Last week, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) at The Hague ruled that China had violated the sovereign rights of The Philippines by staking its claim to the South China Sea. A decision three years in the making, it a setback for China, however small, and it sets the stage for potential conflict between China and the various other nations that stake their claim on the South China Sea. The South China Sea, as the name suggests, is located off of the shore of southern China’s Hainan, and is encircled by The Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam, Brunei, and Malaysia. All countries claim various levels of sovereignty over the region. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) allows for a 200 mile line from the coast as the sovereign territory of a nation, though this is not universal and alternate maritime marking mechanisms exist. China claims the lion’s share of the sea, in an area marked by the “Nine-Dash Line”, which is literally an area marked by nine red dashes stretching hundreds of miles south of its coastline. The basis of the claim is in a map issued by China in 1947, though maritime experts claim that it is loosely defined. Vietnam claims sovereignty over the oceanic region, and the two island chains in it, since the 17th century. The Philippines maintains its right to the South China Sea based on proximity, whereas Malaysia and Brunei stick to the UNCLOS convention for maritime borders. The region is a cause of concern for the US The region is also a cause of concern for the US, especially since its pivot to South East Asia under the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which allows for American goods to have better access to markets bordering the Pacific. Despite claiming that it has a policy of non-interference, the US has conducted the so-called freedom of navigation operations, ostensibly to ensure access to key shipping and aerial routes is intact, but Beijing only sees it as an irritation and provocation. The South China Sea is a major shipping...

It is ping-pong season in Afghanistan. Within 48 hours of an assertion on the status of hostilities by US Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joe Dunford, Taliban delivered a snub through coordinated attacks in several districts in northern, northeastern and southern Afghan provinces.  On July 19, Afghan officials acknowledged the insurgents have made territorial gains in some areas. The renewed insurgent hostilities came a day after Dunford concluded a three-day visit to Kabul as part of the overall assessment of NATO’s Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan. He attributed recent lower level of violence than anticipated to Afghan forces’ significantly increased capabilities, notably air power. But Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid offered a contrasting claim and attributed the slow-down in attacks to the “unusually hot month of Ramadan.”  In messages to media, Mujahid said simultaneous and coordinated attacks in several provinces, including Kunduz, Baghlan, Badakhshan and Helmand starting Sunday are a proof of the plans the Taliban devised during Ramadan and the activity is going to intensify. These conflicting views mean continued hostilities and an enormous financial bleeding for the US-led Resolute Support Mission, a sequel to the Operation Enduring Freedom, which ended in December 2014 with the bulk drawdown of US-NATO troops from Afghanistan, following a 13-year massive infusion of money (over $700 billion) and manpower in the war that peaked in 2010/11 with 133,000 men. Additionally, this cost several billion dollars in the name of Afghan-military related support missions, infrastructure projects, and social service centres. It has been a bizarre spending spree sans accountability. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction office, headed by John Sopko since 2012, has looked at hundreds of projects to check how the approximately $113.1 billion spent on Afghanistan relief and reconstruction since 2002 were spent. These audits also...

Some recent events and statements originating in Washington, Warsaw (NATO summit) and Kabul, seemed to have created a triumphant, though largely misplaced impression that both India and Afghanistan have managed to encircle Pakistan. An appended perception was that of Islamabad’s international isolation. But these noises beg some reflection. Is Pakistan really isolated? Let us look around for an answer. China has stuck its neck out for a mutually beneficial multi-billion dollar China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Russia too, is embarking on a new phase of relations with Pakistan, particularly after the latter’s entry into the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. The World Bank has loaned some $5.5 billion to the country in the last three years, which wouldn’t be possible without a nod by Washington, which holds majority shares in the Bank. And what about power brokers in Washington DC itself? Well, one finds a lot of cockcrows, trying to belittle Pakistan; among them, Balochistan-fame congressmen like Dana Rohrabachar, or the Afghan-American Zalmay Khalilzad; although he has served as the US ambassador in Afghanistan, but in Washington he sounds more like the Afghan ambassador. During the July 12 proceedings of a sub-panel of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Khalilzad and Bill Roggio, senior editor of the publication Long War Journal, accused the Pakistan military of maintaining ties with the Taliban and Haqqani militants. This is the time to increase the pressure by suspending all assistance to Pakistan — military and civilian — and move towards isolating Pakistan internationally, including not supporting IMF renewal of financial support, Khalilzad argued in his testimony, which was vociferously shared with the media by Indian and Afghan officials in Washington. Unlike these noises by presumably directly or otherwise paid lobbyists, remarks by Senator John McCain and other members of a bipartisan congressional delegation to Pakistan and Afghanistan after...