WASHINGTON: A US withdrawal from a Cold War-era nuclear arms treaty with Russia could give the Pentagon new options to counter Chinese missile advances but experts warn the ensuing arms race could greatly escalate tensions in the Asia-Pacific.
US officials have been warning for years that the United States was being put at a disadvantage by China's development of increasingly sophisticated land-based missile forces, which the Pentagon could not match thanks to the US treaty with Russia.
President Donald Trump has signaled he may soon give the Pentagon a freer hand to confront those advances, if he makes good on threats to pull out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which required elimination of short- and intermediate-range nuclear and conventional missiles.
Dan Blumenthal, a former Pentagon official now at the American Enterprise Institute, said a treaty pullout could pave the way for the United States to field easier-to-hide, road-mobile conventional missiles in places like Guam and Japan.
That would make it harder for China to consider a conventional first strike against US ships and bases in the region. It could also force Beijing into a costly arms race, forcing China to spend more on missile defenses.
"It will change the picture fundamentally," Blumenthal said.
Even as Trump has blamed Russian violations of the treaty for his decision, he has also pointed a finger at China. Beijing was not party to the INF treaty and has been fielding new and more deadly missile forces.
These include China's DF-26 intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM), which has a maximum range of 4,000 km (2,500 miles) and which the Pentagon says can threaten US land and sea-based forces as far away as the Pacific island of Guam. It was first fielded in 2016.
"If Russia is doing it (developing these missiles) and China is doing it and we're adhering to the agreement, that's unacceptable," Trump said on Sunday.
John Bolton, White House national security advisor, noted that recent Chinese statements suggest it wanted Washington to stay in the treaty.
"And that's perfectly understandable. If I were Chinese, I would say the same thing," he told the Echo Moskvy radio station. "Why not have the Americans bound, and the Chinese not bound?"
Growing threat
US officials have so far relied on other capabilities as a counter-balance to China, like missiles fired from US ships or aircraft. But advocates for a US land-based missile response say that is the best way to deter Chinese use of its muscular land-based missile forces.
Kelly Magsamen, who helped craft the Pentagon's Asian policy under the Obama administration, said China's ability to work outside of the INF treaty had vexed policymakers in Washington, long before Trump came into office.
But she cautioned that any new US policy guiding missile deployments in Asia would need to be carefully coordinated with allies, something that does not appear to have happened yet.
Mismanagement of expectations surrounding a US treaty pullout could also unsettle security in the Asia-Pacific, she cautioned.
"It's potentially destabilizing," she said.
Experts warn that China would put pressure on countries in the region to refuse US requests to position missiles there.
Abraham Denmark, a former senior Pentagon official under Obama, said Guam, Japan and even Australia were possible locations for US missile deployments.
"But there are a lot of alliance questions that appear at first glance to be very tricky," he cautioned.
Still, current and former US officials say Washington is right to focus on China's missile threat. Harry Harris, who led US military forces in the Pacific before becoming US ambassador to Seoul, said earlier this year that the United States was at a disadvantage.
"We have no ground-based (missile) capability that can threaten China because of, among other things, our rigid adherence ... to the treaty," Harris told a Senate hearing in March, without calling for the treaty to be scrapped.
Asked about Trump's comments, China's foreign ministry said a unilateral US withdrawal would have a negative impact and urged the United States to "think thrice before acting."
"Talking about China on the issue of unilaterally pulling out of the treaty is completely mistaken," spokeswoman Hua Chunying said.
Trump's missile treaty pullout could escalate tension with China
Trump's missile treaty pullout could escalate tension with China
- Trump earlier said US will pullout from a Cold War-era treaty with Russia on nuclear arms
- China was not party to the treaty and has been fielding new and more deadly missile forces
UK veterans break silence on ‘barbaric’ killings in Iraq, Afghanistan
- Unlawful executions ‘became routine,’ ex-special forces members tell BBC
- Veteran: ‘Everyone knew. There was implicit approval for what was happening’
LONDON: British special forces allegedly carried out a pattern of war crimes going back more than a decade to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, former members have told the BBC.
Breaking years of silence to provide eyewitness accounts to the “Panorama” investigative program, multiple veterans reported that their colleagues had killed people in their sleep, executed detainees — including children — and planted weapons to justify the murders.
The two units at the center of the reports are the British Army’s Special Air Service and Royal Navy’s Special Boat Service, the country’s top special forces units.
One SAS veteran who served in Afghanistan said: “They handcuffed a young boy and shot him. He was clearly a child, not even close to fighting age.”
The eyewitness accounts relate to allegations of war crimes that took place more than a decade ago, far longer than the scope of a public inquiry into the allegations now being carried out in the UK, which is examining a three-year period.
The SAS veteran told “Panorama” that the execution of detainees by British special forces “became routine.”
Soldiers would “search someone, handcuff them, then shoot them,” before “planting a pistol” by the body, he added.
British and international law only permits deliberate killing when enemy combatants pose a direct threat to the lives of troops or other people.
An SBS veteran told the program that some troops suffered from a “mob mentality,” causing them to behave “barbarically.”
He added: “I saw the quietest guys switch, show serious psychopathic traits. They were lawless. They felt untouchable.”
The “Panorama” investigation includes witness testimony from more than 30 people who served with or alongside British special forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Another SAS veteran said: “Sometimes we’d check we’d identified the target, confirm their ID, then shoot them. Often the squadron would just go and kill all the men they found there.”
Killing became “an addictive thing to do,” another SAS Afghanistan veteran said, adding that some soldiers in the elite regiment were “intoxicated by that feeling.”
He said: “On some operations, the troops would go into guesthouse-type buildings and kill everyone there.
“They’d go in and shoot everyone sleeping there, on entry. It’s not justified, killing people in their sleep.”
One veteran recalled an execution in Iraq, saying: “It was pretty clear from what I could glean that he posed no threat, he wasn’t armed. It’s disgraceful. There’s no professionalism in that.”
Awareness of the alleged war crimes was not confined to individual units or teams, veterans told “Panorama.”
Within the command structure of the British special forces, “everyone knew” what was taking place, one veteran said.
“I’m not taking away from personal responsibility, but everyone knew,” he added. “There was implicit approval for what was happening.”
In order to cover up the killings, some SAS and SBS members went as far as carrying “drop weapons,” such as Kalashnikovs, to plant at the scene of executions.
These would be photographed alongside the dead and included in post-operational reports, which were often falsified.
One veteran said: “We understood how to write up serious incident reviews so they wouldn’t trigger a referral to the military police.
“If it looked like a shooting could represent a breach of the rules of conflict, you’d get a phone call from the legal adviser or one of the staff officers in HQ.
“They’d pick you up on it and help you to clarify the language. ‘Do you remember someone making a sudden move?’ ‘Oh yeah, I do now.’ That sort of thing. It was built into the way we operated.”
The investigation also revealed that David Cameron, UK prime minister at the time of the alleged war crimes, was repeatedly warned about the killings by then-Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
He “consistently, repeatedly mentioned this issue,” former Afghan National Security Adviser Dr. Rangin Dadfar Spanta told the program.
Gen. Douglas Lute, a former US ambassador to NATO, said Karzai was “so consistent with his complaints about night raids, civilian casualties and detentions that there was no senior Western diplomat or military leader who would have missed the fact that this was a major irritant for him.”
In response to the gathering of new witness testimony by “Panorama,” the UK’s Ministry of Defense said it is “fully committed” to supporting the public inquiry into the alleged war crimes. It urged all veterans with knowledge relating to the allegations to come forward.
US, China agree to slash tariffs in trade war de-escalation
- The United States and China announced Monday an agreement to drastically reduce tit-for-tat tariffs for 90 days
GENEVA: The United States and China announced Monday an agreement to drastically reduce tit-for-tat tariffs for 90 days, de-escalating a trade war that has roiled financial markets and raised fears of a global economic downturn.
After their first talks since US President Donald Trump launched his trade war, the world’s two biggest economies agreed in a joint statement to bring their triple-digit tariffs down to two figures and continue negotiations.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent described the weekend talks with Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng and international trade representative Li Chenggang as “productive” and “robust.”
“Both sides showed a great respect,” Bessent told reporters.
US President Donald Trump had imposed duties of 145 percent on imports for China last month — compared to 10 percent for other countries in the global tariff blitz he launched last month.
Beijing hit back with duties of 125 percent on US goods.
Bessent said the two sides agreed to reduce those tariffs by 115 percentage points, taking US tariffs to 30 percent and those by China to 10 percent.
In their statement, the two sides agreed to “establish a mechanism to continue discussions about economic and trade relations.”
China hailed the “substantial progress” made at the talks.
“This move... is in the interest of the two countries and the common interest of the world,” the Chinese commerce ministry said, adding that it hoped Washington would keep working with China “to correct the wrong practice of unilateral tariff rises.”
The dollar, which tumbled after Trump launched his tariff blitz in April, rallied on the news while US stock futures soared. European and Asian markets also rallied.
The trade dispute between Washington and Beijing has rocked financial markets, raising fears the tariffs would rekindle inflation and cause a global economic downturn.
The head of the World Trade Organization, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, praised the talks on Sunday as a “significant step forward” that “bode well for the future.”
“Amid current global tensions, this progress is important not only for the US and China but also for the rest of the world, including the most vulnerable economies,” she added.
Ahead of the meeting at the discreet villa residence of Switzerland’s ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, Trump had signalled he might lower the tariffs, suggesting on social media that an “80 percent Tariff on China seems right!“
However, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt later clarified that the United States would not lower tariffs unilaterally, saying China would also need to make concessions.
The Geneva meeting came days after Trump unveiled a trade agreement with Britain, the first with any country since he unleashed his blitz of global tariffs.
The five-page, nonbinding deal confirmed to nervous investors that Washington was willing to negotiate sector-specific relief from recent duties.
But Trump maintained a 10 percent levy on most British goods, and threatened to keep it in place as a baseline rate for most other countries.
UK’s Starmer says net migration will fall significantly
LONDON: British Prime Minister Keir Starmer promised net migration would fall significantly by 2029 as he announced policies to boost skills and training.
“It’s (...) a white paper that deals with skills and training, and one of the reasons that we’ve had stagnant growth chronically in skills and growth,” he said on Monday.
India great Virat Kohli retires from test cricket
- Kohli, 36, announces retirement only days after Rohit Sharma stepped down from test cricket as well
- He scored 9,230 runs including 30 centuries and 31 half-centuries at a test batting average of 46.85
NEW DELHI, India: India great Virat Kohli retired from test cricket Monday after playing 123 matches in his glorious 14-year red-ball career.
“As I step away from this format, it’s not easy — but it feels right,” Kohli posted on Instagram. “It’s been 14 years since I first wore the baggy blue in Test cricket. Honestly, I never imagined the journey this format would take me on. It’s tested me, shaped me, and taught me lessons I’ll carry for life.”
The 36-year-old Kohli’s retirement comes only days after Rohit Sharma stepped down from test cricket, taking two senior batters out of selection contention for India’s tour to England.
Kohli scored 9,230 runs including 30 centuries and 31 half-centuries at a test batting average of 46.85. He also led India in 68 test matches and was India’s most successful captain with 40 test wins.
Kohli said the traditions and ebbs and flows of the five-day format were special to him, including “the quiet grind, the long days, the small moments that no one sees but that stay with you forever.”
“I am walking away with a heart full of gratitude — for the game, for the people I shared the field with, and for every single person who made me feel seen along the way,” he wrote. “I will always look back at my test career with a smile. #269, signing off.”
India’s diplomatic ambitions tested as Trump pushes for deal on Kashmir
- India wary of third-party mediation, sees Kashmir as integral part of its territory
- India’s clout on global stage has risen with its rapid economic growth
NEW DELHI/ISLAMABAD: India and Pakistan have stepped back from the brink of all-out war, with a nudge from the US, but New Delhi’s aspirations as a global diplomatic power now face a key test after President Donald Trump offered to mediate on the dispute over Kashmir, analysts said.
India’s rapid rise as the world’s fifth-largest economy has boosted its confidence and clout on the world stage, where it has played an important role in addressing regional crises such as Sri Lanka’s economic collapse and the Myanmar earthquake.
But the conflict with Pakistan over Kashmir, which flared up in recent days with exchanges of missiles drones and air strikes that killed at least 66 people, touches a sensitive nerve in Indian politics.
How India threads the diplomatic needle — courting favor with Trump over issues like trade while asserting its own interests in the Kashmir conflict — will depend in large part on domestic politics and could determine the future prospects for conflict in Kashmir.
“India ... is likely not keen on the broader talks (that the ceasefire) calls for. Upholding it will pose challenges,” said Michael Kugelman, a South Asia analyst based in Washington.
In a sign of just how fragile the truce remains, the two governments accused each other of serious violations late on Saturday.
The ceasefire, Kugelman noted, was “cobbled together hastily” when tensions were at their peak.
Trump said on Sunday that, following the ceasefire, “I am going to increase trade, substantially, with both of these great nations.”
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, for his part, has not commented publicly on the conflict since it began.
India considers Kashmir an integral part of its territory and not open for negotiation, least of all through a third-party mediator. India and Pakistan both rule the scenic Himalayan region in part, claim it in full, and have fought two wars and numerous other conflicts over what India says is a Pakistan-backed insurgency there. Pakistan denies it backs insurgency.
“By agreeing to abort under US persuasion ... just three days of military operations, India is drawing international attention to the Kashmir dispute, not to Pakistan’s cross-border terrorism that triggered the crisis,” said Brahma Chellaney, an Indian defense analyst.
For decades after the two countries separated in 1947, the West largely saw India and Pakistan through the same lens as the neighbors fought regularly over Kashmir. That changed in recent years, partly thanks to India’s economic rise while Pakistan languished with an economy less than one-10th India’s size.
But Trump’s proposal to work toward a solution to the Kashmir problem, along with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s declaration that India and Pakistan would start talks on their broader issues at a neutral site, has irked many Indians.
Pakistan has repeatedly thanked Trump for his offer on Kashmir, while India has not acknowledged any role played by a third party in the ceasefire, saying it was agreed by the two sides themselves.
Analysts and Indian opposition parties are already questioning whether New Delhi met its strategic objectives by launching missiles into Pakistan on Wednesday last week, which it said were in retaliation for an attack last month on tourists in Kashmir that killed 26 men. It blamed the attack on Pakistan — a charge that Islamabad denied.
By launching missiles deep into Pakistan, Modi showed a much higher appetite for risk than his predecessors. But the sudden ceasefire exposed him to rare criticism at home.
Swapan Dasgupta, a former lawmaker from Modi’s Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party, said the ceasefire had not gone down well in India partly because “Trump suddenly appeared out of nowhere and pronounced his verdict.”
The main opposition Congress party got in on the act, demanding an explanation from the government on the “ceasefire announcements made from Washington, D.C.”
“Have we opened the doors to third-party mediation?” asked Congress spokesperson Jairam Ramesh.
And while the fighting has stopped, there remain a number of flashpoints in the relationship that will test India’s resolve and may tempt it to adopt a hard-line stance.
The top issue for Pakistan, diplomats and government officials there said, would be the Indus Waters Treaty, which India suspended last month but which is a vital source of water for many of Pakistan’s farms and hydropower plants.
“Pakistan would not have agreed (to a ceasefire) without US guarantees of a broader dialogue,” said Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, a former foreign minister and currently chairman of the People’s Party of Pakistan, which supports the government.
Moeed Yusuf, former Pakistan National Security Adviser, said a broad agreement would be needed to break the cycle of brinksmanship over Kashmir.
“Because the underlying issues remain, and every six months, one year, two years, three years, something like this happens and then you are back at the brink of war in a nuclear environment,” he said.
