Author: Worldcrew

U.S. President Joe Biden signed legislation Wednesday providing $95 billion in aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan after months of tense negotiations in Congress. VOA Congressional Correspondent Katherine Gypson reports on what’s next.
…

Washington — Afghanistan’s Central Asian neighbors are holding out hope that America, based on its pledges at September’s C5+1 summit, will expand its role in this neighborhood. The wish list includes delivering more humanitarian assistance to the Afghan people, facilitating the expansion of trade, and combating the threats of terrorism emanating from Afghanistan. 

Officials speaking with VOA suggest that more aid could be channeled into Afghanistan via Uzbekistan. Additionally, Washington could offer more military assistance to Central Asian states and tangibly support their regional connectivity initiatives. 

While no country has formally announced diplomatic recognition of the Taliban government, Central Asian nations have been engaging with the Taliban based on mutual interests, such as security, trade, and water sharing. Uzbekistan, which has extensive political and economic ties with Kabul, has been urging the West and the larger international community not to isolate Afghanistan. 

Nearly three years since the withdrawal of American forces, U.S. officials insist that they have not abandoned Afghanistan, pointing to ongoing efforts and consultations with Central Asian counterparts. However, they admit Washington’s priorities have shifted to other issues, such as Russia’s war on Ukraine. 

“It will take the U.S. a decade or two to recover from the fact that we lost the war,” said David Sedney, a veteran diplomat and former deputy assistant secretary of defense for Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia. “It took us 20 years before we were able to engage in Vietnam in a productive way,” he told VOA. 

Scott Worden, who heads the Afghanistan and Central Asia programs at the U.S. Institute of Peace, thinks that Central Asian governments overestimate Washington’s leverage. 

“There are a lot of issues in the world that have to be addressed simultaneously,” he noted in an interview with VOA. “They [the U.S.] are balancing the leverage that they have against issues that are manageable and maybe achievable versus ones like women’s rights, which I think the administration cares strongly about.” 

“It’s just a really tough situation,” Worden added. “In my view, you should not condition humanitarian assistance. Any economic sanctions wind up hurting the Afghans that we want to support. It’s a difficult balance, and so I don’t think there is any obvious additional tool or leverage that could be deployed that they’re withholding.” 

Some Western nations including the United States, however, have filtered humanitarian aid programs through partner organizations that circumvent Taliban officials and deliver aid directly to Afghan civilians.

According to USAID, the U.S. supplied nearly $81 million in Afghan humanitarian aid in fiscal year 2024, and has supplied total funding for Afghanistan of “more than $2 billion since August 2021 … including more than $1.5 billion in [USAID’s Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance] funding and nearly $550 million in [the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration] funding.”

“Provided through international partners on the ground,” says USAID, this assistance helps “meet the needs of the most vulnerable through food and cash support, nutrition, health care, protection for women and children, and agricultural inputs to support Afghans in meeting their immediate food needs.” 

Like Sedney, Worden suggests being realistic. “There is ample opportunity for the U.S. and other international partners to talk to the Taliban when they want to.” 

“This is all part of a very difficult global conversation,” he said. 

But for Frederick Starr, chairman of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, known for advocating closer ties with the region, Afghanistan is “utterly ignored right now.” 

Starr emphasizes that this country is critical for regional integration and stability, two goals the U.S. has long vowed to support. 

Sedney observes that “not many people want to talk about Afghanistan,” not just in Washington but in other Western capitals as well. 

Speaking last week at the American Foreign Policy Council, these experts stressed that America’s two decades of involvement in Afghanistan left it with an obligation to go beyond the status quo. 

Starr approves of the steps Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan have taken with Afghanistan, particularly regarding commerce, energy supply and water resources. 

Other observers, however, warn about tensions between the Taliban and Tajikistan, which officially supports the National Resistance Front, an armed alliance of anti-Taliban forces that is loyal to the previous regime and carries out guerrilla attacks in Afghanistan. Dushanbe continues to host the previous government’s ambassador. 

Worden identifies several key interests and objectives for Washington, most of which align with those of the region. The first and most important objective is counterterrorism, ensuring that Afghan territory is never again used to launch attacks on the U.S. or its allies. 

Others include negotiations on American hostages; the evacuation of Afghans that the U.S. promised to help following its withdrawal; women’s rights and other human rights; humanitarian assistance; and economic development. 

Perhaps the most abstract interest, according to Worden, “is trying to maintain an international diplomatic consensus on the broad conditions and expectations that we have for the Taliban, which include in the endgame a more inclusive society that is not a threat to itself and for its neighbors as well as these U.S. interests.” 

“It’s remarkable that no country in the world has recognized the Taliban,” he said, adding, however, that he sees a divergence between Western-allied emphasis on human rights and women’s rights and the neighboring countries’ economic and security concerns. 

In Worden’s view, the U.S. is pursuing a policy of “quiet engagement” on humanitarian assistance and counterterrorism. At the same time, there is a firm position of non-recognition and not wanting to legitimize the Taliban. 

“Can this dualism sustain over time?” asked Worden, who also sees a cleavage developing, where countries in the region will over time increase engagement with those in power in Afghanistan to achieve their economic and security interests. “Not that they like the Taliban, but they feel like talking to them is better than not.” 

Regardless of who inhabits the White House next January, Worden doubts that U.S. attention toward Afghanistan will increase unless there is an “acute crisis.” 

Republicans tend to “prefer coercion to engagement when you’re talking about regimes that we don’t have much in common with,” he said. “So yes, there is the wild card of potentially making a great deal, but I think the odds of support for armed opposition would increase.” 

U.S.-based Afghan journalist Samy Mahdi, who runs Amu Television out of Virginia, points out that the Taliban enjoy close relations with America’s adversaries, such as Iran, Russia and China. He argues that U.S. assistance has brought about minimum results, and that the Taliban is as radical and dangerous as it was in the 1990s. 

Mahdi recommends a full review of U.S. policy. 

“More communication and transparency are needed on Afghanistan,” he said at the American Foreign Policy Council forum. “We don’t hear much from the U.S. administration about Afghanistan.”
…

…

…

…

The Independent Task Force on the Application of National Security Memorandum-20 to Israel submitted this report on April 18, 2024.
…

…

washington — The White House on Tuesday unveiled an updated national strategy on suicide prevention that includes more emphasis on health equity and diversity and the mental-health impact of social media, revising its decade-old plan amid a national rise in suicide rates.

Second gentleman Doug Emhoff launched the new strategy at the White House, which he prefaced with words of comfort and encouragement.

“It’s OK to talk about this, as tough as this topic is,” he said. “So, that’s why it’s good that we’re all here today together. It’s important we do this, because as we all know, suicide affects everyone. Doesn’t matter your age, race, gender or where you live. It impacts all of us.”

The U.S. remains in a small clique of about 40 mostly high-income nations that have national plans to combat a menace that has left no society unscarred.

In a push for more countries to develop national strategies in 2018, the World Health Organization noted that “only a few countries in the low-income and middle-income categories have adopted a national suicide prevention strategy, even though 79% of suicides occur in these settings.”

American health professionals told VOA a national plan is essential to tackling the problem. 

“The new national strategy focuses on a “whole of society” approach, which is unique —and critical — because no single entity alone can reduce suicide rates. But together, we have a real opportunity for impact,” Hannah Wesolowski, chief advocacy officer of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, told VOA in an email.

Doctors who worked with the White House on the plan noted that not all its recommendations are strictly medical. Many are social and involve being more open about a matter that is often seen as taboo. 

“When it comes to a national strategy, you’re actually looking to employ a multipronged approach,” Dr. Christine Moutier, chief medical officer at the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, told VOA. “So, you would be looking to increase your mental health professional workforce that is culturally aligned with the population.

“But you’d also be looking to other things that low- and middle-income countries can do more readily, such as increasing interpersonal connectedness in schools and in workplaces — really these community-based approaches that have been found to be incredibly effective at reducing suicides. So, things like addressing loneliness, addressing interpersonal violence.”

American actor Ashley Judd, who spoke at the White House on Tuesday, also stressed the importance of legitimizing mental illness. Her mother, musician Naomi Judd, committed suicide in 2022. 

“She won several Grammys, and she left country music better than she found it,” Judd said of her mother, who was 76. “She also lived most of her life with an untreated and undiagnosed mental illness that lied to her and stole from her. And it stole from our family, and she deserved better.”

Another issue the updated plan wrestled with is a uniquely American one. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 55% of American suicides are committed with firearms. 

“There is a very strong section on firearm suicide prevention in the national strategy,” Moutier said, noting that the federal strategy mentions the important role of state-level red flag laws that would restrict firearms access for buyers who may harm themselves or others. 

The new strategy also emphasizes the value of “lived experience” — the validity of survivors’ stories and those of their loved ones, who are scarred by the suicide. 

Musician Aloe Blacc spoke Tuesday of how he uses music to heal after the 2018 suicide of his close friend, Swedish electronica artist Tim Bergling – better known by his stage name, Avicii.

On the anniversary of his friend’s death, Blacc recorded a version of his hit, “Wake Me Up.”He also recorded a version he sang in Mandarin and Spanish. 

And on Tuesday, Blacc, sitting in the high-ceilinged, marble-walled room on the White House campus, burst into spontaneous song. His warm tenor filled the cavernous room as he sang a gospel standard, “This Little Light of Mine.”

“Just remember,” he said. “You are the light.”

Blacc offered some simple advice to those who themselves may be struggling or know someone who is. 

“I want to encourage all of us here today and all of us watching to recognize the role that we can play, the positive role that we can play in someone else’s life,” he said. 

Or, as Wesolowski said, “The most important thing we can do is show up. …The action of reaching out is more important than the words you say, and sometimes it can make all the difference.”

The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention shared with VOA this list of international suicide hotlines.
…

WASHINGTON — Myanmar’s ruling junta, the State Administrative Council, is criticizing a U.S. aid package that is being funneled through opponents of the regime, saying the United States should consider whether its actions amount to support for terrorism. 

The assistance marks the first implementation of the BURMA Act, part of the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act aimed at helping pro-democracy forces battling the SAC. 

Under the act, the aid is intended to strengthen federalism in Myanmar by providing nonlethal assistance to armed groups, helping pro-democracy organizations, assisting aid organizations operating from Thailand, and financing investigations of junta human rights violations. The aid is restricted to ensure it does not benefit the SAC or any entity affiliated with the Myanmar military. 

“We believe the U.S. is manipulating Myanmar to counter China’s influence in the region,” the junta said in a statement provided to VOA on March 29. “Despite the U.S. presenting itself as a champion of democracy, the aid disproportionately benefits Myanmar’s opposition groups, particularly the National Unity Government (NUG) and the People’s Defense Force (PDF).” 

The NUG is the opposition’s shadow government; the PDF is made up of civilian armed groups battling the military. 

The junta statement calls on the United States to review its aid allocation “to reassess whether their actions, which some label as terrorism, represent a legitimate path to reclaiming power.” 

The junta, which has killed and imprisoned thousands of people since overthrowing the democratically elected government in February 2021, accuses the NUG and PDF of responsibility for the civilian deaths. The statement did not elaborate on the charge that U.S. support for resistance groups in Myanmar is linked to Myanmar’s adversarial relationship with China. 

The promise of the BURMA Act 

The Burma Unified Through Rigorous Military Accountability Act, commonly called the BURMA Act, says it aims to “continue to support the people of Burma in their struggle for democracy, human rights, and justice.” 

It identifies specific resistance groups as beneficiaries, including the NUG, and the National Unity Consultative Council, or NUCC, which comprises several opposition groups. 

Also named are the Committee Representing Pyidaungsu Hluttaw, which is made up of members of the ousted Myanmar parliament; the civil disobedience movement; “and other entities in Burma and in other countries” that seek to “bring about an end to the military junta’s rule.” 

The act promises to “hold accountable perpetrators of human rights violations,” and to “hold accountable the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China.” 

It provides $75 million for refugee assistance programs, including in Thailand and India, and $25 million for “technical support and non-lethal assistance” to the NUG and PDF. Smaller amounts are earmarked for governance programs, documentation of atrocities, and assistance to political prisoners, Rohingya and deserters from the junta’s military. 

The Rohingya, a predominantly Muslim ethnic minority group, have faced persecution and discrimination in Myanmar for decades. In 2017, a military crackdown by the Myanmar army forced hundreds of thousands of Rohingya to flee to neighboring Bangladesh, seeking refuge from the violence and persecution. 

The act authorizes appropriations to be allocated annually from fiscal years 2023 through 2027, with $121 million earmarked for FY 2024.  

Process of the funding 

During debate on the bill, the U.S. House of Representatives initially proposed a more limited $50 million aid package but agreed to the larger sum advocated by the Senate before final passage. 

“We are pleased with the $121 million proposed by the Senate, instead of the $50 million proposed by the House. However, we believe this amount is insufficient, and should be closer to $300 million to meet the humanitarian needs on the ground,” said James Shwe, from the Los Angeles Myanmar Movement, which works with Myanmar activists in the United States. 

In a Zoom call with VOA, Shwe also criticized what he sees as the high administrative costs of aid distribution. 

“Because of the lack of state-to-state cooperation in a case such as Myanmar, where the aid is meant for humanitarian assistance, but not for the ruling power, this leads to several layers of management,” he said. 

“The aid is funneled through USAID partners, the biggest of which is the U.N., which has to operate under the rules of the junta. In many cases, the U.N. will in turn deal with [non-governmental organizations]. The NGO then needs to distribute that aid to [civil society organizations] on the ground. This leads to ever-increasing administrative costs and less actual assistance to those in need.” 

Shwe said administration costs eat up around 45% of aid funds. 

“Only $75 million of the $121 million is allocated for cross-border aid, which we believe will be more effective than channeling funds through the U.N., the largest partner of USAID,” Shwe added. But he welcomed the lawmakers’ decision to specifically name the NUG and the NUCC in the act, ensuring that they will play a role in the allocation of the funds. 

Hopes for assistance amid U.S. engagement 

Hopes for continued humanitarian assistance to Myanmar are on the rise after U.S. State Department Counselor Derek Chollet and USAID Assistant Administrator Michael Schiffer met this month with representatives from the NUG. 

“The meeting underscores the ongoing commitment of the United States to engage with Myanmar’s NUG leadership and support their endeavors to promote democracy, peace, and stability in the region,” said an April 11 State Department press release. 

Chollet also met in late March with ethnic armed organizations allied with the NUG.

“Met today with leaders of Burma’s ‘K3C’ ethnic group alliance on their extraordinary efforts to pursue a federal democracy in Burma,” he wrote on X on March 28. “We discussed steps for the international community to expand assistance to those in need and secure a better future for the people of Burma.”

The K3C alliance, comprising the Kachin Independence Organization, Karen National Union, Karenni National Progressive Party, and Chin National Front, is politically aligned with the NUG and collaborates militarily with its armed wing, the People’s Defense Force. 

“We briefed them on the political and military situation in our state, as well as the humanitarian situation,” said Aung San Myint, secretary of the Karenni National Progressive Party, who shared details of the meeting with VOA by phone.  

“Following our presentation, they assured us of continued collaboration as the U.S. Department of State. … We have hope for increased humanitarian aid as discussions progress with U.S. officials.”
…

…

…

Africa’s entertainment industry is another stage where global competition between China and the U.S. is playing out. African artists see it as an opportunity. Kate Bartlett has the details from Johannesburg. Camera and video editing by Zaheer Cassim.
…