there are senior figures within China's People's Liberation Army who would like to move quickly to establish a proper base on Vanuatu.

Vanuatu's high commissioner in Canberra, Kalfau Kaloris, said his country's Foreign Ministry was "not aware of any such proposal".

A spokeswoman for the Chinese embassy in Canberra declined to comment.

China has already projected its military strength into the sea by building military capacity on a number of reclaimed reefs in the South China Sea, prompting condemnation from the international community, including Australia. Vanuatu is one of the few countries that steadfastly support Beijing's controversial island-building program.

Comparisons have been made in Canberra and Washington to methods China has used in the Indian Ocean, where it has recently established its first military base in the African nation of Djibouti and is reportedly considering military facilities in Pakistan and Sri Lanka. The Djibouti base features a port, helicopter base, hangars and accommodation for up to 10,000 troops.

Tonga has also been mentioned in government circles as a possible site for a Chinese base, though recent discussion has centred around the intense efforts China has been putting into Vanuatu.

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop visited Vanuatu with Prince Charles on Saturday in a diplomatic tour that Fairfax Media has been told was aimed at demonstrating the merits of the Commonwealth's commitment to a free and open system of international rules.

Chinese President Xi Jinping and Djibouti's President Ismail Omar struck a deal to establish China's first overseas naval base in Africa. Credit:Reuters

Defence experts said a military base on Vanuatu, which would likely be followed by bases elsewhere, would allow the PLA to challenge the US's post-war dominance of the Pacific, which is strongly supported by Australia and has been seen as a cornerstone of Australia's security.

"If it turns out there are one or more Chinese bases ... what it has the ability to do is challenge, and make much more challenging, American access into the region," said Charles Edel, a former adviser to former US secretary of state John Kerry.

"Chinese presence in Vanuatu, while today about fishing access and commercial trade, tomorrow could represent a threat to Australia's northern approaches."

Dr Edel, who is now at the US Studies Centre, said this would change Australia's external security environment in a way not seen "probably since the 1940s".

Such a Chinese presence would make the seas "more crowded" for the Royal Australian Navy, though professional forces could manage this safely and it would not stop Australian or US forces operating where they needed to, he said.

He added that access to plentiful fisheries to feed China's fast-rising demand for protein were likely one reason for consolidating its influence in the South Pacific.

Zack Cooper, a former White House and Pentagon official now at the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies, said he had expected China to establish bases in the Pacific and predicted more to follow.

Dr Cooper said with the US focused on north Asia, Washington would expect Australia to stop the South Pacific from sliding too deeply into Beijing's hands.

"I think it is important that Australia appreciate that China is far away but Chinese activity is definitely affecting Australia in a much more proximate way."

China has set a pattern in the Indian Ocean whereby it builds infrastructure paid for by concessional Chinese loans which the local government cannot repay. When the government defaults, China enacts a "debt-equity swap" and takes over the asset.

China reportedly accounts for nearly half of Vanuatu's $440 million foreign debt.

Beijing last week announced it would pay for and build a new official house for the Vanuatu president, a new Finance Ministry building and an extension on the Foreign Ministry building at a reported total cost of about $36 million.

Chinese aid has previously paid for the parliamentary building and the prime minister's office building, a 1000-seat convention centre and a major sports stadium, according to reports. Chinese builders are putting the finishing touches on a $14 million school that will be reportedly the biggest education facility in the South Pacific.

Early last year, Beijing donated 14 military vehicles to Vanuatu.

There are other signs that Pacific governments are increasingly beholden to Beijing, such as Taiwanese trade offices closing in the region as local governments bow to pressure from the Chinese government, which insists Taiwan is part of mainland China and should not be recognised even tacitly as an independent government.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
China eyes Vanuatu military base in plan with global ramifications

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Australian intelligence and security figures, along with their partners in the United States and New Zealand, have been watching with concern as Beijing deepens its influence with Pacific island governments through infrastructure building and loans.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WHEN a rising power challenges an incumbent one, war often follows. That prospect, known as the Thucydides trap after the Greek historian who first described it, looms over relations between China and the West, particularly America. So, increasingly, does a more insidious confrontation. Even if China does not seek to conquer foreign lands, many people fear that it seeks to conquer foreign minds.

Australia was the first to raise a red flag about China's tactics. On December 5th allegations that China has been interfering in Australian politics, universities and publishing led the government to propose new laws to tackle "unprecedented and increasingly sophisticated" foreign efforts to influence lawmakers (see article). This week an Australian senator resigned over accusations that, as an opposition spokesman, he took money from China and argued its corner. Britain, Canada and New Zealand are also beginning to raise the alarm. On December 10th Germany accused China of trying to groom politicians and bureaucrats. And on December 13th Congress held hearings on China's growing influence.
Get our daily newsletter
This behaviour has a name-"sharp power", coined by the National Endowment for Democracy, a Washington-based foundation and think-tank. "Soft power" harnesses the allure of culture and values to add to a country's strength; sharp power helps authoritarian regimes coerce and manipulate opinion abroad.

The West needs to respond to China's behaviour, but it cannot simply throw up the barricades. Unlike the old Soviet Union, China is part of the world economy. Instead, in an era when statesmanship is in short supply, the West needs to find a statesmanlike middle ground. That starts with an understanding of sharp power and how it works.

Influencing the influencers

Like many countries, China has long tried to use visas, grants, investments and culture to pursue its interests. But its actions have recently grown more intimidating and encompassing. Its sharp power has a series of interlocking components: subversion, bullying and pressure, which combine to promote self-censorship. For China, the ultimate prize is pre-emptive kowtowing by those whom it has not approached, but who nonetheless fear losing funding, access or influence.

China has a history of spying on its diaspora, but the subversion has spread. In Australia and New Zealand Chinese money is alleged to have bought influence in politics, with party donations or payments to individual politicians. This week's complaint from German intelligence said that China was using the LinkedIn business network to ensnare politicians and government officials, by having people posing as recruiters and think-tankers and offering free trips.

Bullying has also taken on a new menace. Sometimes the message is blatant, as when China punished Norway economically for awarding a Nobel peace prize to a Chinese pro-democracy activist. More often, as when critics of China are not included in speaker line-ups at conferences, or academics avoid study of topics that China deems sensitive, individual cases seem small and the role of officials is hard to prove. But the effect can be grave. Western professors have been pressed to recant. Foreign researchers may lose access to Chinese archives. Policymakers may find that China experts in their own countries are too ill-informed to help them.

Because China is so integrated into economic, political and cultural life, the West is vulnerable to such pressure. Western governments may value trade over scoring diplomatic points, as when Greece vetoed a European Union statement criticising China's record on human rights, shortly after a Chinese firm had invested in the port of Piraeus. The economy is so big that businesses often dance to China's tune without being told to. An Australian publisher suddenly pulled a book, citing fears of "Beijing's agents of influence".

What to do?

Facing complaints from Australia and Germany, China has called its critics irresponsible and paranoid-and there is indeed a danger of anti-Chinese hysteria. However, if China were being more truthful, it would point out that its desire for influence is what happens when countries become powerful.

China has a lot more at stake outside its borders today than it did. Some 10m Chinese have moved abroad since 1978. It worries that they will pick up democratic habits from foreigners and infect China itself. Separately, Chinese companies are investing in rich countries, including in resources, strategic infrastructure and farmland. China's navy can project power far from home. Its government frets that its poor image abroad will do it harm. And as the rising superpower, China has an appetite to shape the rules of global engagement-rules created largely by America and western Europe and routinely invoked by them to justify their own actions.

To ensure China's rise is peaceful, the West needs to make room for China's ambition. But that does not mean anything goes. Open societies ignore China's sharp power at their peril.

Part of their defence should be practical. Counter-intelligence, the law and an independent media are the best protection against subversion. All three need Chinese speakers who grasp the connection between politics and commerce in China. The Chinese Communist Party suppresses free expression, open debate and independent thought to cement its control. Merely shedding light on its sharp tactics-and shaming kowtowers-would go a long way towards blunting them.

Part should be principled. Unleashing a witch-hunt against Chinese people would be wrong; it would also make Western claims to stand for the rule of law sound hollow. Calls from American politicians for tit-for-tat "reciprocity", over visas for academics and NGO workers, say, would be equally self-defeating. Yet ignoring manipulation in the hope that China will be more friendly in the future would only invite the next jab. Instead the West needs to stand by its own principles, with countries acting together if possible, and separately if they must. The first step in avoiding the Thucydides trap is for the West to use its own values to blunt China's sharp power.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WHEN a rising power challenges an incumbent one, war often follows. That prospect, known as the Thucydides trap after the Greek historian who first described it, looms over relations between China and the West, particularly America. So, increasingly, does a more insidious confrontation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Silk Road was established during the Han dynasty, beginning around 130 B.C. Markets and trading posts were strung along a loose skein of thoroughfares that ran from the Greco-Roman metropolis of Antioch, across the Syrian desert, through modern-day Iraq and Iran, to the former Chinese capital of Xian, streamlining the transport of livestock and grain, medicine and science. In 2013, President Xi Jinping announced that the Silk Road would be reborn as the Belt and Road Initiative, the most ambitious infrastructure project the world has ever known-and the most expensive. Its expected cost is more than a trillion dollars. When complete, the Belt and Road will connect, by China's accounting, sixty-five per cent of the world's population and thirty per cent of global G.D.P. So far, sixty-eight countries have signed on.

If bridges, pipelines, and railroads are the arteries of the modern world, then China is positioning itself as the beating heart. Since 2013, it has loaned about forty billion dollars a year to developing countries, according to David Dollar, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Some analysts worry that China is delivering the money without the World Bank's required protections for the environment and for people uprooted by major infrastructure projects. Nevertheless, Lee Hsien Loong, the Prime Minister of Singapore, said that he and other leaders in the region embrace the benefits. "The Chinese are going to grow their influence," he said, at a recent session of the Council on Foreign Relations. "And this is one coherent framework within which the Asian countries-Central Asian, Southeast Asian, South Asian-can participate in this."

Like most Chinese official-speak, the phrase "Belt and Road" obscures more than it clarifies: the "belt" will be composed of land routes running from China to Scandinavia, the Iberian Peninsula, and the Middle East; the "road" refers to shipping lanes connecting China to Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. In the fall, the photographer Davide Monteleone traced stretches of one of the land routes, travelling from Yiwu, in the southeastern province of Zhejiang, to Khorgos, home to one of the world's largest dry ports, and to Aktau, in Kazakhstan, on the Caspian Sea. Few of the Chinese whom Monteleone encountered, from shopkeepers to restaurant owners to railwaymen, had much interest in the Belt and Road Initiative. "What concerns us is what puts money in our pocket tomorrow, not an abstraction three, five years from now," a worker in Lanzhou New Area, in northwestern China, told Monteleone.

In Chongqing, an inland city of eight million, and "kilometre zero" of a new international railway, Monteleone rode a ferry on the Yangtze River, in order to capture a panorama of the city. "It's dazzling, foggy, monstrous, compressed, and expansive," he told me. Fifty-one towers have been built in the past three years. Looking at Monteleone's photographs, I tried to find a familiar shape in the neon skyline of the city where I was born, but I recognized nothing, except the dark waters of the Yangtze, rippling in the foreground.

-Jiayang Fan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Silk Road was established during the Han dynasty, beginning around 130 B.C. Markets and trading posts were strung along a loose skein of thoroughfares that ran from the Greco-Roman metropolis of Antioch, across the Syrian desert, through modern-day Iraq and Iran, to the former Chinese capital of Xian, streamlining the transport of livestock and grain, medicine and science.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Stepping down officially in 2021, it's the start of the long road to the end for Angela Merkel at the helm [Kai Pfaffenbach/Reuters]

It has been described by German media as the "decision of her life". When Angela Merkel let more than 800,000 refugees into the country in the summer of 2015, few could have predicted the fallout from that.

Over the past three years, her government has been embroiled in bitter political infighting and the surge in support for right-wing policies and the populist party Alternative for Deutschland (AFD) has led commentators to question just how much this decision led to her departure.

On Friday, the Christian Democratic Union of Germany (CDU), the party Merkel led for 18 years, chose Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer as her successor. Reportedly backed by Merkel, Kramp-Karrenbauer's win is said to be a late victory for the outgoing leader.

Stepping down officially in 2021, it's the start of the long road to the end for Merkel at the helm.

A mixed legacy

Berlin-based Anne Lehman is the co-head of the domestic newsdesk at Taz.de newspaper. On the key issue of immigration, she describes a mixed legacy.

"On one side of society, she still stands for liberal values and a supporter of an open-door migration policy. On the flip side, the immigration policy has helped give space to the rise of AFD. They said that everyone who is against Merkel should vote for us because we are strictly against refugees, and they got substantial votes.

"There are many people who think it's good that somebody is coming in who has a different opinion, and who will maintain a stricter immigration policy."

Lehman says the reality in Merkel's Germany is a policy towards migrants and refugees that has shifted to the right. She points to recent developments such as the opening of new migrant centres called ANKAR - an acronym for arrival, decision, return - which have been described as prisons by those forced to live in them.

"Limits have also been placed on the number of refugees who are allowed in, there's more support for deportations and attempts to make more deals with Turkey and other countries to send back migrants," she says.

Those working on the issue say these policies are eroding rights.

Michaela Streibelt, a Berlin-based lawyer and human rights activist, says, "What Merkel did wasn't superhuman but compared to other countries she did pretty well."

"In the end, she represented a balance to the discourse within the conservatives.

"In the last few years, though, she has contributed to a complete erosion of refugee rights, with tougher integration rules, longer stays in shelters and a border control system controlled by repressive governments," Streibelt says.

Refugee perspectives

Among those who have arrived from Syria, opinions on Merkel are equally mixed. Hayyan Al-Yousouf, a 38-year-old Syrian agricultural engineer, arrived in Germany in 2014. He tells Al Jazeera that for many refugees, she will be difficult to replace.

"Her effort and attention to refugees was great," he says. "There are many refugees who are grateful to Merkel for risking her political future with the open-door policy. It's a view that I still see people sharing online."

He says that instead of dismissing what she's done, it's better to build on her efforts, for example, reducing tough language requirements so people can enter the jobs market quicker.

Lina Elabdalla, a 28-year-old Syrian writer and architect who has been living in Berlin for two years, shared a different perspective.

She tells Al Jazeera, "She may be seen as a saviour by some, but what she did, she did for Germany. This country is an economic powerhouse, and to sustain this position, they need working youth and refugees can fill these positions."

"I've had a horrible experience here. I have been put in one of the worst camps, I'm still waiting for my papers two years on, and at one point I was going to be deported to Poland. An asylum officer once said to me I was a Syrian before I was a human being. Whatever Merkel was trying to achieve, it hasn't worked for me."

Legacy on other issues

Beyond the immigration debate, commentators are more positive about the legacy Merkel, 64, could leave behind.

In an interview with the New York Times, Ines Pohl, the editor-in-chief of the public broadcaster Deutsche Welle, cited Merkel's achievements on the economy and German identity. She said, "Angela Merkel allowed Germans to be proud again."

"She never boasted that Germany got what it wanted after summit meetings (though it mostly did). But as exports and domestic demand boomed, Germany prospered and so did Ms Merkel's popularity ratings."

With heated discussions around immigration and refugees happening across Germany and Europe, and still three years left to go, it's likely, though, that this will be the issue that defines Merkel's legacy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Angela Merkel's mixed legacy: Open-door policy, rise of far right

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It has been described by German media as the "decision of her life". When Angela Merkel let more than 800,000 refugees into the country in the summer of 2015, few could have predicted the fallout from that.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The European Parliament on Wednesday launched an action that could unleash unprecedented political sanctions against Viktor Orban's populist Hungarian government for posing a "systemic threat" to the EU's founding values.

The move dealt a stunning political blow to Prime Minister Orban, who had told the parliament a day earlier that a scathing report leading to the vote was an insult to Hungary's honour and people.

Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto wasted little time in slamming the vote as "nothing less than the petty revenge of pro-immigration politicians".

With elections for a new parliament in May 2019, the vote reflects growing push-back among traditional parties in Europe against the rise of populists, who oppose migration and are accused of undermining the rule of law.

Adopted by 448 votes for to 197 against and with 48 abstentions, the motion marked the first time the parliament has initiated steps under Article Seven of the European Union's treaty. An earlier action against Poland was initiated by the EU executive.

Dutch Greens MEP Judith Sargentini, who spearheaded the vote, smiled broadly and breathed a sigh of relief before embracing parliament supporters in the French city of Strasbourg.

"It is a positive sign of this parliament taking responsibility and wanting action," Sargentini told a press conference afterwards.

She had urged colleagues not to let Hungary off the hook, declaring that Orban's eight-year rule "violates the values on which this union was built."

I am so proud that my Hungary report has the support of the European Parliament, but this is foremost about the rights of Hungarian citizens.

I thank my colleagues that stand for the protection of democracy and the rule of law, above their interest in party politics.
- Judith Sargentini (@judithineuropa) September 12, 2018

The parliament issued a statement calling on EU countries to now "act against a member state to prevent a systemic threat" to such founding values as respect for democracy, the rule of law and human rights.

The vote was based on a report that voiced concerns about judicial independence, corruption, freedom of expression, academic freedom, religious freedom, and the rights of minorities and refugees.

The vote takes the first steps under Article Seven of the EU Treaty, known by some in Brussels as the "nuclear option", which could ultimately strip Hungary of its EU voting rights.

Other EU governments could halt any further action, however, and Poland has warned it would do so.

A spokeswoman for Poland's Law and Justice (PiS) government told AFP Warsaw was "very worried by the decision," because it "threatens" EU unity.

Historic vote

In a brief speech to parliament on Tuesday, Orban vowed that Hungary would resist any attempt to "blackmail" it into softening its anti-migrant stance, which he charged was the motive behind the vote.

Though defiant, he was resigned to the outcome, saying the parliament seemed to have already made up its mind.

"Hungary will protect its borders, stop illegal migration and defend its rights," said Orban, who embraces a vision of a Christian Europe and opposes an influx of Muslim and other migrants.

Opposition to Orban's vision does not just come from the left, with disquiet also in the main centre-right parliamentary group, the European People's Party (EPP).

The EPP's leader, Manfred Weber, said he would vote in favour of the motion against Orban's government, whose Fidesz party belongs to his grouping.

Weber, a candidate to succeed fellow EPP member Jean-Claude Juncker as head of the commission next year, saw his bloc vote 115 for, 57 against with 28 abstentions.

But Hungarian government spokesman Zoltan Kovacs claimed in a tweet that the motion had failed because the overall vote did not receive the support of two-thirds present.

It was not immediately clear if Budapest will launch a legal challenge.

Juncker, who is not a parliament member, told Belgian daily Le Soir he would have voted for the motion.

"I am in complete agreement with the result," Juncker said.

The Commission has repeatedly clashed with Orban's government, especially since Budapest refused to admit asylum seekers under an EU scheme launched at the height of the migration crisis in 2015.

The vote was hailed as "historic" by Amnesty International's human rights expert Berber Biala-Hettinga.

"The European Parliament rightly stood up for the Hungarian people and for the EU. They made it clear that human rights, the rule of law and democratic values are not up for negotiation," she said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
EU parliament votes to stop Hungary's 'threat' to democracy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The European Parliament on Wednesday launched an action that could unleash unprecedented political sanctions against Viktor Orban's populist Hungarian government for posing a "systemic threat" to the EU's founding values. The move dealt a stunning political blow to Prime Minister Orban, who had told the parliament a day earlier that a scathing report leading to the vote was an insult to Hungary's honour and people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
unhcr: number of refugees hits five-year high - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Number of refugees hits 'five-year high'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
More than 68 million people were forced to flee their homes last year as a result of war, violence and other forms of persecution, according to a new report.

# data[].attributes.headline
Progress relating to NK and USA June 2018 talks 

# data[].attributes.subject
Progress relating to NK and USA June 2018 talks 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"THERE IS NO longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea," President Donald Trump tweeted in June. Mr Trump had just returned from a meeting in Singapore with Kim Jong Un, North Korea's dictator. During the meeting, he claimed, Mr Kim had agreed to give up his nuclear programme in return for American security guarantees and, eventually, relief from sanctions. But more than five months later, the nuclear threat is alive and well. Intelligence reports suggest that Mr Kim is expanding his programme rather than rolling it back. On November 16th North Korea reported that the army had successfully tested an unspecified "ultramodern tactical weapon", the first public reference to a recent weapons test since November 2017. So why have things hit a snag?

On the face of it, the process turns on differing interpretations of what Mr Kim actually pledged to do. In the text signed in June, the two countries agree to "establish new US-DPRK relations" and "build a lasting and stable peace regime" while North Korea "commits to work toward complete denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula". America has since insisted that any concessions it offers must be preceded by clear Korean moves towards denuclearisation, such as handing over a complete list of nuclear facilities and allowing inspections of sites that have allegedly been dismantled. But apart from a freeze on nuclear tests (which actually preceded the Singapore summit), North Korea has only offered symbolic gestures, like publicly blowing up a test site it no longer needed. Before taking more concrete steps, it is demanding that America reciprocate, for instance by lifting some sanctions. Follow-up talks have not succeeded in bridging the gap. Earlier this month, a meeting between Mike Pompeo, America's secretary of state, and Kim Yong Chol, the North's chief negotiator, was cancelled by the North at the last minute.
Get our daily newsletter
Mr Kim may be prepared to give up his nuclear weapons, and may simply want more tangible guarantees before he starts the process. But it is more likely that he wants to hang on to the nukes, which the regime has pursued for decades to ensure its survival, and is using the current round of negotiations to try to extract concessions from America. After all, the North has a history of making other countries pay for promises on which it then reneges. Mr Trump's relentless overselling of the deal reached in Singapore, which contains no details of how the denuclearisation is meant to come about, has encouraged such behaviour. Mr Kim is exploiting the vagueness of his own promises to stall the process, all the while accusing America of bad faith.

For now, the process remains in a rut. No serious arms-control agreement is possible unless Mr Kim hands over a list of his nuclear facilities, but there is no sign that he will do this. Indeed, the North's state media has recently ramped up its rhetoric again, threatening to return to nuclear testing unless America makes the concessions that Mr Kim claims it promised. In response, America has vowed to keep up sanctions and pressure on the regime. But it has also made emollient noises. On November 15th Mike Pence, the vice-president, said that a second meeting between Mr Trump and Mr Kim may go ahead without North Korea having to show the much-discussed nuclear-facilities list. America's adoption of the North's view of denuclearisation may ensure that talks continue, defusing the risk of re-escalation. But it is unlikely to bring an end to the North's nuclear programme.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why there has been no progress in nuclear talks with North Korea

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"THERE IS NO longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea," President Donald Trump tweeted in June. Mr Trump had just returned from a meeting in Singapore with Kim Jong Un, North Korea's dictator. During the meeting, he claimed, Mr Kim had agreed to give up his nuclear programme in return for American security guarantees and, eventually, relief from sanctions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has been actively involved in Syria since its accession to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) in 2013.

# data[].attributes.headline
What lead to the US and NK talks in Singapore, June 2018

# data[].attributes.subject
What lead to the US and NK talks in Singapore, June 2018

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un have both touched down and are currently enjoying Singaporean hospitality ahead of tomorrow's historic summit. But the road to get to this point has been far from smooth.

From trading schoolyard insults to threatening nuclear war, the relationship between America's wheeler-dealer-in-chief and North Korea's Supreme Leader has been fraught. But tomorrow's summit signifies a dramatic shift in dynamics and could be the start of a blossoming relationship between the two countries.

So how did we get to this point?

From sweet to sour

What you may not remember, is that before all the mudslinging and threats, Trump expressed surprisingly warm and complimentary sentiment towards Kim.

In April, Trump called the young dictator a "smart cookie" and commended his ability to hold onto power despite heading the regime at the tender age of 26.

He also told Bloomberg he would "absolutely" meet with Kim and would, in fact, be "honoured" to do so.
SEE ALSO: Trump warns of 'fire and fury' as North Korea threatens attack on US
But the niceties didn't last long after Kim responded to Trump's diplomacy with the launch of the Hwasong-14 intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) on July 4, America's Independence Day. The message from Kim didn't hold back: "American b***ards would be not very happy with this gift sent on the July 4 anniversary."

Fire and Fury

A month later came Trump's now infamous " fire and fury " interview in which he threatened the North Korean regime with a destruction "like the world has never seen."

Military solutions are now fully in place,locked and loaded,should North Korea act unwisely. Hopefully Kim Jong Un will find another path!

- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 11, 2017

From there, it went from bad to worse and the name calling picked up a notch.

In his first address to the United Nations Security Council in September, Trump once again threatened to "totally destroy" Kim Jong Un and his country. It's also the first time we hear "little rocket man" which was to become Trump's favourite nickname for the man in charge of a nuclear arsenal.

Kim's response, reported by the North's state-run KCNA news agency, was predictably fiery and had everyone reaching for their dictionary with his use of the insult "dotard." He also accused the US President of being a "gangster" who was "unfit" for office.

"Whatever Trump might have expected, he will face results beyond his expectation. I will surely and definitely tame the mentally deranged US dotard with fire," he said.

Kim Jong Un of North Korea, who is obviously a madman who doesn't mind starving or killing his people, will be tested like never before!

- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 22, 2017

The insults were reaching peak high school later in the year after Kim called Trump an "old lunatic" for allegedly exploiting the death of US student Otto Warmbier after his detention in North Korea.

Trump fired back with this classic tweet:

Why would Kim Jong-un insult me by calling me "old," when I would NEVER call him "short and fat?" Oh well, I try so hard to be his friend - and maybe someday that will happen!

- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 12, 2017

Nuclear realisation

On November 29, Kim's dream of possessing a missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead to mainland United States was reportedly realised.

Defying repeated calls from the United Nations to cease tests, at 3am the military launched the Hwasong-15. Reports from state-media claimed it could carry "a super-large heavy warhead."
SEE ALSO: Kim Jong Un says he will tame 'mentally deranged' Trump with fire

The successful test gave Kim the Ace card he had so long craved, something he made clear in his New Year's Day address to the nation in which he taunted the US president saying, "a nuclear button is always on my desk."

Trump fired back with his "bigger & more powerful" nuclear button.

North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the "Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times." Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!

- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 3, 2018

New year, new Kim

In that same new year message, Kim also made the first steps towards reconciliation with his neighbours to the South. In it, he opens the road for talks with Seoul that leads to the two warring countries meeting for the first high-level talks in more than two years on January 9.

It was agreed that North Korean athletes would compete at the Winter Olympics to be held in Pyeongchang, South Korea in February. A North Korean delegation including Kim's righthand man, Kim Yong Chol, and Kim's sister, Kim Yo Jong, also attended the event.
SEE ALSO: Who is Kim Yong Chol, North Korea's most trusted envoy?

With ties warming on the Korean peninsula and a seemingly more genial Kim ready to reach out, a surprising change of tone emerged from the White House.

After North Korea expressed a willingness to denuclearise in March, Trump accepted an invitation from the regime to meet face to face. And they weren't hanging around. The summit was initially scheduled for May, just a mere two months after the invite was extended and, what many experts thought, not nearly enough time to prep for such a critical and consequential meeting.

Kim Jong Un talked about denuclearization with the South Korean Representatives, not just a freeze. Also, no missile testing by North Korea during this period of time. Great progress being made but sanctions will remain until an agreement is reached. Meeting being planned!

- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 9, 2018

North Korea promised to put a freeze on all missile and nuclear test in a sign of goodwill in the lead up to talks.

On April 27, Kim met with South Korean President Moon Jae-in and became the first North Korean leader to cross into the South since the end of the Korean War. At the meeting, a loose agreement to work towards ending the war was arrived at. Both countries signed an armistice in 1953, rather than a peace treaty, meaning the war never officially ended.

The breakup

As preparations for the Singapore summit were well underway, they hit a bump in the road.

On May 16, North Korea canned high-level talks with Seoul at the last minute as anger brewed over its joint military exercise with the US.

The North's first Vice-Foreign Minister Kim Kye Gwan threatened to scrap the summit if Pyongyang was pushed towards "unilateral nuclear abandonment."
SEE ALSO: North Korea calls US Vice-President Pence 'ignorant and stupid'

US Vice-President Mike Pence tested Pyongyang's resolve even further when he compared the regime to that of Libya, who saw leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi deposed and killed after he gave up his nuclear arsenal.

A scathing rebuke from Kim Kye Gwan, calling the VP "stupid and ignorant" and a "political dummy," came on the same day that North Korea dismantled its nuclear test site at Punggye.

That proved enough to irk Trump, pushing him to the point of calling the whole thing off. He sent a letter to Kim explaining his decision to back out of talks.

A letter from the President to Chairman Kim Jong Un: "It is inappropriate, at this time, to have this long-planned meeting." pic.twitter.com/3dDIp55xu1

- The White House (@WhiteHouse) May 24, 2018

Due to the "tremendous anger and open hostility" expressed by North Korea, he decided to can the talks despite the "wonderful dialogue" that had developed between the two sides.

Trump did, however, leave the door open for North Korea to make amends, saying:

"If you change your mind having to do with this most important summit, please do not hesitate to call me or write."

I have decided to terminate the planned Summit in Singapore on June 12th. While many things can happen and a great opportunity lies ahead potentially, I believe that this is a tremendous setback for North Korea and indeed a setback for the world... pic.twitter.com/jT0GfxT0Lc

- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 24, 2018

North Korea's diplomatic and reasoned response ensured the spat was short lived.

Kim Kye Gwan once again stepped up to the plate, expressing surprise and regret over the cancellation of the planned summit.

"We would like to make known to the US side once again that we have the intent to sit with the US side to solve problems regardless of ways at any time," he said.

The statement did the trick, with Trump quickly tweeting his approval of the statement.

Less than 24 hours after his cancellation letter, it looked like things were back on track with the president saying the White House was having "very productive" talks with the North Koreans and the summit would likely remain on the same day, June 12.

And that brings us up to today, the eve of what promises to be the Summit of the Century. What will come from these historic talks? We will just have to wait and see.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A tale of tweeting: Kim and Trump's road to Singapore

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un have both touched down and are currently enjoying Singaporean hospitality ahead of tomorrow's historic summit. But the road to get to this point has been far from smooth. From trading schoolyard insults to threatening nuclear war, the relationship between America's wheeler-dealer-in-chief and North Korea's Supreme Leader has been fraught.

# data[].attributes.headline
UN calls for Korean Peninsula Disarmament 

# data[].attributes.subject
UN calls for Korean Peninsula Disarmament 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
North Korea on Friday accused UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres of making "reckless remarks" and toeing the US line when he called for the verifiable and irreversible denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula.

Guterres made the statement following talks with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in Tokyo on Wednesday to discuss the US-led effort to rid North Korea of its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

The UN chief "should do what is beneficial to the current situation on Korean peninsula for peace and stability, not just by singing (the) chorus for sanctions to please (a) certain country," said a statement from the North Korean mission to the United Nations.

The mission described as "reckless" a remark from Guterres who said that North Korea "can be a normal member of the international community in this region through total denuclearisation that is verifiable, irreversible."

The statement said North Korea was "astonished" to hear Guterres' remarks "at a time when the world supports and welcomes the historic DPRK-US summit and the joint statement in Singapore."

At the first-ever meeting between sitting leaders of the US and North Korea in June, President Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un pledged in a joint statement to work toward the "complete denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula."

The statement however was short on details and a UN panel of experts reported last week that North Korea is pressing ahead with its nuclear and missile programs.

The United States, backed by Japan, is urging UN member-states to maintain pressure on North Korea to give up its military programs by fully adhering to a raft of sanctions.

Trump's administration has argued that sanctions must remain fully in place until North Korea has scrapped its nuclear and missile programs and that the dismantling is verified.

The Security Council last year adopted three rounds of tough economic sanctions on North Korea, banning most of its exports of raw commodities and severely restricting oil supplies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
North Korea slams UN chief over 'reckless' nuclear disarmament call

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
North Korea on Friday accused UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres of making "reckless remarks" and toeing the US line when he called for the verifiable and irreversible denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Analysis | Few countries are meeting the Paris climate goals. Here are the ones that are.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This week, a top scientific body studying climate change released a terrifying report. The world has just a decade to take "unprecedented" action to cut carbon emissions and hold global warming to a moderate - but still dangerous and disruptive - level.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The United States will fall short by a third on its commitment under the Paris climate treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to a report released Wednesday in San Francisco.

A crescendo of efforts at the sub-national level by states, cities and business to shrink the country's carbon footprint will not fully compensate for President Donald Trump's decision to scrap his predecessor's climate policies and promote the use of fossil fuels, it found.

"The Obama target was always going to be a stretch," co-author Paul Bodnar, managing director of the Rocky Mountain Institute, told journalists.

"This work shows definitively that states, cities and businesses have the power to bring the nation to the brink of that ambitious target through their own authorities."

Financed by former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, the "Fulfilling America's Pledge" report kicks off the three-day Global Climate Action Summit, a gathering of several thousand governors, mayors, business leaders and climate activists from around the world.

"Current federal and real economy commitments, combined with market forces, will drive US emissions to 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2025 - roughly two-thirds of the way to the original US target," the report found.

Under the 196-nation Paris Agreement, the United States made a voluntary pledge to cut carbon pollution 26-28 percent by 2025.

The 2015 treaty marked the first time that all countries - including emerging giants such as China and India - laid out specific targets for greening their economies.

The new projections are conservative in so far as they assume no help from the federal government over the next six years.

Filling the 'emissions gap'

But even without a Democrat in the White House in 2020, up to 90 percent of US targets could still be met if non-state actors double down on climate action, they found.

On Monday, outgoing governor Jerry Brown signed legislation committing the state to purging greenhouse gases from its electricity grid by 2045, replaced by energy generated mostly by solar and wind power.

"We all have the opportunity and the obligation to do our part to combat climate change," he told AFP after signing the bill into law.

The fifth largest economy in the world, California has also adopted targets that would see its emissions fall at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.

Trump - who vowed to pull out of the Paris Agreement months after gaining office - wants to relax pollution rules for coal-fired power plants and roll back car-mileage standards, the twin pillars of President Barack Obama's Clean Energy Plan.

He has also challenged the Golden State's right to set its own vehicle fuel standards.

The transport sector is the single largest source of man-made greenhouse gases in the United States.

US mayors, governors and business leaders - under the banner "We Are Still In" - have pushed back by adopting more ambitious targets at the local level.

Taken together, these jurisdictions represent about half of the US economy, the equivalent of the third-largest country in the world, according to the report.

"Businesses, states and local governments have stepped in to fill the leadership gap," said Lou Leonard, senior vice president for climate change and energy, WWF-US.

"But even more is needed to fill the remaining emissions gap and reduce risks from droughts, wildfires and superstorms bearing down on American communities."

As if to illustrate the point, a monster hurricane exhibiting unusual patterns consistent with the influence of global warming is barrelling toward the US eastern seaboard, and projected to make landfall Thursday or Friday in the Carolinas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
US to miss Paris climate pact target by a third

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The United States will fall short by a third on its commitment under the Paris climate treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to a report released Wednesday in San Francisco.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
News Analysis

Image

A lone tree near a water trough in a drought-stricken paddock on the outskirts of Walgett, in New South Wales, Australia, in July. Credit Credit David Gray/Reuters

SYDNEY, Australia - Mile after mile of the Great Barrier Reef is dying amid rising ocean temperatures. Hundreds of bush fires are blazing across Australia's center, in winter, partly because of a record-breaking drought.

The global scientific consensus is clear: Australia is especially vulnerable to climate change.

And yet on Monday, Australia's prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, abandoned a modest effort to reduce energy emissions under pressure from conservatives in his party. And on Tuesday, those same conservatives just missed toppling his government.

What on earth is going on?

Australia's resistance to addressing climate change - by limiting emissions in particular - is well documented. Mr. Turnbull could yet be turned out of office as rivals rally support for another challenge as soon as Thursday. If that happens, he will be the third Australian prime minister in the last decade to lose the position over a climate dispute.

Despite the country's reputation for progressiveness on gun control, health care and wages, its energy politics seem forever doomed to devolve into a circus. Experts point to many reasons, from partisanship to personality conflicts, but the root of the problem may be tied to the land.

Image

Australia's prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, and foreign minister, Julie Bishop, on Monday at a news conference in Canberra. Credit Sean Davey/Agence France-Presse - Getty Images

Coal was discovered in New South Wales in 1797, less than a decade after the First Fleet of British settlers arrived. Within a century, the country was producing millions of tons of it. Now, Australia is regularly listed as the largest coal exporter in the world, accounting for 37 percent of global exports.

Large mining companies like Rio Tinto and BHP have long wielded enormous power in Australia. Separately and through industry associations like the Minerals Council, they frequently host luxury events with senior politicians. Their businesses bring in more money than just about any others in Australia, and they tend to wildly outspend any group that challenges them politically.

Total campaign contributions are extremely hard to track in Australia - a lack of transparency that serves big business well - but in the narrow band of reported spending, coal industry lobbyists poured roughly $3.6 million ($5 million Australian) into campaigns last year as the energy debate intensified.

Four of the country's main environmental groups - Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund, Environment Victoria and the Sunrise Project - spent just $135,000 combined ($183,000 Australian).

"If you look at lobby lane, who is always around, it's the Minerals Council by a country mile," said Susan Harris Rimmer, a law professor at Griffith University. "I don't think people understand how dominant it's been here."

Coal awaiting shipment at the Abbot Point coal terminal in Queensland. Australia exports vast amounts of coal, and mining companies wield enormous power. Credit David Maurice Smith for The New York Times

"The Europeans think we're crazy," she added. "Who's got more solar, who's got more tidal power than us? It just goes to show the strength of that particular group."

[Sign up for Damien Cave's Australia Letter to get news, conversation starters and local recommendations in your inbox each week.]

The trend of hyper-partisanship has not helped. Just as climate and energy issues in the United States create a toxic divide, with many on the right opposing anything the left supports - including well-established science - any mention of emissions control tends to create an anaphylactic reaction among Australian conservatives.

The arguments differ. Some make a case for free markets, despite subsidies granted to fossil fuel companies, or they say action works only when all nations act. Others, like Mr. Turnbull's opponents this time, emphasize local priorities such as reduced energy prices for consumers.

The reaction to emissions management nonetheless tends to be universal, at least on the far right.

"Conservatives just see red when anything like a price or tax on carbon is introduced," said Bruce Wolpe, the chief of staff for Julia Gillard, the former prime minister who passed such a plan only to see it dismantled after losing an election to Tony Abbott. "That has become as powerful a driver here as it is in America."

Researchers collecting coral samples from Rib Reef, part of the Great Barrier Reef, in Queensland. Credit David Maurice Smith for The New York Times

Scientists all over the world have become increasingly disappointed in the country's climate policies.

Under Mr. Turnbull, a former investment banker and a moderate, the Australian government has increased its support for fossil fuel extraction projects, failed to meet goals set under the Paris climate agreement and shied away from challenging the consumption status quo even as the Great Barrier Reef bleaches toward oblivion.

Dr. Darren Saunders, a cancer biologist in Australia, spoke for many in a popular tweet that said, "It's incredibly hard to describe how utterly sad it feels to be a scientist and dad in a country being dictated to by a small group of science-denying clowns putting their own short term political gain over the long term public interest."

Some climate scientists were only a bit less emotional and argumentative.

"The scientific community in Australia is unified in knowing that climate change is a problem and will become a bigger problem," said James W. Porter, a professor of ecology at the University of Georgia, specializing in the biology and ecology of coral reefs. "The government of Australia, on the other hand, has the same problems as the government in the United States and other developed countries, in that some conservative politicians don't want to believe in facts."

What are some of those facts?

Joëlle Gergis, a climate scientist and writer at the University of Melbourne, said in an email that the public and the politicians in Canberra, the nation's capital, ought to consider what they are failing to address.

Cattle at an empty dam in June in a drought-affected paddock near Gunnedah, in the northwest of New South Wales. Credit David Gray/Reuters

Australia's climate has now warmed by 1 degree Celsius since 1910, she said.

"This makes our climate even more extreme than it otherwise would be," she said. "Our droughts are getting hotter, our heat waves have become more intense and our bush fire season is now extending into winter."

The bleaching and damage to roughly half the Great Barrier Reef "is not a natural disaster," she added. "It is one of the clearest signals that our planet is warming."

Farmers see their own problems looming, and even those undecided about the cause of the drought are fed up with the political bickering.

"It's another example of politicians looking after themselves and not looking after the country," said Charles Alder, the chief executive of Rural Aid, a group that helps drought-affected farmers.

At some point, those who study climate change argue, policymakers will fall in line with public demands. One recent poll found that 59 percent of Australians said "global warming is a serious and pressing problem" about which "we should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs."

When and if the moment comes, Dr. Gergis said, "bipartisan climate change policy will be a defining moment in Australian politics."

Rick Rojas contributed reporting from Sydney, and Livia Albeck-Ripka from New York.

Rick Rojas contributed reporting from Sydney, and Livia Albeck-Ripka from New York.
For more Australia coverage, sign up for the Australia Letter, join our Facebook group and start your day your local Morning Briefing.

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A4 of the New York edition with the headline: Coal Lobby Turns Up Heat, and Australia Wilts Under Climate Change. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Australia Wilts From Climate Change. Why Can't Its Politicians Act?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
News Analysis SYDNEY, Australia - Mile after mile of the Great Barrier Reef is dying amid rising ocean temperatures. Hundreds of bush fires are blazing across Australia's center, in winter, partly because of a record-breaking drought. The global scientific consensus is clear: Australia is especially vulnerable to climate change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Syria has witnessed unprecedented levels of internal displacement not seen throughout the seven-year conflict with more than one million forced to flee, a UN report said on Wednesday.

The 24-page report by the UN Commission of Inquiry detailed the ordeal many Syrians have faced in the first six months of 2018.

"As pro-government forces moved to recapture large swaths of territory from armed groups and terrorist organisations, over one million Syrian men, women, and children were displaced with most now living in dire conditions," said the report.

It noted combatants on the ground failed to take any action to protect civilians.

"No one is acting according to their responsibilities, human rights wise or otherwise," commissioner Karen Abuzayed told Al Jazeera.

"Everyone is to blame and is following their own interests. It's a disaster for the people who have no way to defend themselves."

'Compulsory displacement'

Civilians were forced to survive in tents or abandoned buildings in the northwest and living on extremely limited humanitarian aid, the report said.

Since 2014, the Syrian government and armed opposition groups have reached a series of reconciliation agreements in a number of besieged areas, mainly aiming to allow fighters to leave government-surrounded towns for opposition-held areas in Idlib province, which borders to the north.

While the Syrian government positively regards such reconciliation agreements, armed groups and activists, however, view them as "compulsory displacement" aiming to reshape the demographic structure of the country.

With a Russian-backed Syrian government offensive looming, the three-member UN commission also warned against a major attack on Idlib - the last remaining rebel stronghold - and called on all parties to guarantee the safety of the three million civilians there.

The report warned an attack on Idlib "with little regard for civilian life would generate a catastrophic human rights and humanitarian crisis".

The report also detailed the use of chlorine gas three times by Syrian government forces in January and February in the Damascus suburb of Eastern Ghouta, which at the time was under control of opposition armed groups. The two chemical attacks wounded 21 people.

War crimes in Idlib?

President Bashar al-Assad has vowed to retake Idlib province, backed by his Russian and Iranian allies. Syrian government and Russian warplanes began air raids in Idlib last week.

According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the escalation in Idlib over the past 10 days has resulted in at least 30,000 people fleeing their homes in rebel-held territories in northwest Syria.

France's foreign minister said on Wednesday the bombing by Russian, Syrian and Iranian forces could amount to war crimes.

"The hypothesis of war crimes cannot be excluded ... once one begins to indiscriminately bomb civilian populations and hospitals," Jean-Yves Le Drian told legislators.

"The situation is extremely serious. We are on the eve of a considerable humanitarian and security catastrophe," he said.

On September 7, a summit in Tehran failed to produce a clear agreement between Russia, Turkey, and Iran on the fate of Idlib.

A ceasefire suggested by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was rejected and a full-fledged government offensive now appears imminent, in what is expected to be Syria's deadliest battle yet.

Idlib is the last barrier standing between the Syrian government and its military victory against a rebellion that began in March 2011.

"Idlib should not become the next massacre, the final massacre in the battles in Syria and common sense now needs to prevail," commissioner Hanny Megally told reporters after the release of the report.

'Humanitarian catastrophe'

Aid workers in Idlib told Al Jazeera that camps are already overcrowded and undersupplied and are not able to properly address the needs of the newcomers.

Tamam Atour, who works with the Turkish humanitarian organisation IHH in the area of Bab al-Hawa near the border with Turkey, said there is a severe lack of basic supplies.

Of the 200-300 families who made it to camps where he works, only 40 were provided with tents. The rest had to sleep out in the open.

"We are suffering from a severe lack of supplies, lack of blankets, food baskets, detergents, kitchen utensils. The large number [of newcomers] is causing us great confusion and we don't know how to deal with them," he said.

Khalid Shalas, manager of one of the camps in the al-Zawf area, said his camp is lacking the means to provide basic needs. He said there is almost no baby formula and little medicine available.

Shalas and his colleagues have sent out an urgent appeal to a number of Western and Arab aid organisations requesting help but have only received negative answers.

"If there is an attack now on Idlib it would produce a humanitarian catastrophe. People will prefer staying in their houses and dying in air strikes over sleeping in the street with no shelter, at the mercy of wild beasts and snakes," Shalas said.

The UN has warned an attack would result in at least 800,000 civilians fleeing to the borders with Turkey, resulting in the worst humanitarian catastrophe of the 21st century.
Mariya Petkova contributed to this report from Antakya, Turkey

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
UN: Syria faces 'unprecedented' levels of internal displacement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Syria has witnessed unprecedented levels of internal displacement not seen throughout the seven-year conflict with more than one million forced to flee, a UN report said on Wednesday. The 24-page report by the UN Commission of Inquiry detailed the ordeal many Syrians have faced in the first six months of 2018.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Can Russia Really Be a Partner to Bring Peace to Syria?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Can Russia be an ally in stabilizing Syria and fighting ISIS or is it too closely tied to the Assad regime?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skies erupt with anti-aircraft fire over Damascus as the US launches an attack on Syria. Credit:AP

The airstrikes are being carried out by US, French and British forces and target suspected chemical weapons facilities.

Speaking of Assad and his suspected role in last week's chemical weapons attack, Trump said, "These are not the actions of a man. They are crimes of a monster instead."

A US official told Reuters the strikes were aimed at multiple targets and involved Tomahawk cruise missiles.

Trump made clear in his eight-minute television address that he is wary of a deeper entanglement in Syria, where about 2000 US troops have been deployed to fight Islamic State.

"America does not seek an indefinite presence in Syria," he said.

The military action comes as Washington-Moscow tensions spiral to levels not seen since the Cold War.

Despite an ongoing probe into connections between the Trump Admiminstration and Russia, relations continue to deteiorate over issues ranging from Russian election meddling to the poisoning of ex-Russian agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Britain in March.

The United States had been building a circumstantial case, based largely on videos and photographs, that a chemical attack by Syrian forces took place in the rebel-held town of Douma near Damascus killed dozens of civilians and affected 500 more.

A rescue worker carries a child following an alleged chemical weapons attack in the rebel-held town of Douma, near Damascus, on Saturday night. Credit:Syrian Civil Defence White Helmets via AP

Syria and Russia, meanwhile, have insisted that no chemical attack occurred and that only the opposition groups they call "terrorists" possess chemical weapons.

The guided missile destroyer USS Porter launches a Tomahawk missile as the US blasted a Syrian air base with a barrage of cruise missiles. Credit:US Navy

The strike a year ago made good on Trump's vow not to let the use of chemical weapons go unpunished, but it failed to deter Assad from using them again.

The US and Russia escalated a war of words over Syria on Wednesday, with President Donald Trump warning that US airstrikes "will be coming" despite Russia's pledge to shoot down American missiles aimed at its ally.

The Syrian government's chemical weapons program dates to the early 1970s. Syria was thought to have one of the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons in the world, including not only nerve agents such as VX but blister agents like mustard gas.

The most noteworthy of the chemical weapons used during the Syrian war is sarin. This nerve agent, first developed by Nazi Germany, was banned under international law in 1997. It has no smell or taste, but exposure to it quickly leads to death through asphyxiation.

The Syrian government is believed to have used sarin on a number of occasions, including the 2017 Khan Sheikhoun assault, as well as attacks in 2013 - including one on the Damascus suburbs that is thought to have killed 1429 people, according to a White House estimate.
Washington Post, Fairfax Media, Telegraph, London, Reuters

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The airstrikes are being carried out by US, French and British forces and target suspected chemical weapons facilities. Speaking of Assad and his suspected role in last week's chemical weapons attack, Trump said, "These are not the actions of a man. They are crimes of a monster instead."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Once again, unfortunate civilians are trapped in the " hell on earth" that the Syrian civil war has become. This time it is the turn of the 400,000 residents of Eastern Ghouta, ten kilometres east of the capital Damascus. Latest reports put civilian casualties at 520 and thousands wounded under the heavy assault launched by President Bashar al-Assad's ground forces supported by Russian air strikes.

It seems conditions in Syria are getting worse, and there is no end to the conflict.

The end to any violent conflict comes when either the warring sides realise the devastation they cause and make peace; outside intervention sways the warring parties to end the conflict; or there are clear winners delivering a crushing defeat to their enemies.

None of the warring factions seem to care about the devastation of the seven-year civil war. Almost the entire country is rubble - more than 400,000 people have died, there are 5 million Syrian refugees and more than 6 million displaced. Unfortunately, the peace option seems highly unlikely.

There had been international intervention through peace initiatives since 2013, when the then US secretary of state, John Kerry, lamented that Syria "heads closer to an abyss, if not over the abyss and into chaos". It was a chemical attack in Eastern Ghouta that prompted the United Nations to pass a resolution in 2013 demanding the destruction of chemical stockpiles and giving impetus to peace talks in Geneva. All efforts to make progress on these talks were continually stalled. The parties failed to meet even as late as 2017, painfully expediting Kerry's apocalyptic prediction.

Read more: Stakes are high as Turkey, Russia and the US tussle over the future of Syria

The Geneva talks were paralleled by a Russian-led peace initiative in Kazakhstan and later in Sochi. These talks could not have been expected to succeed, given that Russia's unconditional and active support of the Assad regime hampered any attempt at brokering a peace deal.

Apart from the vested interests and insincerity, the biggest stumbling block has been disagreement over who to include in the peace process. The US does not want Assad or Iran involved; Turkey does not want the Kurdish People's Defence Unit (YPG); and Russia does not want any of the jihadist rebel groups.

The sheer number of rebel groups is another issue. In the relatively small area of Eastern Ghouta alone, there are three rebel groups, which often bicker with one another.

Since the conflict began in 2011, nearly 200 separate rebel groups have sporadically emerged. Although most of these later merged into larger entities, there are still too many groups. Their inclusion in any peace process has been problematic, because it is unclear who actually represents the Syrian opposition, not to mention the groups' refusal to sit at the same table.

Then there is the thorny issue of ideological and religious differences. Shiite Syrians and a segment of secular Sunni Muslims support the Assad regime, whereas the largest chunk of the rebel groups are Salafi jihadists. The exceptions are the Kurdish YPG and the largely weakened Free Syrian Army.

All along, Assad's regime has been claiming it is fighting IS, Al-Qaeda and other Salafi jihadist groups to keep Syria a modern secular state. Putin is pushing Assad to wipe out these groups, spurred by the deep fear they could mobilise radical Muslim groups within Russia's borders.

The US and Europe are in the cognitive dissonance of wanting neither Assad nor jihadist groups to gain control in Syria. They don't want Assad, but they like his argument of protecting a modern secular Syria. The unspoken preference is for Assad over any Jihadi rebel group.

So, the lack of an effective peace intervention and the impossibility of parties sitting down to negotiate leaves only the option of fighting it out until clear victors emerge.

This leaves the Assad regime with a free run to assert itself as the only feasible and legitimate government in Syria, a possibility that may indeed eventuate.

This is the strategic line the Assad regime has drawn thick on the ground. It explains why Assad forces have ignored the UN's 30-day ceasefire resolution. Putin's disregard for the resolution, by reducing it to a farcical five-hour window, shows that neither Assad nor Putin wants the rebels to regroup and gain strength. They want a quick and absolute victory, even if it is a bloodbath.

Just as it is almost certain that the rebels of Eastern Ghouta will fall, it is equally certain Assad forces will next intensify the siege of Idlib, a northeastern city held by the Salafi jihadist rebel group Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). This pattern will continue until all rebel groups are wiped out.

Read more: Syria is a mess, but the solution is complicated too

It is unlikely there will be any fighting between Assad forces and the Kurdish YPG, as that would mean an open confrontation between Russia and the US. After the US supported the YPG, it successfully ended Islamic State's presence in eastern Syria. The US has made it clear it is there to stay, establishing a 30,000-strong border security force as a deterrent against IS regrouping, but more importantly to stop Assad attacking Kurdish regions once he clears the ground of rebel groups in his territory.

The wild card in Syria is Turkey's unpredictable president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. He aims to establish Turkey in northeastern Syria as a third major player along with Russia and the US, by fighting alongside elements of the Free Syrian Army to capture the Kurdish-controlled district of Afrin.

Whether Russia and the US will allow Erdogan to realise his objectives remains to be seen. He may find he is out of his league when things get tough on the ground, forcing him out of Syria.

The Syrian conflict will end only if the Russian-supported Assad regime wipes out all Salafi jihadist rebel groups and regains control of western Syria and its most important cities. This may be before the end of 2018. In the meantime, the international community should be prepared to lament more civilian casualties.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Syrian 'hell on earth' is a tangle of power plays unlikely to end soon

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Once again, unfortunate civilians are trapped in the " hell on earth" that the Syrian civil war has become. This time it is the turn of the 400,000 residents of Eastern Ghouta, ten kilometres east of the capital Damascus.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
The dehumanisation of Syria's victims facilitates war crimes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If there was one word, apt to summarise the speeches of both Bashar Jaafari, Assad's envoy to the UN, and his Russian counterpart Vasily Nebenzya speeches to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) regarding their current murderous efforts in Ghouta, it would be denial.

It's a cliche to say that truth is the first casualty of war, but the simple act of denying truth is an extremely effective weapon not merely of war, but of genocide and mass murder.

Both Jaafari and Nebenzya had one unified message on the situation: the victims in Ghouta, of which parts of the world have momentarily taken notice, are not really victims at all. Jaafari claims the world has it topsy-turvy - the 'massacre' isn't happening in eastern Ghouta at all, but rather in regime-held areas of Damascus.

The death toll in Ghouta has now passed 1000, while there has been another suspected chlorine gas attack on civilians as Iranian-led ground forces swoop in on the ground.

The innocents murdered recently by Assad and Russia in eastern Ghouta, don't exist according to Jaafari, but rather have been concocted by the western media and a campaign of 'fake news'.

Jaafari claims the people they are killing are "terrorists", who have been "recruited from all over the world by the US" to attack Syria.

Again, taking aim at the 'mainstream media' reporting on the massacre in Ghouta, Nebenzya claimed that there was "massive coordinated psychosis", which was "spread by global media outlets".

The reporting was "clearly superficial", given that it didn't report that Russia was not murdering civilians but doing the world a favour by killing "terrorists".

One might think that this kind of propaganda is self-defeating, given its absurd nature in the face of the slaughter in Ghouta being incontrovertibly documented.

But we live in a 'post-truth' world, where truth too often does not function so much as a point of orientation or understanding as it does as something that one embraces when it's convenient to a preconceived worldview, dogma or narrative. Or that one denies and obscures when it's inconvenient to these things.

Assad, and especially Russia, go out of their way to saturate social media and the 'alternative media' with misinformation and disinformation for one reason - they know that it is effective.

In the post-9/11 period, in the long ignominious shadow of the Iraq war and the 'War on Terror', it might be said that there is an epistemological crisis, typified by the idea that whatever 'the establishment' (of which the 'mainstream media' is allegedly part of and serves) says is false.

Everything the 'mainstream media' or 'establishment politicians' say can be discarded without refutation. This has created a vacuum that has, in part, been filled by Russian-funded and Russian-friendly media outlets, never mind the political ramifications.

It's for these reasons that the denial of the crimes of Assad, Iran and Russia in Syria have been so profuse in the seven years of the conflict. At every step, the crimes of the regime and its allies have been obscured, denied and justified by formal and informal actors working in coordination - the pro-Russia dregs of internet trolling.

The Max Blumenthals, Max Abrahms, Vanessa Beeleys, Tim Andersons and Rania Khaleks of the world, probably aren't working for the Kremlin, but they're working towards the Kremlin.

Appealing to the vast reserves of Islamophobia that were built up in the West during the 'War on Terror' era, Assad and Russia have with relative ease slandered Muslim men with guns as 'Al Qaeda' and 'terrorists'.

What they fear more than anything, however, is humanitarian forces like the White Helmets or merely the everyday people of Syria who come to momentary prominence around the world by documenting genocide first hand.

It's much harder to demonise volunteers who rush into gassed and bombed buildings, or kids documenting the apocalypse armed only with camera phones. These people represent precisely what Assad and Russia are trying to eradicate.

While these forces want to keep people's minds on 'Al Qaeda' (al-Qaeda has no presence in eastern Ghouta, while its former affiliate has just 300 members out of a population of 400,000) and 'terrorists', it's people like the 15-year-old Muhammad Najem who explicitly present the human side of the atrocities being carried out.

Najem takes 'selfies' or short videos of himself against the backdrop of buildings that have just been hit by Russian and regime attacks. Najem's technique is frighteningly austere, as is his calm as he observes and listens to the hell of rocket and bomb attacks around him - pounding his neighbourhood. It's not just the fact that as an observer you know that at any minute he could be incinerated, but you know that he also knows this.

In one video, after a nearby airstrike and the sound of sirens and the crying of children, Najem turns to the camera, to you, and says "we are killed by your silence".

In another statement, he calls out those responsible, lamenting that "Assad, Putin and Khamenei killed our childhood" and "the children of Ghouta die every day by the bombing of Assad and Russia".

Well, they can't have that.

Cue the attack dogs, both state ones and the network of sleazy social media trolls. RT carried a piece claiming slandering both Najem and Bana Alabed, who live tweeted the brutal fall of Aleppo (and was targeted by the same sleazy network of pro-Russia, pro-Assad trolls), claiming that she was exploited by her 'terrorist' father into lies about Russian and regime atrocities in Aleppo. They claim Najem is Ghouta's version of Bana - a young media-friendly face who is distorting reality on behalf of 'Al Qaeda' groups.

Indeed, just a day before Najem's own home was hit by an airstrike, two RT employees accused Najem of being a 'crisis actor' (an actor paid to portray a victim of a disaster).

We saw the same process with the White Helmets, with the mobilisation of pro-Kremlin forces, from TV channels to trolls to 'analysts' and 'journalists', accusing them of everything from being supporters of Al Qaeda and 'terrorism to 'shills' for 'regime change' and the 'Illuminati'.

The Russian reality distortion and denial machine also kicked into gear after the Syrian filmmaker Feras Fayyad's film The Last Men in Aleppo, which documents the life of White Helmet volunteers as they struggle to save civilian life in Russia-bombarded Aleppo, was nominated for an Oscar. As reported in the New York Times, the Russian media described his film as a 'thinly disguised Al Qaeda promotional vehicle'.

During their most recent speeches to the UNSC, both Jaafari and Nebenzya singled out the White Helmets for attack. The latter claimed that they're "affiliated with terrorist groups" (which is how Russia justifies its vicious targeting of these first responders as they rush to save civilians that Russia claims are really terrorists) and the former claiming that the White Helmets are training civilians in Ghouta to "act out chemical attacks".

Russian state media followed suit, claiming that the White Helmets were "planning another chemical farce" in "the last terrorist enclave" of Ghouta. Here this slander acquires a more terrifyingly ominous quality, not simply given Assad's previous mass murder of people in Ghouta using sarin, but that this propaganda about the White Helmets staging chemical attacks preceded the most recent use of poison gas in Ghouta a few days ago, with one baby being suffocated to death.

Indulging these lies quite literally paves the way for murder.

Russia wants to silence all coverage of the reality of its role in the Syrian genocide, but when it cannot silence it seeks the next best thing: denial and distortion.

Genocide deniers, the most infamous of which are Holocaust deniers, do not seek merely to push crude propaganda for a political cause they support, but they seek to deliver a 'final insult' to their victims by denying their victimhood.

If this is monstrous when it occurs as historical revisionism, it's even worse when the genocide is still unfolding.

While Assad and Russia seeks to literally eradicate people like Muhammad Najem and the White Helmets and all those who seek to live free of him and his allies, they and their privileged mouthpieces seek to eradicate their voices and delegitimise their victimhood as they face what the UN secretary-general called 'hell on earth'.

It will be recorded in history as 'intellectual' dehumanisation and justification that necessarily accompanied Syria's genocide.
Disclaimer: The viewpoints expressed by the authors do not necessarily reflect the opinions, viewpoints and editorial policies of TRT World.

We welcome all pitches and submissions to TRT World Opinion - please send them via email, to opinion.editorial@trtworld.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The dehumanisation of Syria's victims facilitates war crimes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If there was one word, apt to summarise the speeches of both Bashar Jaafari, Assad's envoy to the UN, and his Russian counterpart Vasily Nebenzya speeches to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) regarding their current murderous efforts in Ghouta, it would be denial.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Interpreter

Musa, a 25-year-old Kurdish sniper, on top of a building in the destroyed town of Kobani, also known as Ain al-Arab, in Syria in January 2015. Credit... Bulent Kilic/Agence France-Presse - Getty Images

You could be forgiven, after five years of Syria's war dominating front pages, for feeling lost.

It is easy to track the war's toll: It has killed 400,000 people, displaced millions, opened space for the Islamic State, and sucked in foreign powers, including the United States. It is harder to keep track of the how and why. The basics can seem even more confusing than the day-to-day details.

But those basics are crucial to understanding Syria's war - and they are far more complex than they might initially seem. As last week's truce appears shaky after American planes bombed Syrian troops, here are straightforward answers to some of the fundamental questions about the conflict: an attempt to explain its origins, the broader context and how it relates to the refugee crisis and the rise of the Islamic State.

The war makes more sense if you think of it as four overlapping conflicts.

The core conflict is between forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad and the rebels who oppose him. Over time, both sides fractured into multiple militias, including local and foreign fighters, but their fundamental disagreement is over whether Mr. Assad's government should stay in power.

This opened a second conflict: Syria's ethnic Kurdish minority took up arms amid the chaos. The Kurds carved out a de facto ministate and have gradually taken territory they see as Kurdish - sometimes with backing from the United States, which sees the Kurds as an ally against jihadist groups. While Mr. Assad has not focused on fighting the Kurdish groups, they are opposed by neighboring Turkey, which is in conflict with its own Kurdish minority.

The third conflict involves the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, which emerged out of infighting among jihadist groups. In 2014, the Islamic State seized large parts of Syria and Iraq, and it declared that territory its caliphate. The group has no allies and is at war with all other actors in the conflict.

The fourth, and most complex, dynamic may be the crisscrossing foreign interventions, which have grown steadily. Mr. Assad receives vital support from Iran and Russia, as well as the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah. The rebels are backed by the United States and oil-rich Arab states like Saudi Arabia. These foreign powers have different agendas, but all pursue them by ramping up Syria's violence, helping to perpetuate the war.

Image

Fighters from the Free Syrian Army in Sakba, on the outskirts of Damascus, the Syrian capital, in January 2012. Credit... Tomas Munita for The New York Times

On the surface, the conflict began in 2011 with the Arab Spring. Syrians, like other peoples across the region, rose up peacefully against their authoritarian government. Mr. Assad cracked down violently. Communities took up arms to defend themselves, then fought back in what became a civil war. Some soldiers joined the rebels, but not enough to win.

But that alone does not explain Syria's disintegration. It is now clear that the state was weak in ways that made it inherently unstable and prone to violence.

The government was dominated by a minority group. Over decades, Syria's religious and ethnic divides had taken on greater political importance, making the ruling minority fearful and reactive. Mr. Assad had strong support among the military and security services, but not the broader population, making violence more tempting. The instability was deepened by the fact that rural Syrians had moved to cities in large numbers in recent years, driven in part by droughts linked to climate change.

Fighting, once it began, was worsened by several external factors. A decade of war in neighboring Iraq had produced battle-hardened extremist groups that now flowed into Syria. Iraq's political troubles in 2011 and 2012 helped open space for the Islamic State. During this time, Syria was sucked into the regional power struggle between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Five countries are playing a major role in Syria, each with different agendas. Their interventions have locked the war into an ever-worsening stalemate.

Iran was first, sending supplies and soldiers to prop up Mr. Assad. Iran sees Syria as crucial to its regional strategy: It provides access to Lebanon and therefore Hezbollah, a group Tehran uses for regional influence and as a counterweight to Israel, whose nuclear weapons it fears.

Saudi Arabia supported Syria's rebels in the hopes of replacing Mr. Assad with a friendlier government and of countering Iran's influence. Saudi Arabia and Iran have been rivals for decades, fighting something like a cold war for regional dominance. (Other Arab states like Jordan, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates have also backed the rebels.)

Their struggle has escalated for several reasons: Iran's growing power; the regional power vacuum that opened with the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003 in Iraq; more political vacuums opened by the Arab Spring; a hawkish new king in Saudi Arabia; and Saudi fears that the United States is becoming less hostile toward Iran.

The United States funnels weapons to Syria's rebels. It did so initially out of opposition to Mr. Assad, a longtime enemy, and later to encourage those groups to fight the Islamic State. The United States has also armed Kurdish groups against the Islamic State.

Turkey sheltered Syrian rebels and ushered in foreign recruits, seeking to undermine and perhaps topple Mr. Assad. Later, the country also acted to counter Syrian Kurdish groups, fearing that they could strengthen Kurdish insurgents in Turkey.

Russia has backed Mr. Assad from the beginning, selling him arms and providing diplomatic cover at the United Nations. Syria is one of Russia's last remaining allies, and it is where Moscow maintains its only military bases outside the former Soviet Union. Russian forces intervened in 2015, at a time when Mr. Assad appeared to be losing ground.

There have been atrocities on all sides, but forces loyal to Mr. Assad have committed by far the most. Because his government is so weak - its support base is small and its military has suffered heavy defections - Mr. Assad seems to believe he can regain control only by violently coercing Syrians into submission. That has included using chemical weapons, barrel bombs and starvation.

Because neither Mr. Assad nor the rebels are strong enough to win, the battle lines push back and forth, rolling across communities in waves of destruction that kill thousands but accomplish little else.

Foreign interventions have made those shifting front lines even bloodier and have deepened the stalemate. As a result, the overall violence kills more Syrians without altering the conflict's underlying dynamics.

A man pointed a flashlight at the body of a Syrian man killed by shelling by the Syrian Army at a graveyard in Aleppo, Syria, in 2012. Credit... Manu Brabo/Associated Press

The years of chaos have destroyed basic order in Syria. As often happens in lengthy civil wars, militias have filled the vacuum. Their leaders often behave more as warlords, forcibly extracting resources from local communities. This practice has been carried out by rebel militias and some that support the government.

The rise of the Islamic State has worsened all of these trends. The jihadist group has provided another set of shifting battle lines, introduced more warlords, compelled more foreign interventions and, most of all, put communities under its tyrannical, fanatical rule.

There is nothing innately religious about Syria's war, but its broader political forces have played out along religious lines. To understand why, it helps to start about 100 years ago.

After World War I, France took control of the territory of the defeated Ottoman Empire that is now Syria. France ruled through minority groups that would be too small to hold power without outside support. That included Alawites, followers of a branch of Shiite Islam, who joined the military in large numbers. The last French troops left in 1946, and a long period of turmoil followed. Syria's military consolidated power in a 1970 coup led by Hafez al-Assad, an Alawite general and the father of Bashar al-Assad.

Syria's authoritarian government favored Alawites and other minorities, widening social and political divides along sectarian lines. A sectarian civil war next door in Lebanon and the rise of Sunni religious politics widened them further, and Alawites continued to cluster in positions of power. The country's Sunni Arab majority came to feel, at times, that they were underserved.

Minority governments like Syria's tend to be unstable. They sometimes fear discrimination or worse should they lose power, and can see the majority group as a potential threat rather than a base of support. This can make them more willing to use violence to hold on to power - as Mr. Assad did when his forces opened fire on peaceful protesters in 2011.

As the war has worsened, many Syrians have based their allegiance on sectarian identity. But this is not because they are motived primarily by religious or ethnic concerns. Rather, it is defensive. They fear that the other side will target them for their background, so they feel safe only with their own people. This contributes to atrocities: If Alawites are seen as innately pro-Assad, then Sunni militias could conclude that all Alawite civilians are a threat and treat them accordingly, which prompts more defensive sorting.

Kurdish militia fighters at a forward position on the eastern banks of the Euphrates River in October 2015. Credit... Tyler Hicks/The New York Times

At the same time, the Iran-Saudi Arabia proxy war is also playing out along sectarian lines, with the Saudis backing Sunnis and Iran backing Shiites across the region. For both countries, sectarianism is a tool by which they can cultivate proxy forces and stir up fear of the other side.

The group has its roots in two earlier wars and the foreign occupations that followed: the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. In the first, Sunni Arab volunteers fought alongside Afghan rebels, later forming the global jihadist movement, including Al Qaeda. In the second, Al Qaeda and other Sunni groups flooded to Iraq to fight both the Americans and Iraq's Shiite majority.

A key name is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian extremist who fought in Afghanistan in the 1990s and Iraq in the 2000s. Mr. Zarqawi's views and methods were even more extreme and theatrical than Al Qaeda's. He flourished in Iraq's war, using tactics now associated with the Islamic State: videotaped beheadings, mass killings of fellow Muslims deemed nonbelievers and attacks meant to incite a Sunni-Shiite war.

Al Qaeda invited Mr. Zarqawi to rebrand his group as Al Qaeda in Iraq, but the two factions argued over strategy and ideology, setting them up for conflict a decade later in Syria.

Mr. Zarqawi was killed in 2006, and his group declined as Sunni Iraqis turned against it. Later, Iraq's Shiite-dominated government grew increasingly authoritarian and sectarian, alienating the minority Sunni. It also purged many experienced military and security officers, replacing them with political loyalists.

The successor to Mr. Zarqawi's group, then calling itself the Islamic State in Iraq, exploited these conditions in 2011 and 2012 to reconstitute itself, for example by breaking extremists out of Iraqi prisons. Its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, combined Mr. Zarqawi's views with an apocalypticism taking hold amid the region's upheaval.

Mr. Baghdadi sent a top officer into Syria's war to set up a new Al Qaeda franchise: the Nusra Front, now known as the Levant Conquest Front. In 2013, Mr. Baghdadi declared himself commander of all Al Qaeda forces in Iraq and Syria. After years of tense partnership with Al Qaeda, the groups finally split. Mr. Baghdadi - his force now rebranded as the Islamic State - invaded Syria to fight his former Qaeda allies.

Kurdish refugees on their way to shelters in Turkey as the Islamic State attacked the city of Kobani, Syria, in September 2014. Credit... Bryan Denton for The New York Times

The Islamic State carved out a ministate in Syria's chaos, then used it as a base to invade Iraq in 2014. It repeated Mr. Zarqawi's worst tactics on a far larger scale, committing acts of genocide and mass murder in the Middle East and abroad, and attracting foreign recruits from rich and poor countries alike.

The war in Syria has produced nearly five million refugees. The exodus has created three sets of problems, all dire: a humanitarian crisis for the refugees themselves, a potential crisis for the countries that host them and a political crisis in Europe over what to do.

Syrian refugees face disease and malnutrition. Host countries often bar them from working, meaning that families cannot provide for themselves. Many Syrian children are deprived of education, a problem that could hinder them for life.

Most Syrian refugees are in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, neighboring countries that lack the necessary resources to help them. The influx could be destabilizing, particularly in Jordan and Lebanon where Syrian refugees now make up a large share of the population.

Many refugees, unable to tolerate life in the camps, have braved the dangerous journey to Europe. But European voters have largely rejected them, supporting extreme measures to keep out Syrians and other migrants.

European leaders at one point suspended search-and-rescue missions in the Mediterranean, partly in response to complaints that saving refugees' lives might encourage more to make the journey. Leaders of the campaign to get Britain to leave the European Union based their argument partly on opposition to accepting Syrian refugees.

Europe's attitude appears driven by a combination of economic downturn; hostility toward the European Union, which allows unlimited migration among member states; and demographic anxiety rooted in longer-term trends that have made populations more diverse.

As a result, many refugees are stuck in camps in Italy and Greece. Many others die trying to reach Europe. European countries, along with the United States and Canada, have absorbed thousands of refugees, but not nearly enough to alter the underlying crisis.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Straightforward Answers to Basic Questions About Syria's War

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Interpreter You could be forgiven, after five years of Syria's war dominating front pages, for feeling lost. It is easy to track the war's toll: It has killed 400,000 people, displaced millions, opened space for the Islamic State, and sucked in foreign powers, including the United States.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
UN has peacekeepers in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights near the Israeli-Syrian border [Ammar Awad/Reuters]

The UN chief has called "for an immediate and unconditional de-escalation of violence" after Israel launched intensive air raids on what it called Iranian bases in Syria, raising tensions in the region.

"[A]ll concerned in Syria and the region have a responsibility and must abide by international law and relevant Security Council resolutions," Antonio Guterres said in a statement on Saturday.

"The secretary-general is following closely the alarming military escalation throughout Syria and the dangerous spillover across its borders," the UN chief's spokesman Stephane Dujarric said.

The Israeli army on Saturday launched "large-scale" attacks inside Syria after intercepting what it said was an Iranian drone that entered occupied Golan Heights and the subsequent downing of an Israeli fighter jet by Syrian air defence forces.

The UN chief's reaction came after Russia, which intervened in support of Syria's President Bashar al-Assad in 2015, said they were "seriously concerned" by the confrontation.

"We urge all parties involved to exercise restraint and to avoid any actions that could lead to an even greater complication of the situation," Russia's foreign ministry said in a statement.

"We consider it necessary to unconditionally respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria and other countries of the region," it added.

US support

The White House expressed its support for Israel after the hostilities.

"Israel is a staunch ally of the United States, and we support its right to defend itself from the Iranian-backed Syrian and militia forces in southern Syria," the White House statement released late on Saturday read.

"We call on Iran and its allies to cease provocative actions and work toward regional peace."

The Pentagon and the Department of State made similar comments earlier on Saturday.

The Syrian military and its allies denied that the drone violated Israel's airspace, Syria's state-run SANA news agency reported.

The joint operations room, run by Syria, Iran, Russia and Hezbollah, said the aircraft was on a regular mission gathering intelligence on fighters of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant ( ISIL, also known as ISIS).

Sources in Damascus said there were casualties among Syrian forces.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based monitor, said Israel had targeted several bases in the east of the central province of Homs.

It said the bases are used by both Iranians and Russians deployed in support of the regime.

Israel is technically at war with Syria and occupies a swath of the strategic Golan Heights that it seized in the Six Day War of 1967 and later annexed in a move never recognised by the international community.

Israel has sought to avoid direct involvement in the Syria conflict but acknowledges carrying out dozens of air raids there to stop what it calls deliveries of advanced weaponry to Hezbollah.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
UN calls for immediate de-escalation in Syria

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The UN chief has called "for an immediate and unconditional de-escalation of violence" after Israel launched intensive air raids on what it called Iranian bases in Syria, raising tensions in the region. "[A]ll concerned in Syria and the region have a responsibility and must abide by international law and relevant Security Council resolutions," Antonio Guterres said in a statement on Saturday.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A US plan to form a new border security force in the northeast of Syria has drawn condemnation from major powers in the region, including Turkey and Russia.

Under the plan, the US-led coalition fighting against ISIL in the war-torn area would recruit 30,000 fighters into the new force, according to US officials.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said the US was working to form a "terror army" on his country's southern border by training and supplying the force that would include Kurdish fighters.

Purpose of the force

The force would not be entirely new, drawing from existing recruitment and initial training programmes, said Ryan Dillon, spokesman for the US-led coalition, officially known as the Combined Joint Task Force - Operation Inherent Resolve.

"The coalition is working jointly with the [Syrian Democratic Forces] to establish and train the new Syrian Border Security Force (BSF)," Dillon told Turkey's state-run Anadolu news agency.

"Currently, there are approximately 230 individuals training in the BSF's inaugural class, with the goal of a final force size of approximately," he said.

Dillon said efforts were taken to ensure individuals served in areas close to their homes.

"Therefore, the ethnic composition of the force will be relative to the areas in which they serve.

"More Kurds will serve in the areas in northern Syria. More Arabs will serve in the areas along the Euphrates River Valley and along the border with Iraq to the south," Dillon said.

Kurdish fighters' involvement

Around half of the new force will reportedly be recruited from the SDF, an umbrella group of fighters dominated by the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) in control of the northeast of Syria.

The US views the YPG as a highly effective fighting force against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant ( ISIL, also known as ISIS) and President Donald Trump decided to arm YPG fighters earlier this year.

The US arms shipments began before the launch of a months-long offensive to remove ISIL from the Syrian city of Raqqa, its self-declared capital. The YPG played a prominent role in the eventual defeat of the group later in 2017.

Turkey's reaction: Threatens to intervene

The YPG is considered a "terrorist group" by Turkey over its ties to the banned Kurdistan Workers' Party ( PKK), which has waged a decades-long fight inside the country.

The PKK is also blacklisted as a "terrorist organisation" by Turkey and its Western allies. More than 40,000 people in Turkey have been killed since the 1980s after the PKK launched its rebellion.

The PKK's initial aim was achieving an independent Kurdish state, but later changed it to a demand for equal rights and Kurdish autonomy in Turkey.

Ankara is furious over US plans to form the new force with Kurdish fighters and has responded by reinforcing the border with Syria with more of its troops.

A military operation in northern Syria against the city of Afrin - controlled by the Syrian Kurdish armed group YPG - will be launched "in the days ahead", said on the issue, accusing the US of forming a "terror army".

Russia's reaction: Syria cut into pieces

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov criticised the reported US move, accusing Washington of seeking to establish a Kurdish-controlled entity along Turkish and Iraqi border zones.

He claimed that the Trump administration "did not want to keep Syria as a state in its current borders".

"What it would mean is that vast swaths of territory along the border of Turkey and Iraq would be isolated, it's to the east of the Euphrates River. There are difficult relations between Kurds and Arabs there," Lavrov said.

"There is a fear that they are pursuing a policy to cut Syria into several pieces," he added.

Syria's reaction: Breach of sovereignty

The Syrian government denounced the new border force in northern Syria as a "blatant assault" on its sovereignty.

"Syria strongly condemns the US announcement on the creation of militias in the country's northeast, which represents a blatant attack on the sovereignty and territorial integrity and unity of Syria, and a flagrant violation of international law," a government source, cited by state news agency SANA, said.

"Syria considers any Syrian who participates in these militias sponsored by the Americans as a traitor to their people and nation, and will deal with them on this basis," the official was cited as saying.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
New US-backed Syria force: Five things you should know

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A US plan to form a new border security force in the northeast of Syria has drawn condemnation from major powers in the region, including Turkey and Russia. Under the plan, the US-led coalition fighting against ISIL in the war-torn area would recruit 30,000 fighters into the new force, according to US officials.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
After nearly seven years of conflict, the war in Syria has all but subsided.

The fighting and bloodshed that once spanned the entirety of the Arab nation have been relegated to a few areas, raising the question of whether the country will see at least some semblance of stability in 2018.

With the help of Russia and Iran, forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad transformed the fight against armed opposition groups aiming to overthrow the government into a "war against terrorism".

A relentless Russian bombing campaign, and the deployment of tens of thousands of Iranian-backed troops to aid Assad's men, slowly dealt the armed opposition one blow after another.

The rise of al-Qaeda linked groups and theIslamic State of Iraq and the Levant ( ISIL) allowed the Syrian government to turn the narrative of a revolution against the government into a battle against "extremist" groups.

But while violence has significantly decreased and is expected to continue to do so in 2018, political analysts say the country is unlikely to see a meaningful, political solution to the conflict any time soon.

The lack of a political solution, they say, will mean that violence will continue.

"The Syrian government seems to be winning, in a slow, painful, imperfect sort of way. Large areas of the country will remain beyond the control of Damascus for a long time still, and violence could ebb and flow for years," Aron Lund, a fellow with The Century Foundation think-tank, told Al Jazeera.

"The various peace processes may succeed in tuning down the violence in various ways, but a genuine political transition seems off the table. It probably always was," he said.

Where is fighting taking place and why?

In May 2017, Russia, Iran, and Turkey - which supports the armed opposition - agreed to implement a plan for " de-escalation zones". The plan was aimed at halting fighting and offering safety to civilians in those areas.

The areas consist of Idlib province, East Ghouta, northern Homs province and the country's south.

But the Syrian government and its allies have not abided by the agreement and continue to target all areas included in the deal apart from the south.

The most severe fighting is now focused in three main areas:

- Eastern Ghouta - a rebel-held enclave near the government-controlled capital Damascus

- The Idlib-Hama region in northwest Syria

- The country's far eastern region along the Euphrates where remnants of ISIL (also known as ISIS) continue to operate

For the Syrian government, the proximity of Eastern Ghouta to the capital Damascus makes it a key target.

The area is under the control of groups loyal to the Free Syrian Army (FSA), a loose conglomeration of armed brigades made up of Syrian army defectors and ordinary civilians, which receive financial and logistical support from the United States, Turkey, and several Gulf countries.

Since 2013, the government has maintained a suffocating siege on the area in an effort to weaken the rebel groups and continues to shell it despite the so-called de-escalation agreement.

In Idlib province, however, a former al-Qaeda affiliated group, known as Hay'et Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), dominates.

While HTS is centred mainly in the city, some 40 armed groups affiliated with the FSA also have control in other areas of the province, according to Omar Kouch, a Syrian political analyst based in Turkey.

Kouch estimates that HTS men number around 10,000, while FSA-linked fighters amount to some 30,000.

"The pretext that the Syrian government is using to attack Idlib is that there is HTS. But Idlib is very important to the regime and to Russia because Turkey also wants to deploy its forces there based on the de-escalation agreement," Kouch told Al Jazeera from Istanbul.

"Thus, the agreement is not being respected - shelling on Idlib did not stop for a single day."

The Idlib-Hama region is strategically important for the government and Russia as it is near to the coastal region where the Russian-operated Syrian Khmeimim airbase sits.

The third area witnessing bouts of violence is Syria's far-eastern region along the Euphrates - between al-Mayadin and al-Bukamal - where ISIL remains potent and continues to launch attacks, challenging Assad's forces and US-backed Kurdish forces, which have control over much of Syria's north and east.

Is a political solution imminent?

On the international level, there are two main tracks of diplomacy centred around finding a peaceful political solution to the conflict.

The first is the UN-sponsored talks in Geneva, Switzerland, which began in 2012 and are ongoing. The main aim of the track has been to achieve a political transition in Syria, but it has consistently failed to achieve that goal.

The main obstacle has been the fate of Assad: while the Syrian government has consistently refused to entertain any prospect of Assad stepping down, the armed opposition has made clear its position that Assad's removal is the only option for peace.

Russia's military intervention in 2015 changed the balance of power on the ground and placed Assad's forces firmly in control.

It then largely took over the diplomatic process after its air force helped the Syrian government and allied Iran-backed fighters retake eastern Aleppo from the armed opposition in December 2016.

In 2017, the Kremlin decided to launch another diplomatic track - in Astana, Kazakhstan - with the sponsorship of Turkey and Iran.

The Astana track brought fighters from armed groups to the negotiating table for the first time and said it aimed to achieve a military ceasefire, address the issue of detainees in government prisons, and facilitate humanitarian aid to civilians.

But the main development to come out of the Astana talks has been agreement on the so-called de-escalation zones that have largely been unsuccessful.

Most recently, Russia opened a new track for talks at the Black Sea resort of Sochi, which it called the "Syrian national dialogue congress", set to take place in late January.

"The Russians want to frame the conflict in Syria as a civil war. That's why they gave (the Sochi talks) that name. They're trying to enforce the idea that the talks will reconcile between sects that are at war in Syria and that all that is needed are a few changes in the constitution and elections, which Assad will be able to run for," said Kouch.

"The conflict in Syria is a conflict over political transition, but the Russians are trying to change the narrative. That's why Geneva was sidelined and Sochi will now be the new political track," he added.

Kouch believes the meeting in Sochi will be "as though Syrians have moved past the phase of war and must now enter the phase of peace and reconstruction".

Future scenarios

While Russia and the Syrian governments may succeed in enforcing a military solution and significantly decrease levels of violence, the opposition says that any plan that excludes a political transition will inevitably fail and will hinder Assad's ability to regain full control over the country.

Mohammad Sabra, the former chief negotiator for the largest Syrian opposition bloc, the High Negotiations Committee (HNC), says that while he expects there will be less bloodshed in 2018, the "revolution will manifest itself in different forms if Assad is not removed from his position".

"The rise of the armed opposition came one and a half years after the revolution began. It's not about the armed groups - it's about the demands of the Syrian people," he told Al Jazeera from the United Arab Emirates.

The armed opposition continues to receive logistical support and funding from the United States, Turkey and several Gulf countries, albeit at lower levels.

James Gelvin, a professor of the Middle East at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), believes that aid for opposition groups will continue to decline, but will not end, meaning the rebels will be able to continue fighting for some time to come.

"Most of the territorial gains the government has made during the past two years have been accomplished by the Lebanese group Hezbollah, Iranian units, Iranian-trained and controlled militias, and private militias, not by government forces per se," Gelvin told Al Jazeera, explaining that the Syrian government forces are worn out.

"The former Arab League and United Nations envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, was correct several years ago when he predicted the Syrian civil war would end with the 'Somalization' of Syria.

"Like Somalia, Syria will have an internationally recognised government and permanent representation at the United Nations," Gelvin explained.

"However, like the government of Somalia, the government of Syria will reign but not rule over the entirety of its internationally recognised borders."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Will Syria see a political solution in 2018?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After nearly seven years of conflict, the war in Syria has all but subsided. The fighting and bloodshed that once spanned the entirety of the Arab nation have been relegated to a few areas, raising the question of whether the country will see at least some semblance of stability in 2018.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At the start of 2018, Syria is on many minds because of the millions either dead, wounded or made refugees.

The outgoing year was a good year for President Bashar al-Assad, as forces recaptured major cities and large areas of rebel-held territory.

The Russian resort of Sochi is due to host a new round of talks in January.

But after so many failed negotiations, what kind of political settlement is possible?

Presenter: Hashem Ahelbarra
Guests:
Yahya Al Aridi - spokesman for the Syrian Negotiating Committee

Alexey Khlebnikov - Middle East expert at the Russian International Affairs Council

Sami Nader - director of the Levant Institute for Strategic Affairs

Source: Al Jazeera News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Could 2018 be the year of peace in Syria?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At the start of 2018, Syria is on many minds because of the millions either dead, wounded or made refugees. The outgoing year was a good year for President Bashar al-Assad, as forces recaptured major cities and large areas of rebel-held territory. The Russian resort of Sochi is due to host a new round of talks in January.