Syria at war with turkey

The Turkish parliament’s foreign affairs commission approved a bill ratifying Finland’s bid to join NATO Thursday, according to state broadcaster TRT Haber . The bill is still waiting on approval from the parliament’s general assembly.

The move comes as Finnish President Sauli Niinistö formally sealed the Nordic nation’s historic bid to join the military alliance, Thursday, signing into law the required national legal amendments needed for membership of NATO.

Turkey and Hungary are the only two of NATO’s 30 existing members who haven’t ratified Finland’s bid. Admitting new countries requires unanimous approval from the alliance members, and the parliaments in Ankara and Budapest haven’t yet given the green light.

After delays of several months, the Hungarian parliament is finally expected to approve the Finnish accession into NATO on 27 March.

Despite, backing Finland joining NATO, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has held off approving Sweden’s bid. It isn’t clear either when Budapest will ratify Stockholm’s bid.

Last week Niinistö visited Ankara , where Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan pledged to move forward with ratifying Finland’s application, ahead of Turkey’s presidential and parliamentary elections scheduled for 14 May.

Finland’s 200-seat Eduskunta parliament endorsed the country’s NATO bid with an overwhelming 184-7 majority at the beginning of March .

Finland and neighboring Sweden applied to become NATO members 10 months ago in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, abandoning decades of nonalignment.

This is seen by many experts as one of the biggest geopolitical ramifications of Moscow’s war in Ukraine. Finland’s border with Russia runs for a total of 1,340 kilometers (832 miles).

Finland and Sweden are close partners culturally, economically and politically. They submitted their bids together and planned to join the alliance at the same time.

On Wednesday, Swedish lawmakers overwhelmingly voted in favor of Sweden joining NATO , signing off on the country’s membership along with the required legislation.

As Russian tanks and troops amassed around Ukraine’s borders in February 2022, President Vladimir Putin ‘s meeting with Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping ahead of the Winter Olympic Games in Beijing served to showcase the unprecedented “comprehensive strategic partnership for a new era” between the two men and their nations.

Less than two weeks later, the Kremlin launched what has become Europe’s most devastating war in decades. And now, more than a year after their last in-person encounter, Xi has once again met Putin, this time as part of a three-day visit to Moscow that wrapped up Wednesday.

The trip comes in the wake of a 12-point Russia-Ukraine peace framework proposed by the Chinese Foreign Ministry and a surprise deal overseen by Xi for Middle East rivals Iran and Saudi Arabia to reestablish diplomatic ties, signaling the Chinese leader’s willingness to stake a claim toward resolving a conflict still raging thousands of miles away with no clear end in sight.

Although it appears that Xi is leaving Moscow without a tangible deal, he may be walking away with key gains that could ultimately influence the course of the war.

“The Chinese top leader is likely to use this trip to have a better grasp of his Russian counterpart’s true intention about the crisis at this stage,” Zhang Xin, an associate professor at the East China Normal University in Shanghai, told Newsweek , “and based on such an updated perception, may try to use China’s and his personal leverage to help frame (not dictate) the course of the crisis in Ukraine.”

Zhang was skeptical that Xi or any top Chinese officials harbored “the illusion that the trip would lead to a peace deal or some other form of political settlement right away.” But he noted that the Chinese leader’s “intention to de-escalate is sincere to start with and any role towards resuming peace talks would be a tremendous victory for Chinese diplomacy.”

“It is also possible the trip will give the Chinese decision-makers some updated clues whether it is possible to give all parties directly involved a way out,” Zhang said, “and what this ‘way out’ may entail for both Russia and Ukraine.”

The White House has preemptively rejected any China-brokered ceasefire, arguing that such a move would only benefit Russia’s efforts to entrench and refresh its troops in Ukraine. Should Beijing and Moscow unite in their call for even a temporary cessation of hostilities, however, the U.S. position could run the risk of backfiring in terms of international views of the conflict.

“It may even reinforce the perception that Ukraine is not in the position to make these crucial decisions by herself,” Zhang said, “and Ukraine may be willing to make some compromises for a possible ceasefire or peace deal, and it is the U.S. as the puppet master that is trying to block a possible peace deal now.”

George Beebe, a decades-long veteran of Russia analysis in U.S. government postings including at the State Department, the White House and the CIA , also warned of possible blowback associated with Washington’s approach.

Beebe, now serving as director of grand strategy at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft in Washington, D.C., told Newsweek that such a U.S. position “plays into China’s hands in the attempt to portray the United States as opposed to peace, as an obstacle to the settlement in Ukraine, as a spoiler of potential compromises.”

“Implicit in that [U.S.] argument is that there can be no agreed settlement,” Beebe added. “If you’re saying that Russia can hold no Ukrainian territory it annexed or conquered and any acknowledgement of that only ratifies and legitimizes aggression and that’s something we can’t agree on, what you’re essentially saying is the only way this war can end is if Ukraine completely defeats the Russian military and drives it off of all Ukrainian territory.”

Even with Kyiv prepared to wage a spring counteroffensive armed with a growing list of Western military equipment, however, he argued that such a “decisive victory” may not be possible at this stage, particularly because of something else Xi’s visit signals.

“The Chinese are signaling that they do not want the Russians to lose this war, and they are totally capable of making sure that the Russians don’t,” Beebe argued. “So that imposes, I think, some real constraints on what is possible for Ukraine and the United States to achieve on the ground.”

So far, Beijing has not sent any significant military aid to Moscow, and Chinese officials have said such a move would not align with China’s neutral policy. At the same time, U.S. officials say their intelligence suggests such a decision is not off the table for Beijing.

Beebe also saw China holding leverage on Russia to ensure Beijing’s overtures were not repelled by the Kremlin.

“The Russians have such dependence on China, economically and strategically, largely as a result of this invasion and the resulting alienation of the West that has followed, that the Russians can’t really stiff-arm the Chinese on their involvement,” he said. “That’s already clear from this visit.”

Olexiy Haran, a professor at the National University of Kyiv Mohyla Academy in Ukraine, also told Newsweek that “China doesn’t want Russia to be defeated for obvious reasons.”

“China needs Russia in global competition with the West, particularly with the United States,” Haran said. “Secondly, China uses the weakening of Russia to receive supplies of Russian energy resources at cheap prices and in transforming Russia into a junior partner of China.”

He said that so far Beijing’s assistance to Moscow appeared to be limited to non-lethal aid such as boots and drones that do not have combat purposes. And he conveyed that his “hope is that China will not supply Russia with arms” moving forward.

Haran doubted whether China’s plan was to get Russian forces to pull out entirely from Ukrainian territory without conditions, or that Beijing “was an honest broker” due to its echoing of Moscow’s talking points over the origins of the conflict being tied to NATO expansion. But he believed Xi’s influence “may be useful in some concrete, specific target points.”

Those could include ensuring that Putin does not use a nuclear weapon in the conflict, and securing Moscow’s exit from the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant, which is Europe’s largest, located in one of four regions Russia annexed from Ukraine amid internationally unrecognized referendums held last September.

He also noted that China remained interested in maintaining the grain corridor established in a deal between the two sides brokered last summer by Turkey.

From Russia’s perspective, Xi’s visit also serves to show the world the lasting strength of the relationship between Beijing and Moscow at a time when Washington has applied pressure to both of its rivals.

This relationship, which both sides have repeatedly asserted has “no limits,” has been on the rise for two decades in the form of increasing trade, political exchanges and military exercises, and the detente has only intensified over the past decade since Xi came to power. Not even Russia’s war in Ukraine appears to have disrupted this trend.

Andrey Gubin, a professor at the Far Eastern Federal University in Vladivostok, Russia and also at Jilin University in China, pointed to the fact that Xi made his first presidential visit to Moscow shortly after taking office 10 years ago in March 2013, and once again has chosen Russia as his first international trip after being sworn in to his third term earlier this month.

Gubin argued that, “today, Moscow is an even more significant and trusted partner in economic, political, security and ideology domains,” as the two powers “advocate for equal opportunities provided with law-based and U.N.-centered international order instead of the liberal rules-based pattern, which is promoted by the collective West.”

And as the U.S. and its allies, especially in Europe, fight to push back against the order being promoted by China and Russia, he stated that “the Ukrainian crisis is the physical manifestation of such a standoff, that’s why mitigation here will allow them to gain experience in further breakdowns of prevention wherever.”

Gubin described “China’s appeals for peace and dialogue” as “natural,” but he said they would only prove “decisive” if the West took heed, a reaction that has not yet manifested.

“President Putin confirmed some elements of China’s plan can be the basis for the crisis management and peace process,” Gubin said. “However, the existential problem is total reluctance of NATO to be a part of negotiations.”

This could change, however, with the dawn of a new era in Chinese peacekeeping power. Beijing’s efforts to mediate between Tehran and Riyadh have demonstrated how influential the People’s Republic can be, especially as the deal followed meetings held by Xi with the leaders of both Iran and Saudi Arabia in recent months.

Reports now suggest that Xi is in the midst of planning to speak with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky , likely via phone or virtual link, in what would be their first known conversation since the conflict began.

The Ukrainian leader has long sought such a direct line and, unlike his some of his international supporters, has been reticent in criticizing China, a country with vast potential to rebuild his war-ravaged country. China is also Ukraine’s top trading partner.

“Ultimately, China’s importance as the second largest economy in the world, combined with the possibility that China could eventually play a role in brokering or securing a settlement, may be enough to prevent Zelensky and other European leaders from turning their backs on China altogether,” Jessica Chen Weiss, a former State Department senior adviser under President Joe Biden ‘s administration who is now a professor of political science at Cornell University, told Newsweek .

Doing so requires a careful balancing act for the head of the People’s Republic now leading his most ambitious diplomatic charge to date.

Weiss argued that Xi’s latest encounter with Putin “reflects the continuing premium he places on partnering with Russia against what he has called U.S. efforts to contain and suppress China.”

At the same time, she said the Chinese leader “is also trying to reassure investors and stabilize China’s relationship with Europe, which helps explain China’s efforts to put forward a position paper on a peace settlement for Ukraine and anticipated virtual engagement with Zelensky.”

This point on messaging was also voiced by Tong Zhao, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a research scholar at Princeton University in New Jersey.

“China probably calculates that its mediation would be more successful once the Russians and Ukrainians become too exhausted to continue fighting, which they have not yet reached,” Zhao told Newsweek . “Currently, China’s mediation efforts are primarily intended to enhance its reputation and image among third-party forces, particularly in Europe and the Global South, who play an essential role in Beijing’s global competition with Washington.”

And though this has presented yet another challenge to the U.S. at a time when Washington has been forced to mount a fierce defense against arguments that its influence in the world was waning, Zhao identified an opportunity for the West in Xi’s strategy.

Zhao argued that, rather than repel such Chinese efforts on Ukraine, however likely or unlikely they were to succeed, “Washington and its Western allies should encourage China to contribute as much as possible.”

“By attempting to provide a constructive solution to the ongoing conflict, China can gradually learn to behave as a responsible major power,” he said.

“The United States should create opportunities for China to gain a more balanced perspective on critical international security issues and develop a deeper understanding of the international community’s expectations of its responsibility,” Zhao added, “rather than undermining them.”

The US government has been issuing reports on human rights practices in every other country on the planet since 1977 without ever publishing one on itself. Such finger-pointing, often blindly, appears especially ironic this year because of what the reports released on March 20, the 20th anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq, say.

However, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken did not even mention the disastrous Iraq War at his news conference on Monday. The US invasion of Iraq, with the active support of countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia, was based on lies. Former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had not stockpiled weapons of mass destruction, which the US used as a pretext to invade Iraq. Besides, the US commission on the Sept 11, 2001, attacks concluded there was no evidence to show any relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida.

Between 100,000 and 500,000 Iraqis, according to different estimates, were killed in the Iraq War and more than 9 million were forced to flee their homes and become refugees or seek shelter elsewhere in the country. But the real cost is much higher because a large number of people died as an indirect cause of the war such as lack of access to medical care, and non-availability of food and safe drinking water.

If the Iraq War, supported by both parties and endorsed by many news outlets including The New York Times, is not the worst human rights violation, or a war crime or crime against humanity in the 21st century, then what constitutes human rights violation or war crime?

Claiming that the Iraq War was not a crime against humanity is like arguing that impoverishing innocent people in Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, Afghanistan and Syria, by imposing barbaric economic sanctions on those countries, as well as depriving women and children of food and medicine, is not a crime against humanity or human rights violation.

The Iraq War has caused untold suffering to not just the Iraqi people but also people in the rest of the Middle East and even Europe, which encountered wave after wave of Iraqi refugees.

Besides, the 20-year-long US war in and occupation of Afghanistan, NATO’s invasion and bombing of Libya in 2011 and Washington’s drone strikes on a dozen or so Muslim countries are among the worst human rights violations and war crimes.

Yet on the 20th anniversary of the Iraq War, there was such a deafening collective silence among Western politicians who like to lecture the world about human rights and accuse other countries of committing war crimes or crimes against humanity.

No wonder even Tibor Nagy, a former US assistant secretary of state for Africa and former US ambassador to Guinea and Ethiopia, said in a tweet on Tuesday that it was never pleasant delivering the annual US human rights report to host country officials. “They always asked: ‘Where is report on HR practices in US itself?'” wrote Nagy, adding that “that was, and remains, a great question!”

On the other hand, Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador lashed out at US hypocrisy on Tuesday, calling the US reports “lies” and stressing that the US “cannot talk about human rights with Julian Assange detained, cartel violence with US President Joe Biden bombing the Nord Stream, or democracy while arresting the leading presidential candidate Donald Trump”.

The US government has weaponized human rights, but the world can no longer be easily fooled. The US has invaded and bombed more countries and waged more wars than any other country over the past decades.

Domestically, the staggering racial disparity including the 6:1 wealth gap between white and black Americans is probably the biggest human rights violation by the US administration. And the US Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade in June 2022 is the biggest human rights violation against women.

The US government would be better served if it publishes a report on its own human rights record instead of ignoring the mess at home and pointing fingers at others.

The author is chief of China Daily EU Bureau based in Brussels.

[email protected]