Sabtu, 13 Februari 2021

Commentary: Fighter jets get attention but defending Singapore against rockets and drones require very different tools - CNA

MELBOURNE: Think about aerial threats and the first thing that pops into people’s minds are fighter jets flown by human pilots shooting missiles at each other.

While these are an important, vital, parts of a country’s air defence, there are many airborne threats fighter jets cannot tackle - drone swarms, rockets fired from the ground and cruise missiles to name a few.

This is where ground-based air defence systems come in. Sensors including radars for 360-degree, 24/7 detection of potential airborne threats and shooters can complement the fighter jets overhead.

This ability to deal with an array of threats at different ranges, builds in redundancy so other parts of the system kick in should one fail.

READ: Commentary: They already have jet bombers and super missiles. Will Chinese fighter jets be more powerful than America’s soon?

But also important is the capability for individual sensors and shooters to “talk” to each other, sharing information and data securely so they see the big picture as a whole.

To be this truly multi-layered, comprehensive system that provides a security blanket over Singapore, individual systems must be networked with inbuilt fail-safes providing coverage against different threats at different ranges.

AN ISLAND AIR DEFENCE SYSTEM

Late last year the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) conducted a demonstration of its networked Island Air Defence System (IADS), a system that came into fruition after some 15 years of development and incremental refinement.

The IADS shown to journalists and defence minister Dr Ng Eng Hen, is a multi-layered, networked, and intelligent Air Defence system which integrates advanced sensors, capable weapon systems, command and control elements, and decision-making tools for defending Singapore against a wide spectrum of threats from the air round-the-clock.

RSAF Island Air Defence Operations Demonstration 14
Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen speaking to reporters on Dec 17, 2020. (Photo: Jeremy Long)

At the heart of the IADS is the Combat Network jointly developed by the RSAF and the Defence, Science and Technology Agency (DSTA), the key part of the system that integrates sensors, the smart Combat Management System (CMS) and weapon systems to increase resilience by preventing a single-point of failure.

The network fuses the picture provided by a variety of sensors such as the various radars operated by the RSAF.

It is also linked to civilian radars and flight plan databases, giving the RSAF a comprehensive understanding of the comings and goings in the airspace around Singapore at any time, crucial for detecting potential airborne threats.

The smart CMS and the Decision Support Systems (DSS) also incorporate technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Data Analytics (DA), reducing the cognitive load required of operators to sense-make information from multiple sources for a quicker and more robust decision-making process.

READ: Commentary: Plagued by defence budget curbs - the Royal Malaysian Air Force in crisis

This enables improvements to the sensor-to-shooter loop. The system can evaluate real-time situations to assign the most effective weapon systems, which range from fighter jets to short-range anti-aircraft missiles, to deal with potential air threats.

WHY CONSTANT UPGRADES NEEDED

The importance of modern, integrated air defence system was rammed home once again a few months ago, during the short but deadly war fought by Armenia and Azerbaijan over the disputed territory of Nargono-Karabakh.  

Azerbaijan won in no small part due with air dominance over the battlefield, allowing armed drones to operate with near-impunity after effectively destroying Armenia’s unintegrated air defences, picked off one by one, in large part as individual radars and missiles systems were not designed to communicate effectively with each other.

The losses suffered by the Armenians included several units of its vaunted multimillion-dollar Russian-built S-300 long-range surface-to-air missiles (SAM), with the Azerbaijanis releasing several video clips taken from the explosive-packed drones as they dove into the unsuspecting missile launch vehicles.

Many had their onboard radars operating yet were unable to foresee their own demise, much less react.

RSAF Island Air Defence Operations Demonstration 11
Dr Ng was briefed on the Aster 30 by Air Defence and Operations Command commander Brigadier-General Kelvin Fan (left) and Chief of Air Force Major-General Kelvin Khong. (Photo: Jeremy Long)

These older systems were designed to deal with faster, larger conventional aircraft and could not detect the small, relatively slow drones and loitering munitions, designed to stay in the air for hours, circling overhead until a target is found and assigned by operators to crash its explosive-laden body onto it.

These events have shocked defence planners and observers.

It was the first time such armed drones and loitering munitions have been deployed in a conventional, state-to-state conflict on such a scale.

It was a demonstration of the ability of such threats, which may be sometimes older but are relatively cheap to buy and operate compared to aircraft and conventional cruise missiles, to dominate the battlefield when an adversary did not have appropriate countermeasures.

READ: Commentary: Noisy RSAF aircraft and annoyed residents - some compromises are needed

CUSTOMISED FOR SINGAPORE’S NEEDS

Singapore’s IADS was conceptualised in 2006. Since then, the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) has turned it into reality, gradually developing and adding new capabilities and replacing older, bespoke air defence systems becoming obsolete or less suitable for the IADS.

This meticulous effort underscores Singapore’s policy of taking the long-term view and insisting on sustainable investment when it comes to defence planning and spending.

The concept of such a network itself is not new. Several countries have it in place to defend key targets from air attack, but evolving AI technology and modern datalinks have taken information-sharing within the network to a whole new level.

The latest platform to be integrated into Singapore’s IADS is the Eurosam Aster 30 medium-range SAM, which joined the fold in August and now forms the upper tier of the RSAF’s ground-based air defence system.

RSAF Island Air Defence Operations Demonstration 02
The SPYDER (left) and Aster 30 air defence systems. (Photo: Jeremy Long)

Instead of buying off-the-shelf, MINDEF decided to fold the Aster 30 system into radars already forming the sensor network of the IADS, which can provide simultaneous command guidance to multiple missiles, and use a unique truck-mounted guidance radar and datalink system to provide mid-course guidance.

The Aster 30 replaced the Improved HAWK (Homing All the Way Killer) missile in the RSAF’s inventory. It has a longer, 70km range and the added ability to defend against drones and some kinds of ballistic missiles, the latter being a first for Singapore’s defence capability.   

RESPONDING TO NEW THREATS

Dr Ng noted that work is not done on the IADS however, as the defence establishment continues to monitor the landscape for new airborne threats and identify potential gaps in coverage in  the IADS.

These include not just longer-ranged munitions such as cruise missiles developed by an increasing number of countries which also means a malign state have more sources than ever before.

Dr Ng also highlighted non-traditional threats like terrorists making homebuilt rockets like the Indonesian-based plot uncovered in 2016, or even unlicensed drones that could be purchased via the dark web.

READ: Commentary: We are woefully ill-equipped to deal with rogue drones

An illustration of this was in the waning days of the Islamic State’s caliphate in Iraq and Syria, where home-built, modified commercial drones were employed to drop explosives on enemy forces.

Other insurgent groups have also use similar drones against Syrian government or Russian military forces in Syria’s civil war, both with limited success. 

Singapore’s networked IADS must continually be upgraded to ensure that it maintains an effective defence against electronic interference such as jamming or cyber-attacks, a potentially tough challenge as militaries seek to continually improve their capabilities in this domain.

The former has been suggested as a possible reason for Azerbaijan’s success in the recent conflict, with Turkey, who has provided technical, materiel support, and is believed to have supplied long-range jamming equipment to blind Armenian radars and warning systems.

Another recent example of electronic warfare is the Russian support for militants who have conquered a swathe of eastern Ukraine since 2014, with several documented examples of these systems sighted on the battlefield, to jam and disrupt Ukrainian military communications and other systems.

An elderly man sits in a bomb shelter in Donetsk, eastern Ukraine, where he hides with other people
An elderly man sits in a bomb shelter in Donetsk, eastern Ukraine, where he hides with other people. (Photo: AFP/Alexey Filippov)

AI-based drone detection systems, while less common, are also now commercially available, equipped with camera-based recognition techniques or radio frequency monitoring to detect drones.

Swarming attacks pose a different threat, as a large number of incoming attackers could overwhelm by numbers, particularly if these utilise a mixture of platforms and approach a target from many directions.

The was the case in 2019 when a mixture of cruise missiles and drones believed to have been launched from Iran-attacked oil facilities in Saudi Arabia, took a circuitous flight path to evade Saudi air defences and came in from an unexpected direction.

READ: In The New Map, author Daniel Yergin takes on energy, climate change and the slow but sure shifts in big power relationships

UPGRADING FOR TOMORROW

While the IADS provides 360-degree coverage of the airspace around Singapore and reduces the likelihood of being surprised by an attack, the RSAF’s ground-based air defences are an all-missile affair. Singapore’s surface-to-air Spyder system, with four missiles, and each Aster 30 system’s eight, could see a sustained swarm attack drain the defender out of ready-to-use missiles.

The obvious solution is a cannon-based system to complement the missiles like the short-range, rapid fire Phalanx close-in weapon system or the Rheinmetall Skyshield that can search, track and engage missile or rocket threats with short, quick bursts of munitions.

Another alternative is the Israeli developed Iron Dome featuring multiple-target tracking and self-guided missile interceptors, to defend against incoming rockets.

Armenia Azerbaijan
Smoke and fire are seen after shelling by Azerbaijan's artillery in Stepanakert, the separatist region of Nagorno-Karabakh, Tuesday, Nov. 3, 2020. (Photo: AP)

The technology for more advanced directed energy weapons holds great potential but is still in its infancy. It will be some time before these are ready for widespread use, but are potentially ways for improving Singapore IADS.

The relatively recent emergence of weapons demonstrate that just because the system appears ready to deal with potential adversaries today, it would be foolish to assume that the status quo would hold in the long or even medium term.

As Dr Ng himself said during his recent visit to the IADS, while the current systems will serve Singapore in the next few decades, the RSAF must continue to look at steady improvements and remain cognisant of gaps to fill.

Mike Yeo is the Asia reporter for US-based defence publication Defense News.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiZmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmNoYW5uZWxuZXdzYXNpYS5jb20vbmV3cy9jb21tZW50YXJ5L3NpbmdhcG9yZS1pc2xhbmQtcG9pbnQtZGVmZW5jZS1haXItZm9yY2UtcnNhZi0xNDE0NTE1MNIBAA?oc=5

2021-02-13 22:01:35Z
CBMiZmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmNoYW5uZWxuZXdzYXNpYS5jb20vbmV3cy9jb21tZW50YXJ5L3NpbmdhcG9yZS1pc2xhbmQtcG9pbnQtZGVmZW5jZS1haXItZm9yY2UtcnNhZi0xNDE0NTE1MNIBAA

US Senate acquits Trump as Republicans save him in impeachment again - CNA

WASHINGTON: The US Senate acquitted Donald Trump on Saturday (Feb 13) in his second impeachment trial in a year, with fellow Republicans blocking conviction over the former president's role in the deadly assault by his supporters on the US Capitol.

The Senate vote of 57-43 fell short of the two-thirds majority needed to convict Trump on a charge of incitement of insurrection after a five-day trial in the same building ransacked by his followers on Jan 6 shortly after they heard him deliver an incendiary speech.

In the vote, seven of the 50 Senate Republicans joined the chamber's unified Democrats in favoring conviction.

Trump left office on Jan 20, so impeachment could not be used to remove him from power. But Democrats had hoped to secure a conviction to hold him responsible for a siege that left five people including a police officer dead and to set the stage for a vote to bar him from ever serving in public office again. Given the chance to hold office in the future, they argued, Trump would not hesitate to encourage political violence again.

Trump's attorneys argued that his words at the rally were protected by his constitutional right to free speech and said he was not given due process in the proceedings.

Republicans saved Trump in the Feb 5, 2020, vote in his first impeachment trial, when only one senator from their ranks - Mitt Romney - voted to convict and remove him from office.

Romney voted for impeachment on Saturday along with fellow Republicans Richard Burr, Bill Cassidy, Susan Collins, Ben Sasse, Pat Toomey, and Lisa Murkowski.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who voted "not guilty," offered scathing remarks about the former president after the verdict.

"There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day," he said. "The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president."

READ: Democrats argue Trump planted seeds of Capitol attack with false election claims

READ: Bar Trump from holding office again, impeachment managers urge Senate

The drama on the Senate floor unfolded against a backdrop of gaping divisions in a pandemic-weary United States along political, racial, socioeconomic and regional lines. The trial provided more partisan warfare even as Democratic President Joe Biden, who took office on Jan. 20 after defeating Trump in the November election, called for healing and unity after his predecessor's four turbulent years in power and a caustic election campaign.

Seventy-one percent of American adults, including nearly half of all Republicans, believe Trump was at least partially responsible for starting the Capitol assault, but only about half of the country thought Trump should be convicted of inciting insurrection, according to an Ipsos poll conducted for Reuters.

Trump, 74, continues to hold a grip on his party with a right-wing populist appeal and "America First" message. The wealthy businessman-turned-politician has considered running for president again in 2024.

Trump is only the third president ever to be impeached by the House of Representatives - a step akin to a criminal indictment - as well as the first to be impeached twice and the first to face an impeachment trial after leaving office. But the Senate still has never convicted an impeached president.

Democrats forged ahead with impeachment despite knowing it could overshadow critical early weeks of Biden's presidency.

The House approved the single article of impeachment against Trump on Jan 13, with 10 Republicans joining the chamber's Democratic majority. That vote came a week after the pro-Trump mob stormed the neoclassical domed Capitol, interrupted the formal congressional certification of Biden's victory, clashed with an overwhelmed police force, invaded the hallowed House and Senate chambers, and sent lawmakers into hiding for their own safety.

READ: Commentary: The real reason behind impeaching Trump isn't the insurrection

READ: Trump critics call for permanent Facebook ban of ex-president

The U.S. Capitol Building on the third day of President Trump's impeachment trial in Washingto
The US Capitol Building on the third day of President Trump's impeachment trial in Washington, US. (Photo: Reuters)

'FIGHT LIKE HELL'

Shortly before the rampage, Trump urged his followers to march on the Capitol, repeated his false claims that the election was stolen from him through widespread voting fraud, and told them that "if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore."

During the trial, nine House lawmakers serving as trial managers, or prosecutors, urged senators to convict Trump to hold him accountable for a crime against American democracy and to prevent a repeat in the future. They played searing video of rioters swarming inside the Capitol and making violent threats toward politicians including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and then-Vice President Mike Pence. 

The House managers said Trump summoned the mob to Washington, gave the crowd its marching orders and then did nothing to stop the ensuing violence.

The defense lawyers accused Democrats not only of trying to silence Trump as a political opponent they feared facing in the future but of attempting to criminalise political speech with which they disagreed and aiming to cancel the voices of the tens of millions of voters who backed him.

READ: Another trial for the ages: Senate to judge Trump over Capitol riot

Impeachment trial of former U.S. President Donald Trump continues in Washington
Michael van der Veen, lawyer for former President Donald Trump, departs on the fourth day of the Senate Impeachment trials for former President Donald Trump on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, US Feb 12, 2021. (Photo: Jabin Botsford/Pool via REUTERS)

Trump's lawyers argued the trial was unconstitutional because he had already left office. The words Trump used, they argued, were no different than those regularly employed by Democrats.

In his previous impeachment trial, the Senate voted to acquit Trump on two charges - abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. That impeachment arose from Trump's 2019 pressure on Ukraine to investigate Biden as he sought foreign aid to sully a domestic political rival.

A common theme in the charges at the heart of the two impeachments was Trump's abandonment of accepted democratic norms to advance his own political interests.

The US Constitution sets out impeachment as the instrument with which the Congress can remove and bar from future office presidents who commit "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Impeachment, once a rare occurrence, has become more commonplace during America's era of poisonous political polarisation in recent decades. In the 209 years after the first US president, George Washington, took office in 1789, there was only one impeachment.

Since 1998, there have been three, including Trump's two. Andrew Johnson was impeached and acquitted in 1868 in the aftermath of the American Civil War and Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998 and acquitted in 1999 of charges stemming from a sex scandal.

Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 rather than face impeachment over the Watergate scandal.

Trump's acquittal does not end the possibility of other congressional action against him such as a censure motion. Republicans seemed dead set against an idea floated by Democrats of invoking the Constitution's 14th Amendment provision barring from public office anyone who has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the government.

The impeachment proceedings also can be viewed in the context of a battle for the future of the Republican Party. Some Republicans - mostly moderates and establishment figures - have voiced alarm at the direction Trump has taken their party. Detractors have accused Trump - who had never before held public office - of undermining the institutions of democracy, encouraging a cult of personality and pursuing policies built around "white grievance" in a nation with a growing non-white population.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMibmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmNoYW5uZWxuZXdzYXNpYS5jb20vbmV3cy93b3JsZC91cy10cnVtcC1pbXBlYWNobWVudC10cmlhbC1zZW5hdGUtYWNxdWl0cy1yZXB1YmxpY2Fucy12b3RlLTE0MTg4NjUy0gEA?oc=5

2021-02-13 21:45:00Z
52781349573162

Final arguments begin in Trump impeachment trial - CNA

WASHINGTON: The US Senate began hearing final arguments on Saturday (Feb 13) in the impeachment trial of Donald Trump as the top Republican senator said he would vote to acquit the former president of inciting the deadly Jan 6 assault on the Capitol.

Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's decision means Trump is all but certain to be acquitted by the Senate of the charge of inciting an insurrection by his supporters.

Before moving to final arguments, the proceedings were interrupted for a few hours after House prosecutors, in a surprise move, said they wanted to call witnesses at the trial.

House impeachment manager Jamie Raskin said he wanted to call a Republican lawmaker as a witness but eventually agreed with Trump's defense lawyers just to have her testimony entered into evidence.

Trump's lawyers had threatened in response to call witnesses of their own, including Vice President Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic speaker of the House of Representatives, and others.

READ: Democrats argue Trump planted seeds of Capitol attack with false election claims

READ: Bar Trump from holding office again, impeachment managers urge Senate

The Senate voted 55-45 to allow witnesses but senators, House prosecutors and defense lawyers then hammered out an agreement allowing the trial to proceed to closing arguments.

Closing arguments kicked off after the decision about the 55-45 vote in favor of witnesses, which had unsettled members of the Senate.

Republican Senator Bill Cassidy, who earlier this week was one of just six in his party to vote that the trial should continue, threw up his hands when asked if he had expected Saturday's vote on witnesses.

"Shelby says he's seen three of these and this is the craziest," he said, referencing Senator Richard Shelby whose 34-year tenure included the 1998 impeachment of former Democratic President Bill Clinton and Trump's first impeachment trial.

The Senate floor appeared chaotic during and after the vote. Senators clustered together in apparent confusion and Senators Ron Johnson and Mitt Romney engaged in a heated conversation.

The four hours of final arguments will be split equally between both sides with the House prosecutors going first.

A vote on whether to acquit or convict the 74-year-old former Republican president is expected later Saturday afternoon.

Raskin had wanted Representative Jamie Herrera Beutler to testify after she released a statement about the events of Jan 6.

Herrera Beutler, a Republican from Washington state, was one of 10 Republican lawmakers who voted to impeach Trump in the House of Representatives.

In her statement, she said Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy had called Trump while the attack was ongoing and implored him to call off the rioters.

"When McCarthy finally reached the president on Jan 6 and asked him to publicly and forcefully call off the riot, the president initially repeated the falsehood that it was Antifa that had breached the Capitol," Herrera Beutler said.

"McCarthy refuted that and told the president that these were Trump supporters," the congresswoman said.

"That's when, according to McCarthy, the president said: 'Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are,'" she said.

READ: Commentary: The real reason behind impeaching Trump isn't the insurrection

READ: Trump critics call for permanent Facebook ban of ex-president

The U.S. Capitol Building on the third day of President Trump's impeachment trial in Washingto
The US Capitol Building on the third day of President Trump's impeachment trial in Washington, US. (Photo: Reuters)

A CLOSE CALL

Trump was impeached by the Democratic-controlled House on Jan 13 for inciting the attack on the US Capitol by his supporters, who were seeking to block congressional certification of Democrat Joe Biden's Nov 3 election victory.

A conviction in the 100-member Senate - which is evenly split between Democrats and Republicans - would require a two-thirds majority and appears highly unlikely after McConnell said he would vote to acquit.

"While a close call, I am persuaded that impeachments are a tool primarily of removal and therefore we lack jurisdiction," McConnell said in an email to his Republican colleagues.

"The Constitution makes perfectly clear that Presidential criminal misconduct while in office can be prosecuted after the President has left office," he said. "Given these conclusions, I will vote to acquit."

READ: Another trial for the ages: Senate to judge Trump over Capitol riot

Impeachment trial of former U.S. President Donald Trump continues in Washington
Michael van der Veen, lawyer for former President Donald Trump, departs on the fourth day of the Senate Impeachment trials for former President Donald Trump on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, US Feb 12, 2021. (Photo: Jabin Botsford/Pool via REUTERS)

Trump's defense lawyers argued on Friday that the former president bears no responsibility for the attack on Congress and wrapped up their presentation in just three hours.

This followed two days of evidence from Democratic impeachment managers centered around harrowing video footage of the mob assault on the Capitol.

Trump's defense lawyers called the impeachment unconstitutional and an "act of political vengeance."

They argued that Trump's rally speech near the White House that preceded the Jan 6 attack, when he told supporters to "fight," was merely rhetorical.

Seeking to turn the table on the Democrats' powerful use of video evidence, defence lawyers played their own compilations showing Democratic lawmakers at different times using the word "fight."

House impeachment managers charge that after losing to Biden, Trump deliberately stoked tension with a campaign of lies claiming there had been mass voter fraud.

On Jan 6 he staged a fiery rally near the White House, calling on the crowd to march on Congress, which was in the process of certifying Biden's victory.

The mob then stormed the Capitol, disrupting the certification. Five people, including a police officer and a woman shot during the unrest, died in the mayhem.

The trial has highlighted the extraordinary danger lawmakers faced on Jan 6, when Trump urged his followers to march on the Capitol and "get wild" in an effort to overturn his election loss. Then-Vice President Mike Pence and lawmakers had to be rushed into hiding for safety. Five people died in the chaos.

Trump's words that day followed months in which he repeated false claims that Biden's victory was the result of widespread fraud.

When the impeachment article reached the Senate, only six Republicans voted with Democrats to move forward with the trial, rejecting an argument made by other Republican senators that the Constitution does not allow Congress to impeach a president who has already left office.

Security-camera footage shown at the trial showed rioters came perilously close to lawmakers and Pence as they were evacuated from the Senate and House chambers.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMidGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmNoYW5uZWxuZXdzYXNpYS5jb20vbmV3cy93b3JsZC91cy10cnVtcC1pbXBlYWNobWVudC10cmlhbC1zZW5hdGUtZmluYWwtYXJndW1lbnRzLXZvdGUtd2l0bmVzc2VzLTE0MTg4NjUy0gEA?oc=5

2021-02-13 18:33:45Z
52781349573162

China refused to provide WHO team with raw data on early COVID-19 cases: Team investigator - CNA

SHANGHAI: China refused to give raw data on early COVID-19 cases to a World Health Organization-led team probing the origins of the pandemic, one of the team's investigators said, potentially complicating efforts to understand how the outbreak began.

The team had requested raw patient data on the 174 cases of COVID-19 that China had identified from the early phase of the outbreak in the Chinese city of Wuhan in December 2019, as well as other cases, but were only provided with a summary, said Dominic Dwyer, an Australian infectious diseases expert who is a member of the team.

Such raw data is known as "line listings", he said, and would typically be anonymised but contain details such as what questions were asked of individual patients, their responses and how their responses were analysed.

"That's standard practice for an outbreak investigation," he told Reuters on Saturday (Feb 13) via video call from Sydney, where he is currently undergoing quarantine.

READ: WHO says all hypotheses still open in probe into COVID-19 origins

He said that gaining access to the raw data was especially important since only half of the 174 cases had exposure to the Huanan market, the now-shuttered wholesale seafood centre in Wuhan where the virus was initially detected.

"That's why we've persisted to ask for that," he said. "Why that doesn't happen, I couldn't comment. Whether it's political or time or it's difficult ... But whether there are any other reasons why the data isn't available, I don't know. One would only speculate."

While the Chinese authorities provided a lot of material, he said the issue of access to the raw patient data would be mentioned in the team's final report. "The WHO people certainly felt that they had received much much more data than they had ever received in the previous year. So that in itself is an advance."

A summary of the team's findings could be released as early as next week, the WHO said on Friday.

READ: What the WHO COVID-19 experts learnt in Wuhan

The WHO-led probe had been plagued by delay, concern over access and bickering between Beijing and Washington, which accused China of hiding the extent of the initial outbreak and criticised the terms of the visit, under which Chinese experts conducted the first phase of research.

The team, which arrived in China in January and spent four weeks looking into the origins of the COVID-19 outbreak, was limited to visits organised by their Chinese hosts and prevented from contact with community members, due to health restrictions. The first two weeks were spent in hotel quarantine.

China's refusal to hand over raw data on the early COVID-19 cases was reported earlier by the Wall Street Journal on Friday.

The WHO did not reply to a request from Reuters for comment. The Chinese foreign ministry did not immediately reply to a request for comment but Beijing has previously defended its transparency in handling the outbreak and its cooperation with the WHO mission.

HARMONIOUS, WITH ARGUMENTS

Dwyer said the work within the WHO team was harmonious but that there were "arguments" at times with their Chinese counterparts over the interpretation and significance of the data, which he described as "natural" in such probes.

"We might be having a talk about cold chain and they might be more firm about what the data shows than what we might have been, but that's natural. Whether there's political pressure to have different opinions, I don't know. There may well be, but it's hard to know."

READ: US backs COVID-19 probe, distances itself from Wuhan lab theory

Cold chain refers to the transport and trade of frozen food.

Beijing has sought to cast doubt on the notion that the coronavirus originated in China, pointing to imported frozen food as a conduit.

On Tuesday, Peter Ben Embarek, who led the WHO delegation, told a news conference that transmission of the virus via frozen food is a possibility, but pointed to market vendors selling frozen animal products including farmed wild animals as a potential pathway that warrants further study.

READ: WHO mission to China fails to find source of coronavirus

Embarek also said that the team was not looking further into the theory that the virus escaped from a lab, which it considered highly unlikely. The previous US administration of President Donald Trump had said it suspected the virus may have escaped from a Wuhan lab, which Beijing strongly denies.

"It was a unanimous feeling," Dwyer said. "It wasn't a political sop whatsoever."

BOOKMARK THIS: Our comprehensive coverage of the coronavirus outbreak and its developments

Download our app or subscribe to our Telegram channel for the latest updates on the coronavirus outbreak: https://cna.asia/telegram

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMiX2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmNoYW5uZWxuZXdzYXNpYS5jb20vbmV3cy9hc2lhL2NoaW5hLXdoby10ZWFtLXd1aGFuLWNvdmlkLTE5LWNhc2VzLXJhdy1kYXRhLTE0MTg4MzM20gEA?oc=5

2021-02-13 10:40:38Z
52781368678284

Trump's speedy impeachment trial heads toward Senate vote - CNA

WASHINGTON: Senators are poised to vote on whether Donald Trump will be held accountable for inciting the horrific attack at the Capitol after a speedy trial that laid bare the violence and danger to their own lives and the fragility of the nation's tradition of a peaceful transfer of presidential power.

Barely a month since the deadly riot, closing arguments are set for the historic impeachment trial as senators arrive for a rare Saturday (Feb 13) session, all under the watch of armed National Guard troops still guarding the iconic building.

The outcome of the quick, raw and emotional proceedings are expected to reflect a nation divided over the former president and the future of his brand of politics in America.

“What’s important about this trial is that it’s really aimed to some extent at Donald Trump, but it’s more aimed at some president we don’t even know 20 years from now,” said Senator Angus King, the independent from Maine, weighing his vote.

The US Capitol riot is at the center of efforts to impeach and then convict Donald Trump for
The US Capitol riot is at the center of efforts to impeach and then convict Donald Trump for incitement of insurrection. (Photo: AFP/Alex Edelman)

The nearly weeklong trial has been delivering a grim and graphic narrative of the Jan 6 riot and its consequences for the nation in ways that senators, most of whom fled for their own safety that day, acknowledge they are still coming to grips with.

Acquittal is expected in the evenly-divided Senate, a verdict that could heavily influence not only Trump’s political future but that of the senators sworn to deliver impartial justice as jurors as they cast their votes.

READ: Commentary: The real reason behind impeaching Trump isn't the insurrection

House prosecutors have argued that Trump's rallying cry to go to the Capitol and “fight like hell” for his presidency just as Congress was convening Jan 6 to certify Joe Biden’s election was part an orchestrated pattern of violent rhetoric and false claims that unleashed the mob. 

Five people died, including a rioter who was shot and a police officer.

READ: Capitol Police chief apologises for failures in Jan 6 siege

The defense attorneys countered in a short three hours Friday that Trump's words were not intended to incite the violence and impeachment is nothing but a “witch hunt” designed to prevent him from serving in office again.

Only by watching the graphic videos - rioters calling out menacingly for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Vice President Mike Pence, who was presiding over the vote tally - did senators say they began to understand just how perilously close the country came to chaos. 

Hundreds of rioters stormed into the building, taking over the Senate and some engaging in hand-to-hand, bloody combat with police.

Trump Impeachment
In this image from video, security footage is shown to senators as the House impeachment manager speaks during the second impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump in the Senate at the US Capitol in Washington on Wednesday, Feb 10, 2021. (Image: Senate Television via AP)

While it is unlikely the Senate would be able to mount the two-thirds vote needed to convict, several senators appear to be still weighing their vote. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell will be widely watched for cues, but he is not pressuring his GOP side of the aisle and is telling senators to vote their conscience.

Many Republicans representing states where the former president remains popular doubt whether Trump was fully responsible or if impeachment is the appropriate response. Democrats appear all but united toward conviction.

READ: Bar Trump from holding office again, impeachment managers urge Senate

Trump is the only president to be twice impeached, and the first to face trial charges after leaving office.

Unlike last year’s impeachment trial of Trump in the Ukraine affair, a complicated charge of corruption and obstruction over his attempts to have the foreign ally dig up dirt on then-rival Biden, this one brought an emotional punch over the unexpected vulnerability of the nation’s tradition of peaceful elections. The charge is singular, incitement of insurrection.

On Friday, Trump’s impeachment lawyers accused Democrats of waging a campaign of “hatred” against the former president as they wrapped up their defense, sending the Senate toward a final vote in his historic trial.

Capitol Breach Pardoning Rioters
The Capitol on Jan 6, 2021. (Photo: AP)

The defense team vigorously denied that Trump had incited the deadly riot and played out-of-context video clips showing Democrats, some of them senators now serving as jurors, also telling supporters to “fight," aiming to establish a parallel with Trump's overheated rhetoric.

“This is ordinarily political rhetoric," declared Trump lawyer Michael van der Veen. “Countless politicians have spoken of fighting for our principles.”

But the presentation blurred the difference between general encouragement politicians make to battle for health care or other causes and Trump’s fight against officially accepted national election results, and minimised Trump’s efforts to undermine those election results. 

The defeated president was telling his supporters to fight on after every state had verified its results, after the Electoral College had affirmed them and after nearly every election lawsuit filed by Trump and his allies had been rejected in court.

Democratic senators shook their heads at what many called a false equivalency to their own fiery words. “We weren’t asking them 'fight like hell' to overthrow an election,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal.

Democrats say that Trump was the “inciter-in-chief” whose months-long campaign against the election results was rooted in a “big lie” and laid the groundwork for the riot, a violent domestic attack on the Capitol unparalleled in history.

“Get real,” lead prosecutor Jamie Raskin, said at one point. “We know that this is what happened.”

The Senate has convened as a court of impeachment for past presidents Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton and now twice for Trump, but the unprecedented nature of the case because he's no longer in the White House has provided Republican senators one of several arguments against conviction.

Republicans maintain the proceedings are unconstitutional, even though the Senate voted at the outset of the trial on this issue and confirmed it has jurisdiction.

Six Republican senators who joined Democrats in voting to take up the case are among those most watched for their votes.

Early signals came Friday during questions for the lawyers. Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, two centrists known for independent streaks, asked the first question. They leaned into a point the prosecutors had made asking exactly when did Trump learn of the breach of the Capitol and what specific actions did he take to bring the rioting to an end?

Democrats had argued that Trump did nothing as the mob rioted.

Another Republican who voted to launch the trial, Senator Bill Cassidy, asked about Trump’s tweet criticizing Pence moments after having been told by another senator that the vice president had just been evacuated.

Van der Veen responded that at “no point” was the president informed of any danger. Cassidy told reporters later it was not a very good answer.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMia2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmNoYW5uZWxuZXdzYXNpYS5jb20vbmV3cy93b3JsZC90cnVtcC1zcGVlZHktaW1wZWFjaG1lbnQtdHJpYWwtaGVhZHMtdG93YXJkLXNlbmF0ZS12b3RlLTE0MTg3NjIy0gEA?oc=5

2021-02-13 07:08:04Z
52781349573162

Jumat, 12 Februari 2021

Commentary: Myanmar resistance against coup taps on powerful ethnic nationalism with large grassroots base - CNA

Washington DC: The military’s seizure of power in Myanmar and the detention of head of government Aung San Suu Kyi is far from the first time generals in the country have interfered in national politics.

Myanmar’s military has held a prominent political position in the country for decades. For almost 50 years – between 1962 and 2011 – the country was under successive military regimes.

These regimes displayed an ambivalent attitude to the country’s main religion, Buddhism – Buddhist movements, which were on the whole in opposition to military rule, were severely repressed. 

READ: Commentary: Understanding its history of resistance rather than sanctions can help Myanmar now

At the same time the military drew a significant level of legitimacy from nationalism, which in Myanmar is intrinsically linked to Buddhism.

As scholars of international relations who examine social movements, identity formation and conflict, we have studied the evolution and growth of Buddhist nationalism in Myanmar. While these groups might not be reliable allies for the military, they are a powerful force with a large grassroots base.

EMERGENCE OF ETHNIC NATIONALISM

Myanmar is ethnically diverse. Its government officially recognises 135 ethnic groups. In terms of religion, there is a sizable presence of Christian and Muslim minorities, but close to 90 per cent of the population identifies as Buddhists.

The roots of Buddhist nationalism go back to the country’s colonial past. Myanmar came under British colonial rule in 1824. The colonial administration withdrew traditional state support for monasteries, promoted secular education, suppressed Buddhist practices and encouraged Christian missionary activity.

Under colonial rule, the British often moved local populations to different colonies. In Myanmar – called Burma under British rule, but changed by the military after crushing the pro-democracy movement in 1989  – the colonists brought in Hindu and Muslim Indians to serve in the colonial administration.

This resulted in Indian businessmen dominating some sectors of the economy. The British also promoted migrant labor to increase rice cultivation and profits. Between 1871 and 1911, the Muslim population tripled.

Each of these factors generated significant resentment among the majority Buddhist population. In the 1930s, violence erupted between Burmese and people of Indian descent. Muslims, in particular, were cast as a threat to the local way of life.

In 1948, Myanmar gained independence from British rule. But for the next 14 years, the country struggled with armed ethnic conflict and political instability.

Myanmar
Buddhist monks flash a three-fingered salute of defiance in Mandalay, Myanmar on Feb 8, 2021. (AP Photo)

During military rule, Buddhist groups were violently repressed. In 2007, some 80,000 Buddhist monks came out in protest against the military government’s decision to stop subsidies of fuel. This became known as the “Saffron Revolution.” 

The revolution itself was put down by the military regime, but experts believe it might have helped usher in the era of democratisation which began in 2011.

It was at this time Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the National League for Democracy, or NLD, and daughter of Myanmar’s independence leader, General Aung San, was released from nearly 15 years in detention.

RESURGENCE OF NATIONALISM

The current crisis unfolds in an environment of heightened tensions between Buddhist nationalists and minority groups. Since 2011, Myanmar has been troubled by an upsurge in extreme Buddhist nationalism, anti-Muslim hate speech and deadly communal violence.

READ: Commentary: A crackdown in Myanmar could spark a humanitarian crisis

READ: Commentary: Myanmar military never had any intention of giving up power

This surge was not coincidental. The military-appointed government that led the democratic transition between 2011 and 2016 lifted restrictions on speech and assembly, allowing Buddhist monks to engage politically. 

The most prominent of the nationalist groups was the Association for the Protection of Race and Religion, commonly referred to by its Burmese language acronym, MaBaTha, led by Buddhist monks.

Because of its highly decentralised nature, estimates of their membership vary greatly, but it is believed to have between 20,000 and 80,000 members in Yangon, the capital of Myanmar, alone.

The MaBaTha Movement became an increasingly destabilising actor, particularly in their vocal campaign against the Rohingya, and Suu Kyi’s government tried to curtail its growth by outlawing it in 2017. 

This did little to stop the movement’s growth, as it simply rebranded itself as the Buddha Dhamma Philanthropy Foundation and encouraged its followers to continue their work under that name.

NATIONALISM AND ITS BROAD APPEAL

The nationalist rhetoric found appeal among wide swaths of the Buddhist population, and made Buddhist nationalism an important social force in Myanmar. In 2017, during the violent military crackdown on the Rohingya, there was significant popular support for their actions among Myanmar’s Buddhists.

Meanwhile Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy are not blameless when it comes to encouragement of a certain type of Buddhist nationalism. 

Protest against the military coup in Yangon
A Buddhist monk show the three-finger salute as he join a rally in a protest against the military coup and to demand the release of elected leader Aung San Suu Kyi, in Yangon, Myanmar, February 8, 2021. REUTERS/Stringer

In the run up to the 2015 elections, no Muslim appeared on the ballot for the ruling party or the opposition. The National League for Democracy did not allow Muslims to run as political candidates.

In 2017, the National League for Democracy actively participated in the attempts to discredit reports of atrocities committed against the Rohingya.

Despite this, many nationalists in Myanmar believe that Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy are “weak” protectors of Buddhism.

RETURN TO MILITARY RULE

The military coup came as the new parliament was set to hold its first session since the November elections. Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy had won a substantive victory. The main opposition to the National League for Democracy, the Union Solidarity and Development Party, or the USDP, has military support.

While there are no formal ties between the Union Solidarity and Development Party and Buddhist nationalist groups, the party’s rhetoric in the 2020 election campaign certainly courted them. They adopted the nationalist theme of “protecting” religion, portraying the National League for Democracy as a “religion-destroying” party.

Myanmar Election
Buddhist monks wearing face masks walk on a street to collect alms in Naypyitaw, Myanmar, Nov 6, 2020. (Photo: AP/Aung Shine Oo)

Following the election, the Union Solidarity and Development Party accused the National League for Democracy of election fraud, but offered very little evidence to that effect. In this context of heightened tension and misinformation spreading online, the military made their move to seize power.

READ: Commentary: ASEAN can do better on Myanmar this time

READ: Commentary: Myanmar’s coup - end of the power sharing arrangement between military and civilian forces?

In addition to the nationalist rhetoric centring on religion, another sign that the military seeks the support of Buddhist nationalists is that among the many civil society actors arrested are three Buddhist monks who have been outspoken critics of both the military and the extreme Buddhist nationalist groups. 

This signals to Buddhist nationalists that their rivals from within the Buddhist monk community are also seen as a threat to the military. 

But Buddhist nationalists might not be reliable allies for the military. As history shows, they will not support a military regime unless it caters to their interests.

Anders Härdig is Director of the Global Scholars Program and Professorial Lecturer in the Comparative Politics and Regional Studies program at American University’s School of International Service. Tazreena Sajjad currently serves as Senior Professorial Lecturer in the Global Governance, Politics and Security (GGPS) Program in the School of International Service (SIS) at American University in Washington D.C. This commentary first appeared in The Conversation.

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMibmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmNoYW5uZWxuZXdzYXNpYS5jb20vbmV3cy9jb21tZW50YXJ5L21pbGl0YXJ5LWNvdXAtbXlhbm1hci1uYXRpb25hbGlzbS1idWRkaGlzdHMtcm9oaW5neWFzLTE0MTcwMzgw0gEA?oc=5

2021-02-12 22:07:44Z
52781362295733

UN rights envoy, US urge sanctions against Myanmar military - CNA

GENEVA: The United Nations human rights investigator for Myanmar urged the UN Security Council on Friday to consider imposing sanctions and arms embargoes as a UN rights body adopted a resolution calling for Aung San Suu Kyi's release.

The United States, which imposed its own sanctions targeting Myanmar's military on Thursday, took the floor at the Human Rights Council to urge other UN member states to follow suit.

Special Rapporteur Thomas Andrews cited "growing reports and photographic evidence" that Myanmar security forces had used live ammunition against protesters since seizing power almost two weeks ago.

"Security Council resolutions dealing with similar situations have mandated sanctions, arms embargoes, and travel bans, and calling for judicial action at the International Criminal Court or ad hoc tribunals," Andrews told the Council. "All of these options should be on the table."

READ: Protesters defy Myanmar junta after US imposes sanctions

READ: Myanmar anti-coup protests resume despite bloodshed

The 47-member forum met at the request of Britain and the European Union to consider a resolution calling for the release of ousted Myanmar leader Suu Kyi, and for UN monitors to be allowed to visit. It was adopted unanimously, although Myanmar, Russia and China envoys said they "disassociated" themselves from the resolution.

"With this resolution we would like to send a strong signal to the people of Myanmar: the protection of their human rights matters to us," said Austrian Ambassador Elisabeth Tichy-Fisslberger on behalf of the EU.

However, the resolution's language had been watered down somewhat in an apparent bid to get detractors on board.

In a letter read out to the Council earlier on Friday, some 300 elected parliamentarians called for UN investigations into the "gross human rights violations" that they said the military had committed since its coup, including arrests.

"The military also shot people protesting, invaded the ruling party's offices, confiscated documents, records, and property," said the letter, read out by British Ambassador Julian Braithwaite.

It said a telecommunications bill being prepared by the military was intended to restrict access to the Internet and mobile services.

READ: Setting aside divisions, Myanmar's ethnic groups unite against coup

READ: Biden targets Myanmar generals with sanctions, asset freeze

US Chargé d'Affaires Mark Cassayre said: "We ask all Council members to join the United States and others ... in promoting accountability for those responsible for the coup, including through targeted sanctions."

China and Russia - which have close ties to Myanmar's military - said they opposed holding the session at all.

"What happened in Myanmar is essentially Myanmar's internal affairs," said Chen Xu, China's ambassador.

Russian Ambassador Gennady Gatilov said: "Attempts to whip up hype around the situation in Myanmar need to cease."

Supporters of Suu Kyi clashed with police on Friday as hundreds of thousands joined nationwide pro-democracy demonstrations in defiance of the military's call to halt mass gatherings.

More than 350 officials, activists, journalists, monks and students have been detained, according to Nada al-Nashif, deputy UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Myanmar Ambassador Myint Thu said Myanmar would continue to cooperate with the United Nations and uphold international human rights treaties, adding: "We do not want to stall the nascent democratic transition in the country."

Let's block ads! (Why?)


https://news.google.com/__i/rss/rd/articles/CBMibWh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmNoYW5uZWxuZXdzYXNpYS5jb20vbmV3cy9hc2lhL215YW5tYXItdW4tdXMtdXJnZS1zYW5jdGlvbnMtYWdhaW5zdC1taWxpdGFyeS1odW1hbi1yaWdodHMtMTQxODI5ODjSAQA?oc=5

2021-02-12 18:04:09Z
52781362295733