Menu

Samuel Djuarsa

About Samuel Djuarsa

https://dip.or.id

Posts by Samuel Djuarsa:

Stop_the_genocide,_Free_Palestine_023_Mielenosoitus_palestiinalaisten_tueksi_(53274234547)

Pay Attention to the Accusations of Genocide Against Israel

, , , 0

Regarding the ongoing question of whether Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, the Biden administration has displayed a dismissive attitude.

 

It appears that U.S. officials have reached a consensus on the term “meritless.” “The allegation of genocide lacks merit,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated solemnly during a press conference in Tel Aviv this week. “Unfounded and unhelpful,” exclaimed John Kirby, the spokesperson for the National Security Council. The administration’s apparent lack of concern is hard to believe. The extensive 84-page case presented to the court by South Africa is filled with compelling evidence that highlights Israel’s failure to meet its obligations under the 1948 international genocide convention. This convention defines genocide as deliberate acts aimed at destroying a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, either in part or in whole. The document presented to the court is thoroughly researched and referenced, and numerous experts have praised the legal argument for its exceptional strength.

 

Israeli political and military leaders have played a significant role in strengthening the arguments against their government. Israeli officials’ statements are being presented as proof of their intentions. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has invoked the Old Testament’s account of the massacre of Amalek, urging Israelis to remember and spare no one, regardless of age or gender. Defense Minister Yoav Gallant has made a firm commitment to completely eradicate Gaza, vowing that it will never return to its previous state. The minister of energy and infrastructure has gone as far as declaring that Gaza will be deprived of basic necessities until its inhabitants are no longer alive. Israeli leaders have brought attention to the destruction of Gaza and the displacement of its residents, shedding light on a topic that is often concealed or denied in cases of genocide.

 

It is uncertain how well each side will present their arguments or how the judges will make their decisions. The hearings taking place in The Hague this week will not provide a definitive answer regarding Israel’s alleged genocide. Determining the truth will require a thorough and meticulous gathering and presentation of evidence, which could potentially span over several years. Currently, South Africa has urgently requested the court to intervene and put an end to Israel’s military actions. The aim is to safeguard the well-being of Palestinians and ensure that crucial evidence is preserved. The panel of judges must be persuaded that the accusation of genocide holds merit in order to issue provisional measures in the near future. Even if there is a recognition that the evidence points towards genocide, it is crucial for the international community to take action and ensure the safety and well-being of the distressed and malnourished population in Gaza. This can be achieved by calling for an immediate cease-fire and providing the Palestinians with substantial aid. In the long run, this case could potentially set a precedent for imposing sanctions on Israel or holding its officials accountable through legal means.

 

The proceedings hold significance for the United States as well. The Biden administration has played a crucial role in supporting this conflict, providing military assistance, financial aid, and diplomatic protection to Israel, even in the face of alarming reports of Palestinian casualties and forced displacement. If the violence in Gaza is determined to be genocide, it could lead to potential charges of complicity in genocide against the United States, which would be considered a serious crime. Considering the immense influence of the United States and its history of avoiding international repercussions, it may seem unlikely that there will be any significant consequences. However, it is important for Americans to recognize the gravity of the situation and acknowledge that their own government is involved. Israel and its U.S. supporters will, naturally, present a different perspective on this matter. It is important to acknowledge the significant impact that Israel experienced on Oct. 7, when Hamas militants carried out a series of brutal attacks in southern Israel, resulting in the loss of numerous innocent lives and the abduction of many others into Gaza.

 

Israeli and American officials have consistently cited self-defense as the reason behind the violence in Gaza. This same principle is anticipated to influence Israel’s arguments in The Hague. However, acts of genocide cannot be excused or justified by self-defense, and Israel’s assault on Gaza is an extremely disproportionate response to the crimes of Oct. 7. Israel refrained from carrying out a precise retaliation against Hamas (whose leaders operate their political activities from Qatar) or embarking on a strategic search for the hostages. Israel has only managed to save one hostage, unfortunately, there was a tragic incident where Israeli soldiers mistakenly shot and killed three Israeli hostages who were waving a white flag and pleading for help, as they were mistaken for Palestinians. The majority of the 110 Israeli hostages who have returned home were freed through diplomatic means, such as truce agreements, negotiations, and prisoner exchanges.

 

Shortly after the Hamas attack, Israel implemented a strict blockade on the Gaza Strip, resulting in the deprivation of essential resources such as electricity, water, fuel, and food for the approximately 2.2 million people living there, including a significant number of children. The blockade itself was a grave violation, demonstrating a disregard for human rights and international law. However, this was just the beginning of a series of troubling events. Soon after, the airstrikes commenced and have persisted ever since. In a television clip from Gaza, Col. Yogev Bar-Sheshet warned of the devastating aftermath that awaits anyone who dares to return. The landscape will be transformed into a barren wasteland, leaving nothing but destruction in its wake. There is a complete absence of houses, agriculture, and any other form of development. They lack potential for growth and development.

According to the Gazan health ministry, the number of casualties in Gaza due to Israeli actions is alarmingly high, reaching over 23,000. Over 9,000 of the deceased are young ones. By late November, UNICEF reported that over 1,000 children had endured painful amputations, often without access to anesthesia. Doctors in Gaza have reported instances where women giving birth were subjected to cesarean sections without anesthesia. Whole communities have been devastated, with a staggering 85 percent of the population forced to leave their homes. In order to comprehend this exceptional outburst of violence as a form of national self-defense, one must acknowledge that Israel’s pursuit of safety hinges on the need to subdue and remove, through various means, the majority of Palestinians from Gaza.

 

Furthermore, Israeli officials have made similar statements.

 

Tzipi Hotovely, Israel’s ambassador to Britain, recently discussed with the British TV host Iain Dale the reasons behind Israel’s actions in Gaza. She emphasized the extensive network of tunnels used by Hamas, which she claimed were connected to various buildings including schools, mosques, and houses.

 

Mr. Dale suggested a drastic solution of demolishing every building in Gaza.

 

“Is there an alternative option you can propose?” Ms. Hotovely responded.

As the academic conference approached, Israeli officials made efforts to present a more favorable perception.

 

On Tuesday, the Israeli military shared a video on Twitter emphasizing that their focus is on Hamas, rather than the people of Gaza. According to a report from Israel’s Channel 12, Mr. Netanyahu advised his ministers to exercise caution when discussing the ongoing conflict. Mr. Netanyahu reportedly emphasized the importance of thoughtful language, even though his own rhetoric has been aggressive. Eylon Levy, the Israeli government spokesman, has consistently referred to the South African case as a baseless accusation, drawing parallels to historical conspiracy theories that have long targeted the Jewish community. Mr. Levy sternly warned the South African government that history will pass its judgment without any leniency. The belief that South Africa is perpetuating a long-standing and reprehensible tradition of antisemitism highlights the highly sensitive nature of this case.

 

The understanding of war crimes and genocide that we have today can be traced back to the atrocities of the Holocaust. When people, including many Americans, who received a thorough education about the Holocaust, hear accusations of genocide being leveled against the Jewish state, it often evokes a strong sense of disbelief. This disbelief stems from the fact that the desperate situation of Palestinians was either downplayed or completely ignored during their academic studies. Recently, an Israeli historian and genocide specialist named Raz Segal, who has claimed that Israel’s activities in Gaza constitute “a textbook case of genocide,” conveyed this cognitive dissonance to me. Segal has called Israel’s actions in Gaza “a textbook case of genocide.”

 

According to Dr. Segal, a professor at Stockton University in New Jersey, the notion of the Jewish state being capable of war crimes or genocide is completely inconceivable. Israel’s actions are consistently shielded from accountability.

 

During his address to the tribunal on Thursday, South African barrister Max du Plessis emphasized the importance of considering Israel’s prolonged oppression of Palestinian rights as a significant factor in the violence in Gaza. He highlighted that the situation should not be oversimplified as a mere dispute between two parties. According to him, Israel has been in control for over fifty years and has oppressed the Palestinian people, denying them their right to self-determination. And these violations take place in a world where Israel has long considered itself exempt from and superior to the law.

 

The concept of “genocide” resonates deeply within our collective consciousness. We consider Rwanda, Bosnia, the Armenians, the Trail of Tears, and, of course, the Holocaust. I have encountered numerous individuals who strongly oppose the notion that Gaza might be undergoing a genocidal situation. The Holocaust, indeed, resulted in the devastating loss of over 60 percent of European Jews. Israel’s conflict, initiated by the tragic loss of Jewish lives, has resulted in the unfortunate loss of approximately 1 percent of the Palestinian population in Gaza. One percent is certainly concerning, but the magnitude of the issue is deeply troubling.

 

According to the genocide convention, however, this term refers to a deliberate intention to eliminate a specific group of individuals and actively pursuing actions to accomplish that objective. There is no specific point at which death becomes inevitable, nor is there a specific ratio of death that must be met. Committing an act of genocide can involve causing harm to a relatively small number of individuals. We should approach this question with a sense of humility, as we have often demonstrated our ability to acknowledge genocide only after the fact. It is important for us, as Americans and members of the Western world, to reflect on this pattern. Almost all major instances of genocide, such as the Holocaust, were initially met with skepticism and semantic debates before a declaration was eventually made, albeit far too late.

 

Rwanda, a topic frequently discussed alongside the Holocaust in the tragic history of genocide, was recognized as such only after significant delays and hesitation from European and American authorities, who were reluctant to intervene. During this time, U.S. officials refrained from publicly acknowledging the gravity of the situation. The denial of the Bosnian genocide persists even in academic circles, with some refusing to acknowledge the atrocities that took place.

 

The harrowing details from Gaza go on and on. The overwhelming strain on the medical system. The tragic loss of humanitarian workers. The killing of journalists. The assault on academic institutions, religious sanctuaries, and artistic expression. The impact on families and the challenges it poses to economic stability and opportunities.

 

Gaza is a place where safety is a constant concern. This line is duplicated in the South African lawsuit. A large number of individuals are experiencing extreme hunger. Approximately 70 percent of the deceased are women and children, with two mothers losing their lives every hour, according to estimates by the United Nations. During a recent discussion, South African advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi highlighted Israel’s decision to withhold fuel and water from Gaza. “There is no doubt about it: It signifies the deliberate creation of circumstances leading to the loss of life for the Palestinian people in Gaza,” stated Mr. Ngcukaitobi. Considering the devastating choices one may face, it is crucial to address the pressing issue at hand. However, to pass away, nonetheless.

 

The devastation of bakeries, water pipes, sewerage, and electricity networks. Raising Israeli flags above the wreckage. Israel’s government is urging for the return of settlers to Gaza.

AP24022519953397

The Imperative Peril of America’s Military Strikes in Yemen

, , , , 0

 

Through joint military action with Britain, the United States has made a strong statement to the Houthi rebels and their Iranian supporters. This action signifies a shift from a purely defensive stance to a more proactive approach in the Red Sea, with the aim of putting an end to the group’s attacks on commercial ships in the area.

 

It remains uncertain if the chosen approach will yield results, considering the Houthis’ stubbornness and their potential gains from engaging in conflict with the United States. This clash enhances their reputation among U.S. adversaries in the region and diverts attention from their poor governance of northwestern Yemen and the capital. However, due to the increasing danger that the group presents to the freedom of commerce and navigation in the Red Sea, which is a crucial global shipping route and a key American interest in the region, the United States had no choice but to take action.

 

President Biden expressed his readiness to take additional measures to safeguard our citizens and ensure the smooth operation of global trade, if needed. If he fully embraces a more proactive strategy, ensuring that American forces in the region have the necessary authority and resources, and combines any future use of force with diplomatic initiatives to resolve the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict, his prospects of containing the Houthis will be enhanced.

 

Following Hamas’s recent attack and Israel’s subsequent declaration of war, the Houthis have made a firm commitment to carry out targeted assaults on Israeli ships and other vessels transporting goods to what they consider “occupied Palestinian ports.” Their aim is to demonstrate unwavering support for the Palestinians in Gaza. Over the past few weeks, there has been a significant increase in the number of ships being targeted or disrupted by the Houthis in international shipping lanes. On January 11th, a significant number of targets in Yemen were struck by the United States and a small coalition of allies. These targets included Houthi radar systems, air defense systems, and storage and launch sites. On Friday, the United States executed additional strikes targeting the Houthis.

 

The potential consequences of the attacks by the United States and Britain are evident. The State Department removed the Houthis from its list of foreign terrorist organizations in February 2021 to ease the transfer of humanitarian assistance to parts of Yemen under Houthi control. The Houthis have made it clear that they will respond in kind. That could potentially result in an increase in tensions that Washington is actively trying to prevent, as shown by Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s frequent trips to the area in recent weeks. The track record of achieving success against entrenched, capable, and resilient militias in the Middle East through the sole reliance on military force is quite dismal. Israel has long struggled to contain the threat posed by Hezbollah and Hamas, with little success. Israel’s goal of eliminating Hamas in Gaza is highly unlikely to be achieved in the ongoing conflict.

 

One of the key uncertainties in this new confrontation is the nature of the Houthis’ alliance with Iran. Iran’s support for the Houthis has been growing steadily since 2014. This support allows Iran to gain access to the strategically important Bab al-Mandab Strait and assert its influence in the region, particularly in Saudi Arabia’s vicinity. It is believed that Iranian resources, support, and knowledge have played a role in facilitating the group’s recent attacks on commercial targets in the Red Sea. Thanks to the academic support, the Houthis may no longer possess the capability to cause substantial damage to shipping in that area. However, the extent of Iran’s influence over the Houthi leadership is still uncertain, including their ability to command the group to cease its aggressive actions. The rebels appear to have a greater degree of independence compared to other factions within Iran’s proxy network, allowing them to employ strategic violence against their adversaries. Despite potential diplomatic pressure or the threat of force, it is uncertain whether Iran’s support to the Houthis would cease. Even if it did, the group may still utilize its existing arsenal, which should not be underestimated. The Houthis have the potential to sustain themselves financially, thanks to their control over state revenues and resources in Yemen.

 

Despite the potential dangers involved, the United States is compelled to address the Houthis’ aggressive actions. The Red Sea holds significant importance for both the United States and the international community due to its role as a crucial entry point for ships utilizing the Suez Canal. This canal is responsible for facilitating 12 percent of global trade, making it a vital hub for economic activities worldwide. There are reasons to be hopeful that this escalation will not escalate further. There is a valid concern regarding the potential for Iran to retaliate on behalf of the Houthis. However, it is important to note that Tehran is a cautious and can be deterred. In the late 1980s, the U.S. military took action to protect freedom of navigation in international waters. Operation Praying Mantis was launched by the U.S. Navy in April 1988 as a response to Iran’s use of a mine against an American warship. This operation played a significant role in resolving a long-standing regional conflict. In a recent statement, Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr., a former head of U.S. Central Command, highlighted the effectiveness of an American drone strike in preventing Iran from further escalating its aggression against U.S. interests in the region. The strike, which resulted in the death of the top Iranian commander Qassim Suleimani in Iraq in 2020, played a crucial role in maintaining stability. However, it is important for the U.S. to consider alternative approaches beyond solely relying on military strategies. Furthermore, it is crucial to actively seek improved diplomatic strategies concerning Gaza and the surrounding area. The Houthis assert that their campaign aims to assist Hamas and halt Israel’s conflict, yet the U.S. military has stated that some of the Houthis’ recent assaults in the Red Sea did not specifically target vessels associated with or en route to or from Israel. Washington has the opportunity to demonstrate its academic prowess by achieving a diplomatic breakthrough in Gaza, or perhaps even a cease-fire, despite the fact that the U.S. has not yet made such a demand. While it may not put an end to Houthi aggression, it would strengthen Washington’s diplomatic endeavors to form a broader international coalition focused on tackling the Houthi threat. As the Houthis continue to display their stubbornness and disregard for consequences, the global community is increasingly united in their efforts to confront them. This growing consensus allows for stronger diplomatic pressure to be applied, such as imposing stringent economic sanctions and reclassifying them as a terrorist organization.

 

The Houthis have been a long-standing concern that the global community has unfortunately overlooked, enabling its growth and impact to intensify. However, it is certainly within reach. Addressing this complex issue necessitates a recognition of the importance of political will, international cooperation, and a humble understanding of the constraints of U.S. influence in a dynamic Middle East.

 

 

Fishing boats are moored at the central fishing port of Liandao to avoid wind and waves in Lianyungang, Jiangsu Province, China, on December 14, 2023. (Photo by Costfoto/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

The Decision of Major Chinese Corporations To Remove Their Listings From U.S. Exchanges Signifies The Conclusion of A Significant Period

, , , , , , , , 0

Approximately twenty years after their initial public offerings (IPOs) in the United States, which was seen as a symbol of China’s aspiration for its economy and corporations to achieve global recognition, five major state-owned enterprises (SOEs) from China, namely PetroChina, Sinopec, Aluminum Corporation of China (Chalco), and China Life Insurance, have recently declared their intention to remove their shares from the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). The synchronized nature of the action, with all companies making the statement on August 12, clearly implies that Beijing approved or possibly mandated their delisting. And it occurred with little isolation. For more than ten years, the United States and China have been engaged in a dispute on the requirement for Chinese companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges to allow auditors designated by the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) to access their financial records. Although none of the firms directly addressed the audit issue, PetroChina acknowledged the significant administrative cost associated with fulfilling disclosure responsibilities. However, it is evident that the auditing needs were the main driving force behind the decision to collaborate.

The disagreement gained increased importance following the enactment of the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act (HFCAA) by Washington in late 2020, and subsequent finalization of the Act’s regulations in December of the same year. They require companies that refuse to disclose their financial records to be banned from trading their stocks, which could possibly impact 273 Chinese corporations, including Alibaba, JD.com, Baidu Inc., and the five state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Furthermore, it has a direct impact on American investors: Goldman Sachs estimated in March that American institutional investors possess Chinese company American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) valued at $200 billion. Last year, China Mobile, China Telecom, and China Unicom were delisted as a result of a previous decision made by the Trump administration. The intention behind this action was to cut off financial support to Chinese technological businesses. Proponents argue that the removal of the state-owned enterprises (SOEs) from the listing allows for a potential agreement to proceed unimpeded.

They contend that Beijing consistently refused to grant American auditors access to scrutinize the internal financial operations of its critical state firms, particularly those involved in sectors that could potentially impact national security, such as the oil and gas industry. They highlight the fact that the state-owned enterprises (SOEs) that were delisted had low trading activity on U.S. exchanges, which makes their departure predictable. PetroChina explicitly said that it has never engaged in any subsequent funding after its initial listing in the United States, and that the exchanges in Shanghai and Hong Kong are capable of fulfilling its requirements. Furthermore, it is seen that the stocks of Chinese private enterprises listed in the U.S. exhibit far higher levels of activity, which implies that their exit could be more distressing. China’s regulators are now expected to approve increased transparency for non-state enterprises.

“I believe that Beijing considers large State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) to be too sensitive to undergo audit inspections.” Therefore, the announcements of delisting by PetroChina and others do not indicate significant possibilities for a more comprehensive agreement on audits,” tweeted Michael Hirson of the Eurasia Group.

The fallacies of the optimists

I am predicting that the optimists will be incorrect. To begin with, the recent moves taken by private firms are hardly indicative of progress. Alibaba, a prominent ecommerce business in China, which has been identified by the SEC as a company of concern, said in July its intention to pursue a dual primary listing in Hong Kong. This move will enable Mainland investors to purchase its stock through the Southbound Connect program. Alibaba has expressed its intention to maintain its listing in New York, but, it is uncertain whether the business genuinely intends to do so or if it is even feasible. The primary factor that casts doubt on the feasibility of a significant agreement, however, is the realm of politics. Given the deteriorating bilateral relationship, it becomes highly improbable that either Beijing or Washington will be willing to reach a compromise about the auditing deadlock. During a recent interview with Bloomberg, Erica Williams, the Chair of the SEC’s Public Company Accounting Board, expressed a firm position by proposing that the regulations might be applied retrospectively. This means that firms may be required to undergo audits even after they have delisted from U.S. exchanges.

“Whether a firm or issuer chooses to delist this year is inconsequential to me, as my primary concern is whether you were involved in fraudulent activities in the previous year,” stated Williams on August 2nd. Given Beijing’s continued display of profound resentment towards House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s recent trip to Taiwan, it is likewise improbable that China will make any conciliatory gestures.

In 2000, while PetroChina was making preparations for its listing in the U.S., it was widely regarded as an indication of China’s desire to acquire knowledge from the Western countries and make significant progress towards a market-oriented economy. PetroChina’s parent firm, China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), enlisted a group of experts to assist them, which included of investment bankers from Goldman Sachs, 50 consultants from McKinsey & Co, and 700 auditors from PricewaterhouseCoopers. If management can successfully transform this colossal entity, it will serve as a significant model for revamping state-owned firms. “Furthermore, this occurrence could signify the rise of China’s novel corporate behemoths on the global stage,” stated in Businessweek during that period. China’s major corporations may be permanently leaving.

An interview between Andrew Ross Sorkin and President of Taiwan Tsai Ing-wen is displayed on a screen during The New York Times Dealbook Summit 2023 at Jazz at Lincoln Center on November 29, 2023 in New York City. (Photo by Slaven Vlasic/Getty Images for The New York Times)

Taiwanese Pragmatism: President Tsai Ing-wen Had a Meeting With The Speaker of The U.S. House of Representatives in California

, , , , , , , , 0

U.S. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has announced his intention to hold a meeting with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen in the United States, rather than in Taiwan. This announcement verifies the information initially disclosed in a report by the Financial Times.

The proposal to relocate from Taipei to California, allegedly put forth by the Tsai administration, has been acknowledged as a “de-escalating decision” by international analysts. This move also highlights the significance of pragmatism in the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration’s approach to cross-Strait relations and foreign policy. Despite the fact that public polls indicate that most Taiwanese people would be receptive to a visit by the Speaker, the decision made by the Tsai government demonstrates adaptability, while also keeping the possibility of future trips open. Following the visit of then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Taipei in August, the Chinese government reacted by conducting aggressive military exercises near Taiwan, intensifying the tensions in the Taiwan Strait. The primary reason why Tsai’s current action is perceived as cautious is that it restricts Beijing’s capacity to characterize the meeting as “provocative” and disturb the existing state of affairs between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait. In addition, by rescheduling McCarthy’s travel to Taiwan, the opportunity to have both Democrat and Republican House Speakers in Taiwan within a year is forfeited. However, Tsai’s alternate plan guarantees her the opportunity to meet with a prominent Republican in the United States.

Since Tsai’s inauguration ceremony in 2016, the Tsai administration has consistently emphasized the significance of maintaining peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. In order to achieve this objective, Tsai has enhanced Taiwan’s relationships with democratic nations based on similar principles and mutual interests. In addition, she has implemented a series of significant reforms for Taiwan’s military, including as expanding the mandatory military service period from four months to one year. This measure aims to strengthen Taiwan’s ability to defend against any attacks from Chinese forces. However, due to the restriction that Tsai is unable to pursue a third term in 2024, several commentators have expressed apprehension regarding the consistency of her cross-Strait policy. Current deliberations have centered around the extent to which the future DPP presidential candidate will adhere to Tsai’s pragmatic approach. Nevertheless, Vice President William Lai Ching-te, who is expected to be the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) nominee for president, has consistently stated his dedication to maintaining Tsai Ing-wen’s steady stance on foreign policy and relations with mainland China.

As the vice president of Taiwan, Lai has openly endorsed numerous significant policy initiatives proposed by President Tsai, including the prolongation of Taiwan’s military conscription. Furthermore, he has been appointed multiple times as Tsai’s special representative for international delegations overseas. In addition, Lai has publicly stated that he will follow Tsai’s policies regarding the relationship between Taiwan and mainland China, namely maintaining the current state of affairs, which is widely supported by the Taiwanese public.

More importantly, the DPP has allegedly been discussing the inclusion of Tsai’s “Four Commitments” in the DPP’s party charter. The Four Commitments, unveiled by Tsai during her National Day speech in 2021, consist of a set of principles governing the management of cross-Strait relations. These principles include a steadfast dedication to a free and democratic constitutional system, the belief that the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China should not be subordinate to one another, a determination to resist any attempts to annex or encroach upon Taiwan’s sovereignty, and a firm commitment to ensuring that the future of the Republic of China (Taiwan) is determined in accordance with the will of the Taiwanese people. The inclusion of the “Four Commitments” in the party charter demonstrates a practical approach towards Taiwan’s status, as it indicates an intention to protect Taiwan’s sovereignty without challenging the existing constitutional framework of the Republic of China. This rules out the possibility of making a separate declaration of Taiwanese independence.

Some analysts perceive Lai Ching-te as having a proclivity towards independence, based on his past remarks about being a “pragmatic political advocate for Taiwan’s independence.” Greater attention should be allocated to the pivotal term “pragmatic.” Indeed, Lai has consistently embraced a moderate stance throughout the span of multiple years, emphasizing his pragmatic view that Taiwan is effectively independent and hence does not require a distinct proclamation of independence. Tsai’s remarks during a 2020 interview with the BBC align closely with this viewpoint of Taiwan’s national status. Furthermore, it aligns with the DPP’s “Resolution on Taiwan’s Future,” which has been a significant framework for the DPP’s perspective on cross-Strait ties since 1999. Lai’s changing perspectives demonstrate his recognition of Taiwan’s obligations in preserving regional stability, especially in a politically charged context with significant consequences.

Tsai’s meeting with McCarthy in the U.S. has demonstrated to Taiwan’s international allies that the DPP’s foreign policy is fundamentally driven by pragmatism. Moreover, there are compelling grounds to anticipate that pragmatism and caution would continue to be significant components of the policy framework of the DPP presidential candidate. Put simply, the DPP will persist in its commitment to adopt a resolute yet prudent strategy in handling cross-Strait relations, all the while striving to cultivate confidence with global allies.

merlin_187752132_f66b88ed-cdee-4630-b2ab-b7ac89a755c5-superJumbo

The Psychological Operation Conducted by Israel in the Gaza Strip

, , , , 0

 

In 2014, the Israeli army conducted a military operation known as “Operation Protective Edge” in the Gaza Strip, which occurred nine years previous to Israel’s ongoing military actions in the region. During the 51-day military operation, a total of 2,251 Palestinian individuals lost their lives, including 551 children. Shortly following the series of killings in 2014, an individual known to me as a psychoanalysis associate residing in Barcelona forwarded a collection of images to me. These visual materials were obtained by this acquaintance from a professional contact situated in Gaza. The photographs depicted paintings created by youngsters residing in the town of Khuzaa, located in the southern Gaza governorate of Khan Yunis, in proximity to the Israeli border.

 

Upon initial observation, a considerable number of the illustrations exhibit characteristics commonly associated with conventional children’s artwork, showcasing vibrant depictions of dwellings, cheerful stick figures, verdant grass, fluffy clouds, and a radiant sun, among other elements. Notwithstanding the stylistic resemblances, the illustrations portray a conspicuously separate terrain, wherein missiles, tanks, bulldozers, and planes have evidently assumed prominent roles inside the individual realms of the youthful painters.In a particular illustration, a projectile in descent from the atmosphere is seen in the imminent act of colliding with a residential structure painted in orange, including a roof colored in red, and adorned with a Palestinian flag fluttering above. In an alternate scenario, projectiles launched from an aerial vehicle are directed towards a collective of stick figures displaying facial expressions denoting happiness. The artwork presented provides insight into the perspective of Palestinian children, shedding light on the actions carried out by Israel in the Gaza Strip and reinforcing the argument on the detrimental psychological impact of these operations.

 

The individuals responsible for creating the aforementioned pictures have now transitioned into adolescence, assuming they have endured the recent and ongoing series of violent events in Gaza, which has resulted in the loss of nearly 10,000 lives, including over 4,800 children, as a consequence of Israeli actions. Within the all of the land, it can be argued that there is an absence of a secure location, as Israel continues to indiscriminately target residences, educational institutions, and medical facilities. Israeli military officials have acknowledged abandoning the notion of achieving “surgical” precision. The evident transformation of daily life in Gaza into a distressing experience implies that, even in the absence of ongoing Israeli bombardments, psychological distress is expected to persist, potentially surpassing its previous intensity. In a research published five years ago, the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) documented the presence of significant “mental health issues and psychological deterioration” among the youth population in Gaza. In the year 2020, it was observed that a significant proportion of youngsters residing in the besieged enclave had symptoms consistent with the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

 

In May 2021, a notable incident of profound irony occurred when twelve youngsters, out of the total count of over 60 casualties resulting from Israeli air attacks on Gaza within a week, were found to be engaged in an NRC psychosocial program designed to aid victims of war-related psychological distress. Furthermore, it is evident that alongside the physical acts of violence, there exists a deliberate endeavor to impose psychological damage onto the population in Gaza.

 

The English terminology “psychological operations” may not fully encapsulate the nature of Israel’s activities. As per the definition provided by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the term “psyops” is a plural noun that refers to military operations primarily intended to influence the psychological condition of the adversary by nonviolent methods, such as the dissemination of leaflets. Israel has demonstrated a longstanding proficiency in the deployment of leaflet dissemination from aircraft onto civilian populations in Palestine and Lebanon, frequently accompanied with directives to evacuate certain regions. In contemporary times, these psychological operations (psyops) can also be conveniently executed through cellular phone technology. Nevertheless, considering Israel’s recurrent practice of conducting airstrikes on those who are according to evacuation directives, it is arguable that these actions cannot be classified as “noncombative methods.” In the context of the blockaded Gaza Strip, where there are presently no available evacuation routes, such psychological warfare assumes an even more psychologically distressing nature. Undoubtedly, residing within a densely populated strip of territory does not provide significant psychological comfort, especially during periods when Israel is not engaged in a full-scale conflict. In 2005, during the period when Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza did not occur as planned, Dr. Eyad El-Sarraj, the founder of the Gaza Community Mental Health Programme, criticized Israel’s actions. He accused Israel of attempting to instill a state of “learned helplessness” among the Palestinian population in Gaza, with the ultimate goal of subjecting the entire population to fear and immobilization.

 

In the documentary titled “On Gaza’s Mind” released in 2009, El-Sarraj attributed the societal breakdown in the Gaza Strip and the emergence of long-lasting generational issues to the continuous Israeli occupation. El-Sarraj specifically highlighted the detrimental impact of accumulated traumatic experiences over an extended period of time. The mental health crisis further exacerbated in subsequent years, characterized by a notable rise in the prevalence of depression and suicide. The profound psychological ramifications resulting from the protracted Israeli embargo on Gaza, which has persisted for nearly 17 years, are of utmost significance. Additionally, the detrimental impact of this closure on unemployment and poverty rates cannot be underestimated, since these variables exacerbate overall levels of anxiety and depression within the population. The prevailing insufficiency of sufficient provisions such as food, water, and electricity in Gaza serves to intensify sentiments of powerlessness and hinder the attainment of mental stability. In parallel, Israel is concurrently causing widespread psychological distress among the population of Gaza while also impeding the entry of essential medications, particularly mental pharmaceuticals, into the region. Furthermore, the situation is exacerbated by the occurrence of Israeli airstrikes targeting hospitals and other vital healthcare facilities within the Gaza Strip.

 

However, the inquiry remains as to the prospective outcomes for Gaza, ultimately, given Israel’s persistent engagement in the act of causing harm and psychological distress to its young population. In the year 2018, during the Great March of Return, the Israeli military caused the deaths of numerous Palestinians in Gaza. The Washington Post provided coverage on the dire mental health situation within the enclave, specifically focusing on the circumstances surrounding the 14-year-old Mohammad Ayyoub.

 

According to the Post, Ayyoub had experienced a total of three conflicts at a young age, resulting in significant psychological distress. According to the article, the relocation of the United States embassy to Jerusalem in that particular year evoked a sense of distress in him. Subsequently, he expressed his willingness to make a profound sacrifice for the city to his mother. On April 20, he clandestinely departed to participate in a demonstration situated on the Gaza-Israel border. Tragically, he was fatally shot in the head by an Israeli sniper during the course of the demonstration. Given the evident escalation of US involvement in the physical and psychological destruction in Gaza, which can be characterized as genocidal due to the Israeli military’s systematic eradication of entire Palestinian families, it would not be unexpected if an increased number of Palestinian youth choose to engage in acts of martyrdom. According to Dr. El-Sarraj’s statement to PBS, individuals can be influenced by their surroundings, thus being considered as a “product of the environment”. In the case of a young Palestinian residing in Gaza, subjecting them to an environment characterized by complete “hopelessness and despair” due to frequent exposure to acts of bombing, killing, murder, bloodshed, and humiliation, may potentially result in the development of a mindset where death is perceived as the commencement of life, leading to the emergence of a martyr.

 

Undoubtedly, the Gaza Strip not only functions as a physical space for Israel to experiment with its armaments, but it also serves as a fertile ground for the manifestation of disturbing psychological manipulations. In the midst of Israel’s ongoing and unparalleled wave of violence, which can only be characterized as deeply disturbing, one cannot help but ponder the profound impact it will have on the young minds of Gaza. What artistic expressions will emerge from their tender souls in the wake of such harrowing experiences? Shall dwellings and the radiant sun persist, or shall crimson streams and debris prevail?

65410be3284fe8aac522f05a

Forbidden Land: China’s Prohibition on Israel’s Cartographic Realm

, , , , , , 0

 

According to the Wall Street Journal, maps available on the Chinese internet notably exclude the inclusion of Israel’s name. Alibaba and Baidu, prominent Chinese technology companies, have recently excluded the official name of Israel from their digital mapping services accessible on the internet. The decision is being made in response to the increasing prevalence of antisemitism on the Chinese internet subsequent to the conflict between the nation of Israel and the extremist group Hamas. Responding to the article, Chinese internet users have noted that Chinese tech giants Alibaba and Baidu have excluded the name “Israel” from their online maps, while still displaying its internationally recognized borders.

In response to the Journal, the maps additionally display Palestinian areas, prominent urban centers, and the names of neighboring nations like as Cyprus, Jordan, and Iraq. The research states that the novelty of the development remains uncertain. However, Chinese internet users have engaged in discussions over this alteration subsequent to the Hamas terrorist strike on October 7, resulting in the unfortunate demise of over 1,400 Israelis. Representatives from Alibaba and Baidu did not promptly provide responses to comment requests made by the journalist. However, Baidu spokesperson Jing Meng refuted the allegation of intentionally excluding Israel from the maps on the platform in a response provided to The Telegraph.

According to the statement provided to The Telegraph, in situations where there are spatial constraints, certain territories may not have their names or flags depicted on our maps. According to the speaker, individuals have the ability to locate respective countries or regions on Baidu Maps by employing the search feature provided by the map interface. In a riveting display of diplomatic prowess, China has consistently championed the cause of a two-state solution, thereby paving the way for the establishment of an autonomous Palestinian state. This unwavering commitment, as reported by the esteemed Associated Press, underscores China’s deep-rooted historical perspective on the matter.

In the aftermath of the conflict’s eruption, Xi’s close-knit circle has steadfastly maintained this position, advocating for an expeditious cessation of hostilities and the provision of vital humanitarian aid to the beleaguered Palestinian populace.

In a rather perplexing stance, Beijing has chosen to abstain from condemning Hamas, the militant group responsible for numerous acts of violence and unrest. However, the Chinese government did make a feeble attempt to salvage their reputation by declaring their opposition to any form of attacks targeting innocent civilians. This ambiguous position raises questions about Beijing’s true intentions and leaves us pondering the extent of their commitment to global peace and security. In a recent phone conversation, Wang Yi, the esteemed Chinese foreign minister, conveyed a thought-provoking sentiment to an advisor of the Brazilian president. According to a report by the reputable Associated Press, Wang Yi astutely highlighted the core issue at hand, asserting that the Palestinian people have been unjustly deprived of justice. This profound statement undoubtedly adds a layer of complexity to the ongoing discourse surrounding this contentious matter. In a poignant and somber tone, Wang, with an air of profound wisdom, eloquently emphasized the undeniable truth that this conflict, in all its heart-wrenching tragedy, serves as a stark reminder of the urgent need to reignite authentic peace negotiations and honor the just and rightful aspirations of the Palestinian people.

In a recent diplomatic encounter, China’s esteemed Middle East envoy, Zhai Jun, eloquently conveyed a sentiment of selflessness and unwavering commitment to peace, fairness, and justice. As reported by the reputable AP, Zhai Jun assured Palestinian and Egyptian officials that China’s involvement in the Palestinian issue is devoid of any ulterior motives or selfish interests. This statement serves as a testament to China’s steadfast dedication to upholding the principles of harmony and equity in the international arena.

In a scathing critique of the social media landscape in China, Insider’s esteemed journalist Matthew Loh reveals a distressing reality. With a distinct lack of diplomacy, Chinese social media users have unleashed a torrent of vitriolic and abhorrent antisemitic posts targeting Israel. This wave of hatred has shamelessly permeated the country’s online platforms, leaving no room for decency or respect. In a resounding display of solidarity, a recent Weibo post has taken the social media sphere by storm, capturing the hearts and minds of netizens with its unwavering support for the Palestinian cause. In a world where geopolitical tensions run high, it is not surprising to witness a groundswell of support for the Palestinian cause among the masses. The plight of the Palestinian people, who have long endured a complex web of political, social, and economic challenges, reson In a poignant display of resilience and determination, Palestine finds itself embroiled in a relentless battle for its very existence. In a report by the esteemed state media agency Xinhua, one of the top posts was quoted as saying, “It is nearly reaching the culmination of its journey, teetering on the precipice of the end.”

Israel, with the United States by its side, May triumph in the battle’s tide. Yet, alas! The world’s virtuous souls, Shall withhold their support, as fate unfolds.

 

 

 

china-palestine-GettyImages-168141531

China’s Conflicting Thoughts During The War Between  Israel and Hamas

, , , , , , 0

The conflict between Israel and Hamas has brought to light a significant cognitive dissonance stemming from Beijing’s perceptions and strategies about the Middle East. China has endeavored to present itself as an impartial entity in the issue, seemingly aiming to establish its role as a mediator. Nevertheless, the Chinese government has chosen not to denounce the October 7 assault on Israel by Hamas or acknowledge Iran’s involvement in orchestrating these acts of aggression. In contrast, Chinese authorities, media organizations under state control, and social media platforms attribute responsibility for the conflict on Israel and the United States. It is evident that China has consistently expressed support for the Palestinian cause during the Cold War era, employing a customary approach of condemning Israel in order to cultivate positive relationships with Arab and Muslim nations. This can be observed by China’s voting patterns in the United Nations. Similarly, taking advantage of the opportunity to depict the United States as a destabilizing entity and promoting the idea that there exists a feasible alternative to America’s liberal international system is a well-known strategy. Nevertheless, the fundamental principles that guide China’s approach appear to be increasingly incongruent with the evolving dynamics of the Middle East.

 

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Bahrain, as examples, have subsequently issued official statements denouncing Hamas, a stance that contradicts Beijing’s reasoning. Chinese officials consistently reiterate their longstanding claim that the Israel-Palestinian problem holds paramount importance in the Middle East. However, it appears that their Sunni counterparts no longer espouse this viewpoint. In contemporary times, a considerable number of Arab states have come to hold the belief, in conjunction with Israel, that Iran, as China’s comprehensive strategic partner, represents the primary source of destabilization within the region.

 

The diplomatic ties between China and the nations of Iran and Saudi Arabia

            The shared impression of threat arises from Iran’s propagation of an intolerant form of radical Islam, its development of nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities, and its assertive utilization of proxy factions with the aim of inciting regional instability, toppling Sunni governments, and annihilating Israel. Senior members of Hamas, in conjunction with Iranian authorities, have provided confirmation that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its affiliated groups provided assistance to Hamas in carrying out this offensive. Qatar serves as an additional significant financial source for Hamas. Hezbollah, an Islamist-militant group associated with Iran, characterized the attack as “a communication directed towards those who are pursuing the process of normalization with Israel.”

 

The significance of the ideological danger presented to moderate-Sunni regimes by Iran and its proxies should not be underestimated. Over the course of a minimum of ten years, many nations ranging from Morocco to the United Arab Emirates have endeavored to advance a more liberal interpretation of Islam as a viable alternative to the extremist ideology propagated by influential figures such as the Ayatollah of Tehran. The aspirations to establish a more stable and pluralistic Middle East have been expressed in the Marrakesh Declaration of 2016 and the Charter of Makkah of 2019. Similar to Iran, China is likely speculating that if the crisis escalates, the increasing backing of the Palestinians by Sunni populations around the region will eventually prompt their leaders to publicly condemn Israel. Furthermore, if the ongoing conflict were to disrupt the progress made by the U.S.-led Abraham Accords, which have facilitated the normalization of relations between the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan with Israel, it would undermine America’s containment strategy and provide an opportunity for China to advance its alternative approach to regional security, as outlined in its conceptual document titled “Global Security Initiative” released in February 2023.

 

It is conceivable that Tehran’s proposal may have unintended negative consequences. In light of the aforementioned circumstances, it can be argued that the assault orchestrated by Hamas, with support from Iran, directly undermines the fundamental security interests of numerous Sunni states. Consequently, this situation is expected to bolster Israel’s attractiveness as a viable security ally in the foreseeable future. Recently, Ali Rashid Al Nuaimi, the head of the Defense, Interior, and Foreign Affairs Committee of the Federal National Council of the United Arab Emirates, expressed his agreement with this concept. As per the statement made by the chairman, it is asserted that the Accords hold significant importance for our future. The aforementioned statement highlights that the platform in question is not merely a bilateral agreement between two governments, but rather a comprehensive initiative aimed at catalyzing transformative changes in the region. Its overarching objective is to foster an environment characterized by enhanced security, stability, and prosperity for all stakeholders involved. China may perceive strategic benefits in exerting influence over a politically volatile entity such as Iran. In the event that circumstances need, Beijing has the potential to utilize its association with Tehran as a strategic tool in wider geopolitical discussions with other influential entities. China’s current lack of confidence among regional entities and limited regional hard power hinder its significant involvement in the mediation process. Nevertheless, the diplomatic ties between Beijing and the Islamic Republic are expected to secure China’s participation in the negotiation process. Beijing would not extend its influence on Tehran without expecting something in return.

 

Saudi Arabia is evidently discontented. The Kingdom had anticipated a period of tranquility following its diplomatic agreement with Iran, facilitated by China. The Saudi Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), expressed a desire to prioritize the digital and economic development of the nation, advocate for a more moderate interpretation of Islam, and gradually move towards establishing normalized relations with Israel. The Saudi population has the belief that their participation in the accords will result in the marginalization of Hamas, thereby exerting pressure on the Palestinians to renounce terrorism and embrace a peaceful resolution. MBS is observing with a sense of unease, primarily concerned about the situation in Yemen and the involvement of the Houthis, who are widely regarded as an Iranian proxy. The individual would likely have taken notice of the presence of two U.S. aircraft carrier strike groups, perceiving them as a representation of the significance associated with being under the protection of the U.S. security framework. This may not necessarily be advantageous for China in the long run.

 

Has the opportunity been wasted?

It is evident that, despite Beijing’s extensive range of interests in the Middle East, encompassing oil, economic, technology, and security domains, it is highly unlikely that China’s Fujian carrier will be deployed in the region in the near future. The escalation of tensions between China and Western nations has resulted in an increased level of China’s involvement in the region. This is evident through its efforts to grow the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. China’s emerging regional military presence leaves it vulnerable, as it depends on the regional hard power projection capabilities of its strategic competitor to safeguard its interests. However, Beijing missed a significant chance to establish mutual understanding with its adversaries, including the United States (and the Western world in general), India, and Japan, by neglecting to condemn Hamas. Beijing acknowledges that its stance is likely to find support among several countries in the Global South, such as South Africa, Malaysia, and others, particularly when presented with anti-colonial rhetoric.

 

There have been emerging reports indicating a rise in coordinated dissemination of anti-Israel and anti-U.S./Western propaganda within the Iran-China-Russia alliance. It is probable that this tendency will persist. In order to provide a broader viewpoint, a commentator characterized a recent episode on CCTV as generating the perception that Israel initiated the bombing of Gaza without any apparent justification, including the deliberate targeting of emergency vehicles, thereby reinforcing the notion that such actions are characteristic of Israel. According to Matt Turpin, an individual who held the position of China Director at the U.S. National Security Council during the period of 2018 to 2019, the axis is engaged in the dissemination of content that capitalizes on divisions present within and between democratic nations. This is achieved by amplifying popular criticisms originating from both the left and right ends of the political spectrum within individual countries. Chinese officials, scholars, and state media persistently propagate the notion that the absence of a Palestinian state and the historical injustices endured by the Palestinian people are the fundamental factors contributing to the current predicament. These perspectives are considered to be crucial to comprehending the broader Middle East issue. Chinese scholars, politicians, and observers frequently neglect to acknowledge the fact that Hamas has officially articulated its intention to establish an Islamic State of Palestine including the entire region “from the river to the sea,” so implying the absence of Israel. Nonetheless, the utilization of reductionism becomes advantageous in instances where it aligns with Beijing’s inclination to attribute all of the region’s difficulties to Israel and the United States. Furthermore, it is highly probable that this action is deliberate. Presenting a concise and easily understandable method to address a multifaceted problem proves to be a highly impactful and efficient means of communication, particularly in the context of a meme. Chinese scholars have demonstrated a tendency to utilize historical events in shaping their narratives. However, it is noteworthy that they frequently omit the fact that Israel has extended multiple offers to the Palestinians for the establishment of a state. Regrettably, the Palestinians have consistently declined these proposals.

 

China’s stance disregards the internal dynamics within the Palestinian community that hinder advancements in this area. In 2006, Hamas was democratically elected to govern the Gaza Strip. Subsequently, in the following year, Hamas forcefully displaced the Palestine Authority, which continues to govern the West Bank. Consequently, these two entities have since maintained a contentious and adversarial relationship. Corruption pervades the ranks of both political parties, and the absence of an independent Palestine results in a continuous influx of substantial foreign money, which is utilized to sustain their respective military capabilities, construct complex tunnel networks, and amass personal wealth, while ordinary Palestinian citizens endure hardship. With whom does Beijing propose that Israel engage in negotiations?

 

The irony lies in the fact that Hamas and Iran, along with their proxies, espouse and endorse an extremist form of intolerant Islam that China perceives as a significant threat. This has led Beijing to adopt domestic measures that have attracted strong condemnation from the global community. The transnational nature of radical Islamist ideology is exemplified by the incident in which an Israeli individual was subjected to a stabbing attack in the public spaces of Beijing. Forging closer ties with Tehran is unlikely to effectively protect China or its interests in the Middle East against the threats of separatism, extremism, and terrorism, which are being stoked by the Ayatollah and his followers. In fact, it may have the opposite effect. Chinese intellectuals and policymakers are not unaware of these realities. Nevertheless, the leadership of China appears to have the perspective that admitting these matters does not significantly contribute to the advancement of Beijing’s goals. China has undoubtedly made adequate preparations to assume the role of the rotating presidency at the United Nations Security Council for the current month. The text is expected to portray China’s “Global Security Initiative” as a potential catalyst for peace, prosperity, and a resolution to the security issues faced by the Middle East. As a demonstration of amity, unity, and endorsement for Israel, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, and U.S. President Joe Biden recently undertook a visit to Tel Aviv. In the context of China’s foreign policy in the Middle East, it asserts amicable relations with all nations in the region, a claim that raises questions regarding its feasibility.

drone

Ukraine Expresses Concern Over Potential Drone Shortages Amidst China’s Imposed Restrictions  

, , , , , 0

 

The utilization of drones in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine has undeniably had a significant impact, with both factions extensively employing these unmanned aerial vehicles. China’s recent implementation of export restrictions has raised apprehensions regarding potential supply disruptions.

 

A significant portion of these products are manufactured in China and readily purchased, while the replenishment of stocks remains crucial due to the substantial losses incurred during the ongoing conflict. Significant signs point towards a decline in the availability of Chinese drones and components for both Ukraine and Russia.

 

Ukraine, as per the esteemed Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), a prominent London-based think tank, is reportedly experiencing a significant setback in the form of approximately 10,000 drone losses on a monthly basis. Several volunteer groups have played a pivotal role in utilizing donated funds to assist in replenishing the supplies of the Ukrainian army. In the realm of unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly known as drones, we witness a convergence of commercial and military applications. These cutting-edge technologies are not limited to purpose-built military designs alone, as we observe the utilization of commercial drones in conjunction with military-grade counterparts. Notable examples include the Turkish Bayraktar drones, which have found their way into the arsenal of Ukraine, and the Russian employment of Iranian Shaheds.

 

On the first day of September, the Chinese government implemented its most recent set of restrictions. The regulations encompass drones with a weight exceeding 4kg, specifically those designed for longer-range operations. Additionally, certain drone-related equipment, including select cameras and radio modules, fall under the purview of these guidelines. Chinese manufacturers of such equipment are currently mandated to seek export licenses and furnish end-user certificates. The government in Beijing, which has refrained from denouncing Russia’s incursion into Ukraine, has explicitly stated that commercial Chinese drones should not be employed for military objectives.

 

According to Ukrainian volunteers and soldiers, the recent implementation of Chinese restrictions appears to have had limited ramifications on the accessibility of drones, particularly the widely prevalent lightweight Mavics produced by the renowned Chinese manufacturer DJI. According to reports, there are concerns regarding the impact on the supply of parts, with experts expressing apprehension over the potential for a further deterioration of the situation in the coming days.

 

According to Lyuba Shypovych, the esteemed leader of Dignitas, a prominent Ukrainian volunteer organization responsible for providing the military with drones, the current development of note revolves around their heightened efforts to procure any remaining stock in European warehouses. The future remains shrouded in uncertainty, leaving us with little clarity on the course of action that lies ahead. The concern that weighs heavily on her mind pertains to the accessibility of crucial components, most notably thermal imaging cameras.

 

In a concerning revelation, she asserts that our units are experiencing a loss of vision during the nocturnal hours. The impact of this development extends to both readily available drones equipped with thermal imaging cameras as well as their individual components. The availability of parts holds significant importance for individuals engaged in the assembly of their own drones or seeking to enhance pre-purchased models.The reverberations of this event are being keenly experienced. In a recent development, it has come to light that China’s licensing requirements have imposed restrictions on Ukraine’s procurement of drone components. This revelation was shared by a seasoned drone operator hailing from the esteemed Kastus Kalinouski regiment, known by the callsign “Oddr.” In our relentless pursuit of solutions, we are actively exploring alternative measures to ensure the seamless functionality of our drones, akin to their previous operational capabilities.

 

This is just the most recent obstacle that volunteers obtaining drones for the Ukrainian and Russian forces must overcome. Two months after the full-scale invasion began in February 2022, the largest commercial drone manufacturer in the world, DJI, stopped direct sales to both nations. Additionally, it forbade its global distributors from offering to sell DJI goods to clients in Ukraine or Russia. The quantity of Chinese drones made accessible to distributors in Europe, according to Ms. Shypovych, dropped precipitously between August and September of 2022.

 

It is improbable that it occurred by accident. Drones are imported by Ukrainians from European nations, according to her. DJI was unable to confirm or refute any changes in the quantity of drones accessible to distributors in Europe when contacted by the BBC. The BBC contacted ten DJI product sellers in the UK, but none of them was willing to comment on the matter.

 

According to a New York Times investigation, Chinese corporations have reduced their sales of drones and their componentry to Ukrainians in recent months. But the afflicted countries are not limited to Ukraine. The Russian publication Kommersant made the following comment regarding the limits that went into effect on September 1st: “The restrictions imposed by the Chinese authorities on drone exports have seriously complicated their supplies to Russia and led to a shortage of some parts, such as thermal imaging cameras.”

When there are no direct supplies, Russian purchasers frequently purchase Chinese drones in Kazakhstan and other Central Asian nations. As reported by Kommersant, Kazakhstan has made it more difficult for these buyers by enforcing stricter import laws. Volunteers from Ukraine have been actively searching for alternatives manufactured in other nations, both in the West and within Ukraine, in order to lessen the impact of the Chinese limitations.

 

Drone procurement assistant Anatoly Polkovnikov reports that a start-up company in Ukraine is getting ready to start producing drone motors. “I don’t think these Chinese restrictions will have any impact on the general situation,” he declares with optimism about the future. I get the impression that they will eventually boost Ukrainian output.” Drones have never been used so widely and so many times in an armed conflict as the one in Ukraine, and both sides fighting the war want to keep it that way.

Autonomousvehiclesandselfdrivingcars-1200x675

Blind Navigation by Autonomous Vehicles

, , , , , , 0

         San Francisco witnessed a distressing incident this month as a woman endured severe injuries after being hit by a driver and subsequently propelled into the path of one of the numerous self-driving cars traversing the city’s streets. In a recent testimony, San Francisco’s fire chief, Jeanine Nicholson, revealed that autonomous vehicles have been causing disruptions to firefighting operations on 55 occasions this year, as reported until August. Since 2019, Tesla’s autopilot software, which serves as a driver-assistance system, has been implicated in 736 crashes and has tragically resulted in the loss of 17 lives nationwide.

           Amidst the ongoing debate surrounding the potential future threat of artificial intelligence to humanity, there appears to be a conspicuous absence of dialogue regarding how it poses a threat. In self-driving cars, navigating uncharted territory becomes a prominent concern.

           The absence of federal software safety testing standards for autonomous vehicles has created a significant loophole that industry giants such as Elon Musk, General Motors, and Waymo have been able to exploit by deploying thousands of cars. In the United States, the regulation of car hardware, including components like windshield wipers, airbags, and mirrors, falls under the purview of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The authority to grant driver’s licenses is decentralized in a system where the responsibility of licensing human drivers lies with the states. In order to obtain the privilege of operating a motor vehicle, most individuals are required to complete a series of assessments, including a visual examination, a written assessment, and a practical driving evaluation.

           Without government scrutiny, the AI assumes control of the wheel without undergoing any regulatory oversight. In California, businesses can obtain a license to run driverless cars if they declare that their vehicles have been tested and that the “manufacturer has reasonably determined that it is safe to operate the vehicle.”

           A glaring discrepancy has emerged regarding the jurisdiction responsible for licensing a computer driver in a perplexing conundrum. The question looms large: Does the authority lie with the esteemed National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), or does it rest within the purview of the state? This puzzling gap in oversight has left experts scratching their heads as the lines of responsibility remain blurred and unresolved. Missy Cummings, a professor and the esteemed director of the Mason Autonomy and Robotics Center at George Mason University, is queried. 

           In a curious twist of fate, the prevailing narrative surrounding the rise of artificial intelligence has fixated on the apprehension that machines will surpass human intelligence and seize dominion over our world. However, today’s stark reality is quite the opposite: computers frequently exhibit a lamentable lack of discernment, leading to inadvertent harm inflicted upon us mere mortals.

           In a bold assertion, the autonomous vehicle companies maintain that, notwithstanding the highly publicized instances of malfunction, their software surpasses the capabilities of human drivers. While it is plausible to consider the advantages of autonomous vehicles, such as their immunity to fatigue, impairment, and distractions like texting while driving, it is essential to acknowledge the lack of sufficient data to support such claims definitively. In the realm of autonomous vehicles, a disconcerting aspect emerges as these cutting-edge machines are found to commit their errors. Though distinct from the conventional blunders made by human drivers, these mistakes are not without their own set of consequences. One such instance involves autonomous cars halting in manners that inadvertently obstruct the path of emergency vehicles, impeding their crucial mission to provide urgent medical assistance. Additionally, there have been distressing reports of these self-driving vehicles inadvertently trapping crash victims, further exacerbating the dire circumstances they find themselves in. These unsettling incidents shed light on the imperfections that persist within autonomous transportation.

           In a recent display of legislative concern, Representatives Nancy Pelosi and Kevin Mullin penned a letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), urging the agency to intensify its efforts to gather comprehensive data on autonomous vehicle incidents. Of particular interest to the representatives are incidents involving stationary vehicles that obstruct the path of emergency responders. The user suggests that additional comparison data regarding human-driven car crashes would be beneficial, as the information provided by the NHTSA is limited to crash estimates derived from sampling.

           

Nevertheless, why can’t we take action based on the information we gather?

           After all, artificial intelligence often produces unexpected errors. One of GM’s Cruise autonomous vehicles collided with a bus last year after making an inaccurate prediction of its path. The event resulted in a software update from GM. In 2017, a driverless car slammed on its brakes while attempting a left turn, seemingly out of fear that an oncoming vehicle might suddenly swerve into its path from the right. Instead, the oncoming car slammed with the driverless car that had halted suddenly. Both vehicles had injured passengers.

         These cars’ computer vision systems are highly fragile, the author writes. “They will fail in ways that we simply do not understand,” writes Dr Cummings, who argues that AI should be subject to licensing regulations similar to the eyesight and performance tests that pilots and drivers must pass. Automobiles are not the only ones affected. Artificial intelligence chatbots are failing in new and surprising ways every day, such as by making up their cases or sexually harassing their human users. We have been struggling with the shortcomings of AI recommendation systems for quite some time now, such as when it pushed ideologically biased content on YouTube or promoted gun components and drug paraphernalia on Amazon despite the company’s ban on such things. Despite all of these concrete examples of harm, many regulators continue to be preoccupied with the hypothetical and, to some, far-fetched disaster scenarios generated by the AI doomers, who are prominent tech experts and executives who claim that the biggest fear is the possibility of human extinction in the distant future. Politico says such pessimists are in charge of Britain’s AI task group ahead of the country’s next AI Safety Summit in November.

           The United States Congress has witnessed the emergence of a diverse range of proposals in AI legislation. These legislative endeavours predominantly revolve around apprehensions associated with potential doomsday scenarios. Key focal points include prohibiting AI systems from assuming control over nuclear launch determinations and imposing licensing and registration requirements for specific high-risk AI models.

           In a scathing critique, Heidy Khalaf, an esteemed software safety engineer and engineering director at Trail of Bits, a renowned technical security firm, dismisses the doomer theories as nothing more than a cunning ploy to divert people’s attention towards an endless array of perils. With her piercing analysis, Khlaaf exposes the underlying motive behind these theories, suggesting that they serve as a mere distraction tactic designed to keep individuals perpetually chasing after infinite risks. In a recent scholarly article, Dr. Khlaaf put forth a compelling argument advocating a more targeted approach to AI safety testing. The crux of the argument lies in the need to tailor safety measures to the specific domains in which artificial intelligence operates. For instance, Dr. Khlaaf highlights the importance of implementing safety testing protocols designed explicitly for AI systems like ChatGPT, which are intended for use by legal professionals. This nuanced perspective sheds light on the significance of domain-specific safety considerations in artificial intelligence.

The user asserts that it is imperative to recognize the solvability of the issue of AI safety and emphasizes the urgency to address it promptly by utilizing the existing resources at our disposal. In a call for caution and thorough evaluation, experts across various domains emphasize the need to assess the artificial intelligence (AI) employed in their respective fields. As suggested by these experts, a crucial starting point involves subjecting a fleet of autonomous vehicles to rigorous vision and driving tests. This meticulous approach examines the potential risks of implementing AI technology in autonomous transportation.

In a relatively lacklustre manner, the user asserts that safety, despite its seemingly mundane nature, is paramount. The endeavour involves a cadre of seasoned professionals meticulously conducting experiments and formulating comprehensive assessments. The urgency of the matter necessitates immediate action.

 

Israel-hamas-gaza-war-GettyImages-1714977072

The Emerging of Hamas War

, , , , , 0

The present intensification in the hostilities between Israel and Hamas, commonly known as the Hamas War, can be attributed to underlying factors that can be traced back to the enduring Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This conflict is an intricate and diverse matter that encompasses various stakeholders, including the conflicting parties, regional powers, and international organizations. The genesis of Hamas can be traced back to 1987, in the aftermath of the First Intifada, a sequence of Palestinian uprisings characterized by acts of violence. The primary objective of Hamas was to secure the liberation of Palestine from Israeli domination. Hamas identifies itself as a resistance movement that is engaged in combat against what it considers as Israeli tyranny and the infringement upon the rights of the Palestinian people.

 

Within the present framework, the latest acts of aggression perpetrated by Hamas signify a notable intensification as compared to other instances of confrontation. The organization executed an unparalleled, multifaceted offensive against Israel, encompassing aerial, maritime, and terrestrial maneuvers that were initiated from the Gaza Strip. The aforementioned assault exhibited a very strategic design and caught the nation of Israel off guard. During the course of these attacks, Hamas militants successfully detained a significant number of Israeli individuals as hostages. The precise number of hostages remains unverified.

 

Hamas designated their military campaign as ‘Operation Al-Aqsa Flood’, highlighting its perception of Israeli actions as sacrilegious towards a significant Islamic sanctuary located in Jerusalem. This observation suggests that religious elements are also influential in the conflict. Moreover, Hamas vehemently opposes the Oslo peace accords that were signed by Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) during the mid-1990s. The organization has officially dedicated itself to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state within its recognized boundaries. It has pursued this objective by engaging in acts of aggression against Israeli military personnel, settlers, and civilians, both within the occupied Palestinian territory and within the borders of Israel.

 

To begin with, it is crucial to comprehend that the struggle is fundamentally grounded in historical, political, and theological contentions. Hence, it is imperative for any resolution process to effectively tackle these fundamental concerns. This encompasses the acknowledgment of the respective entitlements of both parties to coexist and reside in a state of tranquility, the creation of borders that are mutually accepted, the determination of Jerusalem’s legal standing, and the entitlement of Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland. The President of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has restated the notion that violence should not be considered as a means to achieve settlement. The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has conveyed its readiness to assume the role of a diplomatic mediator, with the expectation that both parties involved will recognize the significance of engaging in discussion. This observation suggests that diplomatic negotiations and peace talks are widely seen as essential components in the process of resolving conflicts.

 

Nevertheless, the process of these conversations is frequently hindered by several external variables. Analogously, the involvement of Iran in the conflict has been compared to that of a Russian nesting doll. The conflict in Ukraine has resulted in significant shifts in geopolitical alliances, thereby providing Tehran with the assurance of support from influential allies, primarily in terms of diplomatic protection. This observation underscores the significant impact that regional and international politics can exert on the dynamics of the conflict and the subsequent process of resolving it. Furthermore, it is worth noting that Hamas advocates for military resistance, whilst Fatah has actively advocated for engaging in discussions as a means to resolve the situation. The two forces have consistently engaged in a protracted conflict over territorial control throughout the previous few decades. Several attempts to reach a resolution for the conflict have failed. This highlights the intra-factional rifts within the Palestinian leadership and its potential ramifications for the progress of the peace negotiations. The situation remains tense and complex, with both sides suffering significant casualties and damage. The international community has expressed concern over the escalating violence and called for an immediate ceasefire. However, achieving a lasting peace will require addressing the root causes of the conflict, including issues related to territorial disputes, refugees, security, political control, and mutual recognition.

 

The convening of an emergency meeting by the United Nations Security Council in response to the ongoing violence between Hamas and Israeli forces has resulted in an inability to achieve consensus on a single statement. The issuance of a resolution by the United Nations Security Council on May 10, 2021, signifies its appeal for an expeditious cessation of hostilities and its denouncement of acts of aggression targeting non-combatants. The United Nations has yet to provide a specific conflict resolution pertaining to the Hamas War that aligns with the principles of humanitarian law. The esteemed UN Human Rights Council has taken the initiative to commence an investigation into the regrettable incidents of violence that transpired during the recent conflict between Israel and Hamas in 2021. Nevertheless, the resolution failed to explicitly mention either Hamas or Israel. In the year 2022, the United Nations Human Rights Council made the decision to initiate an investigation characterized by acts of violence, pertaining to the ongoing conflict between the State of Israel and the Palestinian organization known as Hamas. The convening of an emergency meeting by the United Nations Security Council in reaction to the violence between Hamas and Israeli forces has resulted in an inability to find a consensus on a joint statement. In the interim, Indonesia has called upon the United Nations to implement tangible measures in order to cease Israeli military offensives in Gaza and extend support for the attainment of Palestinian sovereignty. Muhammadiyah has articulated its stance about the battle between Hamas and Israeli troops, advocating for individuals to engage in prayer for the war’s victims and to adhere to and execute the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council as a means of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

 

International Humanitarian Law (IHL) comprises a collection of regulations that govern the behavior observed during armed conflicts, with the primary objective of mitigating the impact of such conflicts on individuals who are not actively engaged in combat, including civilians and medical staff. Hamas is obligated to adhere to the standards of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), which establish the parameters of permissible and banned actions in times of armed conflict. The research published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs highlights the violation of various norms of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) by Hamas in the course of its confrontation with Israel. These violations encompass the deliberate launching of rockets from civilian areas and the employment of human shields. The research further highlights that acts of terrorism are specifically proscribed by international humanitarian law (IHL) treaties, as are acts or threats of violence that aim primarily to instill fear among the civilian population. In summation, the resolution of the Hamas War necessitates a comprehensive and holistic approach that not only attends to the immediate manifestations of violence but also delves into the underlying factors that have contributed to its emergence. The matter at hand encompasses the intricate realm of diplomatic negotiations, necessitating astute regional cooperation, while simultaneously grappling with the imperative task of addressing the internal divisions that persist within the esteemed Palestinian leadership. Furthermore, the attainment of success in this endeavor is contingent upon the unwavering support of the international community. Nevertheless, in light of the intricate nature of these matters and the inherently unstable circumstances at hand, the attainment of a durable state of tranquility continues to present itself as a formidable undertaking.

 

 

 

Load More

Back To Top

Head Office

Institut DIP, Grand Wijaya Center, C31/Lt2, Jalan Wijaya 2, Kebayoran Baru, Jakarta 12620, Indonesia

Ph/WA: (62) 838-9217-9239

Website: https://dip.or.id    Email:info@dip.or.id

DISCLAIMER 

“DIP Institute provides the insert URL here website as a service to the public. DIP Institute is not responsible for, and expressly disclaims all liability for, damages of any kind arising out of use, reference to, or reliance on any information contained within this website”.

..All Right reserved DIP Institute 2021..