Philippine President Duterte declares unilateral ceasefire with NPA due to coronavirus

(March 20) The Philippines are backing away from their long lasting war against the communist New People's Army (NPA) this week due to concerns about the war's effect on the spread of the coronavirus.

Philippine President orders a unilateral ceasefire

Rodrigo Duterte the Philippine President ordered both police and military to cease all offensive against the New People's Army beginning on Thursday March 19 and lasting through April15. He urged the NPA to respond in kind. The NPA a Maoist group founded in March of 1969 has been trying to overthrow the Philippine government by armed struggle as well as political means for generations now. It controls some areas of the countryside.

Philiippine Interior Secretary Eduardo Ano told the national police to shift to a defensive posture. He also urged the NPA to respond by declaring a ceasefire also. Ano said: “We call on them to be a part of the solution in fighting our common enemy, the coronavirus."

Peace efforts so far have failed

There have been several periods in which there have been peace talks. In 2016 there was an effort by the Netherlands to get peace talks going. Each side accused the other of being responsible for the breakdown of the talks. The Duterte ceasefire might perhaps provide some impetus to restart talks. Even if peace talks are not restarted at least the spread of the coronavirus may be slowed and fewer Filipinos will be casualties either of the war or the virus.

Though Duterte has often criticized the rebels he has also often given signs that he would be willing to resume negotiations with them. The Philippine military has estimated the group's fighters to number less that 5,000 nationwide. However, the NPA is the armed wing of the Philippine Communist Party and through various front groups has considerable political influence in some areas.

The coronavirus in the Philippines

In total there are 217 confirmed cases of the coronavirus in the Philippines. The north is under quarantine to try and prevent the virus from spreading beyond that area. Manila the capital is at present closed to land sea and air travel.

The Philippines has 217 confirmed cases of coronavirus, and has quarantined the country’s north to try to prevent it spreading beyond that area. Manila is currently closed to land, sea, and air travel.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Houthis take northern province in Yemen and move south

(March 18)Yemen's rebel Houthi movement reported on Tuesday that they had taken control of almost the whole of Jawf Province a northern province that borders Saudi Arabia. The advance marks one of the largest gains for the group in months.

Houthis may push south into oil and gas producing areas

Yahya Saree, a spokesperson for the Houthis, said Tuesday that they’ve overtaken almost all of Al-Jawf province. This will free Houthi forces to concentrate on moving south.

While controlling more border areas is useful the Houthis,who are supported by Iran, already control much of the north including the capital Sanaa. Indications are that the Houthis will now will try to push south into Maarib Province. Here Yemen's limited but nevertheless valuable oil and gas industries are based.

Fighting escalates in Maarib

On Tuesday, fighting had already escalated in Maarib with clashes killing 18. Both sides claimed they had the advantage. However, as with much fighting lately in other central provinces the fighting could be a stalemate and could continue for some time. However, with the northern border area secured there could be Houthi reinforcement strengthening their side.

The Houthis may be anxious to seize more territory as leverage in future peace talks providing them with the superior bargaining position.

Saudis would like to see peace talks

The Saudis would like to see peace talks. The war has been costly both in financial terms and in the international reputation of Saudi Arabia. Dropping oil prices make it even more difficult to finance the war. The Saudis would agree to having the Houthis share in power with the Saudi supported Hadi government, whom the Saudis have been trying unsuccessfully so far to reinstate. However, Hadi has resisted any such solution demanding complete defeat of the Houthis. Saudis may decide that peace is more important than Hadi's demands and may end up agreeing to terms that Hadi will either have to accept or lose any Saudi support. Hadi might be wise to accept a power-sharing agreement with the Houthis as they appear to be gaining ground rather than facing defeat. Otherwise, he could end up with no power at all.

The five year war has had huge humanitarian consequences. Since a Saudi bombing campaign began back in 2015 tens of thousands of people have been killed and the attacks have created one of the worst humanitarian crises on the globe.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Afghan government postpones prisoner swap with the Taliban

(March 16)  On February 29 the Taliban and US signed a peace deal in Afghanistan. Since then the largest threat to the agreement is that the Ghani government has refused to follow through with a prisoner swap that was part of the agreement to build confidence.

Afghan government response to prisoner swap

The Afghan government was not a signatory to the deal and it argued that the US did not have the authority to demand the prisoner release. The government refused to honor the agreement. This resulted in the Taliban declaring that the period of violence reduction was over as far as attacks on the Afghan government was concerned. However, the Taliban still refrained from attacking foreign troops. However, the US intervened to protect the government against a Taliban attack so the Taliban as a result attacked the US troops as well.

Ghani promises a smaller prisoner release

The Afghan government had tried to save the deal by a compromise that would see a smaller release. The US deal had promised that 5,000 Taliban prisoners would be released but in a recent edict Ghani said he would be released at the rate of about 100 per day up to 1500. The rest were to be released after further negotiations and on condition that the Taliban continued to reduce violence.

Taliban reject smaller phased release

Suhail Shaheen, spokesperson for the Taliban said: "We reject Ghani's phased release of prisoners. We will also make sure at the time of the prisoners release that they are releasing the list of prisoners we have provided them with. Once this is done, we will proceed with the intra-Afghan talks."

Ghani now puts any release on hold

Apparently, Afghan officials are wanting to further review the list given them by the Taliban to see which members on the liast are likely to return to fighting in the future. Past delays had already been threatening the peace process. Ghani is making it difficult for the US as it has not been able to keep the terms of the agreement because of the Afghan government action.

Even to get the smaller phased release the US had to commit to attending Ghani's inauguration. His nomination is contested and rival Abdullah Abdullah also claims to be the president. This is the second time that the presidential election of Ghani over Abdullah has been in doubt. The first time in 2014 a special post of Chief Executive was created for Abdullah and Ghani remained president. Perhaps something similar will be worked out this time around.

Ghani may have a similar problem with the US, as his edict on prisoner releases came in return for the US committing to send attendees to his inauguration. The US followed through. Now the US is probably going to resent Afghani now creating a further obstacle to enforcing the US Taliban peace deal. The Taliban will not negotiate directly with the Afghan government because they consider it to be a puppet of the US. However, the strings on the puppet appear not to be working at all as they should.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Iraq to file complaint to UN Security Council after US airstrikes

(March 16)After the US carried out a number of airstrikes in Iraq , Iraq's Foreign Ministry announced that they will submit a formal complaint to the UN Security Council accusing the US of aggression and violation of Iraq's sovereignty.

Earlier on Friday, the Iraqi military said that the air strikes had killed six people and were a violation of Iraqi sovereignty. The strikes may provide more energy to anti-government protests shown in the appended video.

The US narrative

The US blames Iraqi Shii'ite militia for firing rockets at US bases. One attack killed a US soldier a contractor and a UK soldier. The US attacked at least five bases all in Iraq. The militia in the bases are all financed and approved by the Iraqi government and are in effect a part of the Iraqi security forces.

While the US may see its attacks as justified in self-defense, the Iraqi government warns that the US actions destabilize the situation. One would think that it would be obvious to the US that attacking the forces of a sovereign nation in which they have bases would be create even more anti-US feelings. Protests against the government will likely escalate again. The government faces a crisis after the interim Prime Minister resigned and then the PM designate also resigned since he could not gain the support of lawmakers and protesters. Earlier the Iraqi parliament passed a motion 170 to 0 that all foreign troops should be withdrawn from Iraq.

The US so far has refused to discuss withdrawing from Iraq although it has decided to close some smaller bases and consolidate its operations.

This is not the first Iraqi complaint to the UN. In January Iraq's Foreign Ministry submitted a similar complaint after the US assassinated key Iranian General Qassem Soleiman in a drone attack near Baghdad airport. The complaint argued the strike violated Iraqi sovereignty as it was done without Iraqi authorization or even notification.

Iraqi resolution will have no practical effect

The US has a veto in the UN Security Council. Any resolution critical of US actions will promptly be vetoed and have no practical effect. No resolution might be forthcoming as members would realize it would only be vetoed. Many members of the Council probably do not want to face disapproval of the US by supporting any critical resolution.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Thirty Six percent of all global arms trades during last five years have been US weaons

(March 15) Thirty six percent of all weapons traded globally are now made in the US. Major arms transfers from the US went to 96 different countries. Russia is the second largest exporter but its shipments have been dropping and now are 21 percent of global exports.

	1 of 2

Five countries make over three quarters of global arms

The five largest exporters of weapons over the last five years are: US, Russia, France, Germany, and China. During the period 2015-2019 the five accounted for 76 percent of all arms exports. The the US and Russia are number one and two, France has established itself as the third largest dealer, according to date from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) which recently reported on trends during the last five years. France had the largest increase in arms exports within the top five exporters reaching their highest level since 1990 and accounted for 7.9 percent of total arms exports. German and Chinese exports also rose.

SIPRI researcher Alexandra Kuimova noted that Russia had lost traction in India a main recipient of Russian arms and this has led to the Russian decline in exports. The decline has led to a widening gap between US and Russian sales increasing the US lead.

The total volume of exports of major arms during the last five years was 5.5 percent higher than in the 2010 to 2014 period and a full 20 percent higher than between 2005-2009.

Middle East imports increasing

The SIPRI report indicates that countries in the MIddle East have been increasing their weapons imports over the five year period by 61 percent. Saudi Arabia is the largest importer of weapons worldwide. Pieter Wezeman a senior researcher at SIPRI says that fully half of US exports during the last five years have been to the Middle East and half of those have been to Saudi Arabia.

European countries account for over a quarter of global arms trade

Of total arms trade, European countries were responsible for over 25 percent of the total. During the last five years exports have grown by more than 5 percent between 2015 to 2019. From the five year period 2010-14 and 2015-19 arms exports to the Middle East and Europe increase while exports to Africa, North and South America, Asia and Oceania decreased.

Top countries for military spending

A SIPRI report from 2018 lists the top countries in terms of military spending. The top five were in order: US, China, Saudi Arabia, China and India in 2017. Worldwide expenditures that year were estimated at $1.7 trillion. This is the highest level of military spending since the end of the Cold War. The top five countries accounted for 60 percent of total spending. In 2017 the US alone spent $610 billion on its military. This is over a third of total world expenditures. It spends 2.7 times as much as second highest spender China.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Egypt reported to be giving military assistance to Kurds in Syria

(March 14) Since the US has pulled its support from the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Force(SDF) in Syria, Turkish forces have advance into Syria and driven them out of some areas of Syria's northeast. The Turks also support jihadist rebels in Idlib province.

Egypt reported to be proving aid for the Kurds

Unnamed Egyptian sources report that Egypt is giving major military assistance to the SDF in Syria to help them in their conflict with Turkey. Egypt has also provided the SDF with a diplomatic office in the capital Cairo and also a TV station. This has encouraged the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Saudi Arabia to give financial aid to the SDF as well. Egypt appears to be leading Arab States in giving aid to the SDF in order to stop Turkish incursion into Syria.

Turkey has angered Arab States

Turkey has angered some Arab States notably Egypt and the UAE with its support for the internationally-recognized Libyan Government of National Accord (GNA). Turkey has sent forces to fight against those of commander Khalifa Haftar whose Libyan National Army militia control much of Libya, especially in the east. The help to the Kurds can be seen as in part retaliation for Turkey's move.

Assad regime agrees to send fighters to Libya

London-based Al-Araby Al-Jadeed newspaper said Friday that the Syrian government would send 3,000 Syrian fighters to join in helping out Khalifa Haftar who is attacking the Libyan capital Tripoli. The transfer of the troops will take place after an expanded agreement between the Assad government and Major General Khalifa along with Egypt, the paper claims. The troops are to travel by air to Egypt and then travel via a land crossing into Libya.

In other Egyptian news, four human rights organizations have suggested that given the coronavirus situation Egypt needs to consider the high level of overcrowding in prison cells and places of detention. The four said there was poor ventilation and sanitation with many prisoners suffering from diseases. The groups said that authorities should immediately release prisoners and detainees and use measures such as travel bans and house arrests for those released. This would help stop the rapid spread of the virus. Egypt has reported 80 cases of the coronavirus with two deaths and 27 recovered.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Iraq condemns US retaliatory attacks after US bases hit by rockets

(March 14) Barham Salih, the Iraqi president, issued a statement on Friday that angrily condemned a group of US airstrikes hitting suspected Iranian-back rebels suspected of carrying out the raids.

Iraq claims raids violate Iraqi sovereignty

Salih said the US raids amounted to serious violation of Iraqi sovereignty and could provoke dangerous consequences. Salih added that the attacks amounted to a "dangerous and deliberate weakening of it abilities especially at a time when Iraq faces unprecedented challenges". Iraq is in political crisis right now which is why the president rather than the Prime Minister(PM) made the announcement. There is no PM as the acting PM resigned in recent weeks and the PM-designate has resigned as he lacks sufficient political support from lawmakers and protesters.

US narrative describes attacks as on terrorist bases

The US air attacks targeted Kataib Hezbollah a militia that is part of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) that are approved and financed by the Iraqi government. Wikipedia says of the PMF: "It has been called the new Iraqi Republican Guard after it was fully reorganized in early 2018 by its then-Commander in Chief Haider al-Abadi. Former Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi issued "regulations to adapt the situation of the Popular Mobilization fighters," giving them ranks and salaries equivalent to other branches of the Iraqi military." The mainstream media usually just uses the phrase "Iran-backed militia" to describe the group ignoring the crucial facts that they are Iraqi and in effect part of the Iraqi armed forces. This explains the angry responses when they are attacked. The mainstream media also leave out other important information such as the 170 to 0 vote in the Iraqi parliament asking that all foreign troops withdraw from Iraq. In spite of these militia being in effect part of Iraqi forces the US feels that it can attack them with impunity.

There was one civilian killed in the US attack, a cook. The death toll included three soldiers and two policeman. Four soldiers, two policemen, one civilian, and five militia were reported wounded.

Salih has even warned that the Iraqi government could simply unravel under this US pressure and become a faiead more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/world/op-ed-iraq-condemns-us-retaliatory-raids-as-another-attack-hits-us-base/article/568736#ixzz6MM17KVQ7led state. This might result in the resurgence of the Islamic State which the PMF had helped defeat. As of now the Islamic State is struggling to survive. The US which is supposedly in Iraq to help combat the Islamic State and other radical jihadists seems oblivious to these possible consequences. Or perhaps control of the Iraqi government is of more concern to them than defeating the Islamic State. For the US it is Iran not the Islamic State which is the enemy.

A second rocket attack on US Iraq base

The tit-for -tat actions continue as Iraqi security officials report a barrage of rockets on Saturday hit the Camp Taji base north of Baghdad that house US and other coalition troops. The officials claimed over a dozen rockets had rained down on the base some hitting coalition headquarters while others fell on a runway used by Iraqi forces. An earlier attack on Wednesday had killed two Americans plus one UK soldier. There has been no immediate word on any casualties in the second attack which was made in broad daylight rather than at night which is more common. Should the US respond again the Iraqi government may not be able to withstand pressure for the US to withdraw.

Shortly after treaty with Taliban US begins withdrawing some troops from Afghanistan

(March 10) Only a week after the US and Taliban signed an Afghan peace deal the first few hundred US troops are rotating out of the country. Although the rotation was planned before the agreement the troops will not be replaced in accordance with the deal.

	1 of 2

Many troops still remain to be withdrawn

After a few hundred withdrawn troops, this will still leave about 13,000 US troops in Afghanistan. The deal with the Taliban would see a further reduction in the near term to a level of about 8,600. If the Taliban keep their commitments under the deal then the remaining troops would be withdrawn, finally ending the 19-year war. The Taliban are to insure jihadists such as Al Qaeda be kept out of areas controlled by the Taliban. Also, the Taliban must enter into intra-Afghan talks including with members of the Afghan government. The deal is so worded that the US could easily claim that the Taliban has not honored the deal and cease their withdrawal.

Afghan government response to deal complicates the situation

As a confidence building measure the deal with the Taliban requires the Afghan government to release 5,000 Taliban prisoners before the start of talks between the government members and the Taliban. However, the Afghan government was not part of the deal and on March 1 President Ghani rejected the prisoner exchange claiming the Afghan government had not agreed to the swap and it was only the authority of the Afghan government that could have the prisoners released. Subsequently, the Taliban started attacks on the government again as no talks had been worked out with no prisoner exchange taking place, and the 7 day reduction in violence period was over. However, they did not attack US or other foreign forces.

On March 10 Ghani signed a decree that ordered the Afghan government to start releasing 1,500 Taliban prisoners on March 14 if they agree to sign pledges they will not return to battle. However, if the pledges are not made the decree will be void. It remains to be seen if this will satisfy the Taliban. The same day the US began troop withdrawal.

Afghan government faces its own problems

President Ahraf Ghani has been declared the winner of last September's election. However, challenger Abdullah Abdullah has charged that there was fraud in the vote, along with the elections complaints commission. This threatens the next steps in the peace process and could even result in violence.

On Monday both Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah held swearing in ceremonies. There was an explosion at Ghani's swearing in. The two had been unsuccessful in negotiating a compromise the night before.

In 2014 the situation was similar. Ghani was declared the winner but Abdullah Abdullah contested the result. After two months of talks aided by US mediation a compromise was reached. Ghani remained president but a new position was created Chief Executive Officer of Afghanistan and Abdullah Abdullah was awarded that position. The two also agreed to what was called a national unity government. However the CEO office was not renewed when the new election was called. It remains to be seen if it will be necessary for another compromise to be negotiated between the two contending parties.

The issue should be cleared up before talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government take place.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

SXSW gathering cancelled this year because of COVID-19 pandemic

(March 8) South by Southwest (SXSW) is an annual gathering of film, interactive media and music festivals and conferences that run parallel to each other. SXSW joins numerous other events in cancelling the event this year due to concerns about the corona virus.

Austin Texas mayor cancels SXSW

The SXSW is held annually in Austin Texas. Mayor Steve Adler said in a press conference on Friday: "Based on the recommendation of our public health official and director of public health and after consultation with our city manager I've gone ahead and declared a local disaster. And along with that issued an order that cancels SXSW this year." Adler said that it was unfortunate that he had to cancel the event.

Mark Escott, the interim medical director and health authority for Austin Public Health noted the large size and scale of the event along with the many opportunities for close person to person contact during the events as factors in the decision to cancel the event. He also expressed concern that the event would attract attendees from affected areas to Austin. At the same time, he said there was no reason for the public to panic. Escott said the public could take precautions such as washing hands and staying home if sick. Sarah Eckhardt the local Travis County judge said that cancellation was not a panic decision.

On the SXSW website organizers of the event promised they would comply with the city's announcement. The website said: "We are devastated to share this news with you. 'The show must go on' is in our DNA, and this is the first time in 34 years that the March event will not take place. We are now working through the ramifications of this unprecedented situation." The organizers are looking at the possibility of rescheduling the events as well as providing an online visual experience as soon as possible for the 2020 participants.

Key participants in SXSW had already cancelled plans to attend

Perhaps another reason SKSW should be cancelled was that many important participants had already decided they would not attend a fact that would no doubt lower attendance considerably. Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, and Netflix all gave notice they would not be attending early in March. Apple also withdrew later. As a result screenings and other events would not take place making it likely that people would decide not to attend.

SXSW

SXSW was scheduled from March 13 to March 23 in Austin. The SXSW started way back in 1987. Last year the even had about 417,400 attendees. Those attending came from 105 different countries other than the US. The events at SXSW cover topics that include film, music, digital branding, environmental sustainability, and science and technology. The conference usually runs through two weekends.

Other events have also been cancelled

GSMA that sponsors the mobile phone meeting Mobile World Congress in Barcelona cancelled the show for this year. Facebook and Google also decided they would not hold their usual annual conferences over concerns about the coronavirus. Up to now the virus has claimed over 3,000 lives. The illness first appeared on New Year's eve centered in China''s Hubei province but there are now many cases in South Korea, Italy, Japan and Iran among other countries.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

US will block any investigation of US soldiers by the International Criminal Court (ICC)

(March 6) US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo claimed that the International Criminal Court (ICC) investigation of possible war crimes by the US, Taliban, and others in Afghanistan undermines the peace deal signed February 29 with the Taliban.

	1 of 2

Pompeo criticizes the ICC

The US does not recognize the court and had always opposed its formation. Pompeo said that the court was an unaccountable political institution masquerading as a legal body. Pompeo claimed it was reckless to even suggest an investigation after a peace deal was reached, and he said that the US would take all necessary measures to shield US personnel from the investigation,

US policy has often been to undermine the ICC

The US has taken a number of measures against the ICC but different US governments have had differing and complex relations with the court as a Wikipedia article points out. Under US law the court cannot even investigate any US personnel accused of war crimes. The US State Dept. is restricting visas of ICC officials to make sure that they do not come to the US to investigate any Americans.

In September 2018, President Donald Trump criticized the ICC before the United Nations. In April of 2019 the US revoked the visa of Fatou Bensouda the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court in anticipation of a later investigation into US war crimes in Afghanistan. The investigation was eventually authorized in March of 2020.

American Service-Members' Protection Act (ASPA)

The ASPA was enacted August 2 in 2002. The aim of the federal law is "to protect United States military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the United States government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not party."

The act authorizes the US president to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any US or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by on behalf of or at the request of the ICC. This provision has led to ASPA being nicknamed the Hague Invasion Act. ASPA prohibits US federal, state, and local governments including courts and law enforcement agencies from assisting the ICC. For example no person can be extradited from the US to the ICC. The act also bans US military aid to countries that are party to the court. However, there are numerous exceptions and waivers.

Bilateral Immunity Agreements (BIAs)

A Wikipedia article explains the background of the BIA: "Article 98 of the Rome Statute prohibits the ICC from requesting assistance or the surrender of a person to the ICC if to do so would require the state to "act inconsistently" with its obligations under international law or international agreements unless the state or the third-party state waives the immunity or grants cooperation.[62] The U.S. has interpreted this article to mean that its citizens cannot be transferred to the ICC by any state that has signed a bilateral agreement with the U.S. prohibiting such a transfer, even if the state is a member of the Rome Statute. The U.S. actively pressured states to conclude such so-called Article 98 agreements, otherwise known as bilateral immunity agreements (BIAs)."

By 2006 over one hundred BIA's were in place. Several countries lost aid both military and other aid because they refused to sign such agreements. However, by 2009 with Obama in office the aid restrictions on those not signing BIAs were dropped. Restrictions under ASPA had also been repealed under Bush

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Russia and Turkey agree to a ceasefire in the Syrian province of Idlib

(March 5) Russia and Turkey have agreed to a ceasefire in the northwestern Syrian province of Idlib that will begin at midnight local time. The ceasefire may be just in time to avoid escalation of conflict in the province into a major conflict.

The agreement

As well as the ceasefire, Russian leader Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Erdogan agreed to establish a security corridot and joint patrols. The agreement comes after last month 36 soldiers were killed in a Syrian offensive to regain control of the province with the help of Russian air cover. Turkey reacted by sending in more troops and equipment and launching a counter-offensive. There were fears of an escalating military conflict involving direct clashes between Turkey and Russia. The agreement appears to have avoided that for the present at least. The agreement was arrived at after about six hours of talks in Moscow.

The ceasefire will be along the entire line of contact between the two opposing forces. There will be a security corridor that will stretch 6 kilometers north and 6 km south of the key M4 motorway connecting Syrian-held Aleppo with the Latakia region it also holds to the south. The joint patrols will start March 15.

Earlier agreement had been violated

Back in September of 2018 Putin and Erdogan had agreed that Idlib should be turned into a de-escalation zone. The area was to become a buffer zone between the two sides with clear lines of control set out. However, fighting has continued. However, fighting continued in the area and terms of the agreement were often violated. Idlib province is mostly controlled by jihadist rebels with connections to Al Qaeda but Turkey has strongly supported them. Russia has claimed that Turkish listening posts and fortified rebel positions have virtually merged. This may explain how Turkish forces suffered casualties.

Erdogan warns of response to any attack by Syria

Erdogan says that Turkey reserved the right to retaliate with all its strength against any attack by Syrian forces. However, it is not clear that Assad has given up the idea of recovering all of Idlib which is part of Syria. Russia may put pressure on Assad not to do so even though his offensive so far has been quite successful. For now Assad may be satisfied that he can retain what he has captured up to now. Erdogan had demanded Syria withdraw to the border of the province by the end of February and provided extensive support for a rebel counter-offensive. The deal with Russia puts an end to any further retaliation against Assad.

Putin said that he hoped the deal would serve as a good foundation for ending fighting in the Idblib de-escalation zone and end the suffering of the civilian population many of whom have fled the front lines creating a humanitarian crisis.

Questions about the agreement

Given past experience and the aims of the two conflicting parties it is questionable whether the truce will hold very long. Assad is bound and determined that he retake all of Syria including Idlib and drive out the jihadist rebels whose last refuge is the province. Turkey for its part is determined to ensure that the rebels it supports remain in Idlib along with Turkish troops to defend them. He has demanded that Assad withdraw and tried to advance with a counter-offensive. This resulted in Turkish casualties and the possibility of direct conflict with Russia. The ceasefire seems far from any permanent solution given the aims of the conflicting parties.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Hawks press Trump to keep US troops in Afghanistan

(March 4) Amost two decades after the US entered into Afghanistan and overthrew the Taliban regime, US hawks are still in support of the war and think that any deal to end it would be a bad one.

Hawks lobby Trump to back out of the peace process

Hawks would like to see US troops remain in Afghanistan. However, if the US insists on keeping troops in Afghanistan any deal with the Taliban is likely off. However, this would be fine with the hawks and no doubt with the US military-industrial complex as profits from arms and equipment sales will continue. No doubt they will argue that the war is also creating jobs.

Trump often inconsistent on war issues

Although Trump in his presidential campaigning lashed out at US involvement in useless wars and promised to withdraw troops, in practice he can sometimes given in to pressure by hawks and do the opposite. Although he still claims to want troop cuts he recently walked away from an agreement with the Taliban after a US soldier was killed in an attack. At the time, there was no cease fire in effect.

The recent Taliban US peace agreement

On February 29 the US and the Taliban signed a four part peace agreement after months of talks in Doha Qatar. As part of the agreement US troops in Afghanistan would be reduced from 13,000 at present to 8,600 within 135 days of the deal. Troops would be fully withdrawn with 14 months. US troops would thus remain in Afghanistan for more than a year. If the Taliban did not keep their provisions in the deal obviously they might remain.

Another part of the deal involved a confidence-building prisoner swap releasing imprisoned Taliban as well as those imprisoned by the Taliban. However, the Afghan government was not a party to negotiations and claimed that the US had no authority to guarantee release of the prisoners.

Among those attacking the agreement were Liz Cheney a Republican representative from Wyoming who said: "I've expressed my serious concerns about the lack of verification mechanism, about the commitment and the agreement that we would go to zero and primarily about the fact that what we have here are a number of promises by the Taliban.Many of them are promises that have been made before, and I think that the decisions about American troop levels in Afghanistan have to be made based on America's national security interests, not based on empty promises from the Taliban and an agreement that doesn't have any disclosed verification mechanism."

Taliban resumes attacks against the Afghan government

The peace deal presumed there would be talks between the Taliban and Afghans including members of the government to complete peace arrangement and a political way forward. However, with the Afghan government rejecting the prisoner swap, The Taliban considered the period of lessened violence to be over as far as attacks on the government were considered. Attacks resumed but only against the government. The US and Taliban forces kept to the agreement.

The Afghan government no doubt expected the US to come to its aid. Reports now indicate it has done so with an air attack.

However, in spite of all this, Trump said he had a good talk with the Taliban leader: "We had a very good conversation with the leader of the Taliban today, and they’re looking to get this ended, and we’re looking to get it ended. I think we all have a very common interest. We had, actually, a very good talk with the leader of the Taliban.” There is no indication that the talk had any practical positive effect at least so far.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Ford to produce an all-electric version of its popular Transit cargo van

(March 3) Ford announced that it will be producing an all-electric version of the popular Transit cargo van for US and Canadian markets. The van is scheduled to be released by 2021.

Many details about the van were not given

Ford did not say what the battery pack size of the van would be nor its estimated range on a charge. None of its performance characteristics were provided. Ford had previously announced back in 2019 that there would be all-electric Transit van for the European market. The company expects to launch the van in Europe by 2021 as part of the company's electrification program.

The announcement did indicated that the van will come with a 4G LTE hotspot and will also have a number of tech features that are designed for managers of fleets. This includes live GPS tracking and diagnostics. The van will also come with safety and drive assistance features. These will include collision warning and assist, automatic emergency braking, automatic lane-keeping and also pedestrian detection.

Ford also announced that at this time it had no news about an electric version of its Transit passenger van at present.

Ford's Transit van best-selling cargo van in the US

Even so, it is facing increased competition during the last several years from Germany's Mercedes-Benz's Sprinter van. There are already two electric versions of the Sprinter.

Mercedes electric Sprinter van

One electric version of the Sprinter has a 55kWh battery that can travel 168 kilometers or 104 miles on a full charge. It has a payload of 891 kilograms or 1,964 pounds. However there is also another version with a smaller 41kWh battery that can go just 115 kilometers or 72 miles on a charge. Yet this version can carry up to 1,045 kilos or 2,304 pounds. Both versions have the same storage space, 10.5 cubic meters or 370.8 square feet.

Mercedes Benz also announced an electric only vehicle (EOV) for more everyday use. It will be slightly smaller than the Sprint and will have a much longer range of 249 miles from a larger 100kWh battery that provides up to 200 horsepower. It also sports the company's MBUC infotainment system.

Other competitors and Ford

Rivian an EV startup has a contract to build 100,000 electric delivery vans for Amazon over the new few year. Ford has invested $500 million in the company which is helping to build a luxury electric SUV which will have the Lincoln brand. Ford is also collaborating with Volkswagen to produce vans after they formed a global alliance early in 2019. The appended video shows some of the all electric vans available.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Afghan peace deal signed by US and Taliban the end of February

March 1)  It took 18 months of talks to reach an agreement signed in Doha Qatar between the Taliban and the US that hopefully paves the way for peace in Afghanistan and the departure of all foreign troops.

The agreement

The full text of the agreement can be found in an Al Jazeera article. There are four main parts to the comprehensive agreement.

The first part consists of guarantees and enforcement mechanisms designed to prevent the use of Afghanistan by any group that would be against the security of the United States or its allies. The second part consists of enforcement mechanisms, and announcement of a timeline governing the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Afghanistan. The third section requires the Taliban to begin intra-Afghan negotiations beginning on March 10 after the announcement of guarantees that Afghanistan will not be used against the security of the US. The fourth section requires that a permanent and comprehensive ceasefire would be part of the agenda for the intra-Afghan negotiations. The date and modalities of this ceasefire including joint implementation mechanisms will be announced together with the completion of negotiations setting forth the future political development of Afghanistan.

The four parts of the agreement are interrelated and each will be carried out within its own timeline and terms. Agreement on the first two parts would pave the way for the final two parts.

US troop withdrawal

The agreement would see US troop presence in Afghanistan reduced from the 13,000 there now to 8,600 within 135 days and will be fully withdrawn within 14 months. This means that US at least some US troops can remain for over a year more. No doubt if the US feels that the Taliban are not keeping their part of the agreement in negotiation with other Afghan parties the US might decide it was not require to withdraw all its troops either. NATO and other coalition forces would be reduced proportionally over the same time period.

Prisoner releases as a confidence building measure

The agreement commits the US to start immediately working with relevant groups on a plan to quickly release combat and political prisoners as a confidence-building measure. The agreement says that up to five thousand Taliban prisoners and 1,000 prisoners of the other side will be released by March 10 this year.

Afghan president Afran Ghani has already objected to the terms of the prisoner swap as reported in a recent Digital Journal article. It remains to be seen if these terms in the agreement will be met.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Pentagon wants a big boost in funding for modernization of nuclear weapons systems

(February 29) PentaEach year the US spends tens of billions of dollars on nuclear weapon modernization schemes. Yet every year the Pentagon insists that funding is insufficient.

	1 of 2

This year, the complaints continued with US Strategic Command's head Admiral Charles Richard warning that the US is "almost on a path to disarmament."

US even now outspends all other nuclear powers

This shows that there is no tendency at all towards disarmament. If anything US spending could be provoking a nuclear arms race. While the Admiral suggested that the US must invest smartly and not waste money it was clear he was asking for an increase in funding.

The argument for more funds

The argument is that even at the high level of spending of the US at present as the system ages they will need to rebuild virtually the entire infrastructure or no longer be a nuclear power.

Admiral Richard said: “If we do not invest smartly in our nuclear enterprise now, we may begin to reach points of no return. I predict [that will] start in the nuclear weapons complex, next in the nuclear command and control, and finally in the triad delivery systems. When we talk about the modernization of the triad, what we leave out is the ‘or else.’ The other choice is not to keep what we have. The entire triad is reaching the end of its useful life. Either we replace what we have now, or start to divest, almost on a path to disarmament, in the face of this growing threat.”

The triad referred to is defined by Wikipedia: "A nuclear triad is a three-pronged military force structure that consists of land-launched nuclear missiles, nuclear-missile-armed submarines and strategic aircraft with nuclear bombs and missiles.[1] Specifically, these components are land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and strategic bombers. The purpose of having this three-branched nuclear capability is to significantly reduce the possibility that an enemy could destroy all of a nation's nuclear forces in a first-strike attack. This, in turn, ensures a credible threat of a second strike, and thus increases a nation's nuclear deterrence."

The huge costs of nuclear modernization

For fiscal year 2021 the Trump administration has asked for roughly $46 billion in funding for nuclear programs. That amount includes about $28.9 billion for the Dept. of Defense to develop delivery system such as the B-21 bomber and the new replacement for ICBMs. The rest of the funding for development of nuclear warheads comes from the National Nuclear Security Administration a semi-autonomous branch of the Dept. of Energy.

Looking to the future from fiscal year 21 to 25 the Pentagon projects it will spend at least $87 billion on nuclear modernization efforts. If the US spends such sums on modernization there will be pressure upon Russia, and China to do the same.

A modest proposal

The MAD(Mutual Assured Destruction) policy may have worked so far but it is very expensive and without some controls does not avoid a nuclear arms race. This partly explains why Russia and the US have a new START treaty that is still in force until February of next year. Under terms of the treaty, the number of strategic nuclear missile launchers will be reduced by half. A new inspection and verification regime will be established, replacing the SORT mechanism.

Nuclear modernization is used mainly for nothing but deterrence. However, it does provide defense contractors with profits. Both Russia and the US could use funds not used for nuclear modernization for expenditures on health, education, more useful job creation and numerous other purposes. Instead of asking for more funds what the Pentagon should be seeking are more arms reduction negotiations and funds for negotiations. This alternative is never considered. Why is that?

A recent Forbes article last December notes: " Last week, however, in a rare display of constructiveness, Vladimir Putin suddenly offered to immediately extend the New START treaty “without any preconditions.” And Trump added: “We are looking at doing a new agreement with Russia, and we’re looking at doing a new agreement with China. And maybe the three of us will do it together…We may do it with Russia first and then go to China, or we may do it altogether…” Instead of modernizing their nuclear armor, Russia, the US and China need a treaty that will render their nuclear arsenal obsolete.

Previously published in the Digital Journal