China’s next generation of hackers won’t be criminals. That’s a problem.


Dakota Cary
Fri, November 12, 2021,
The TechCrunch Global Affairs Project examines the increasingly intertwined relationship between the tech sector and global politics.

Criminals have a long history of conducting cyber espionage on China’s behalf. Protected from prosecution by their affiliation with China’s Ministry of State Security (MSS), criminals turned government hackers conduct many of China’s espionage operations. Alarming as it may sound, this is not a new phenomenon. An indictment issued by the U.S. Department of Justice last year, for example, indicated that the simultaneous criminal-espionage activity of two Chinese hackers went back as far as 2009. In another case, FireEye, a cybersecurity company, alleges that APT41, a separate cohort of MSS hackers, began as a criminal outfit in 2012 and transitioned to concurrently conducting state espionage from 2014 onward. But there’s reason to believe that since then, China has been laying the groundwork for change.

A spate of policies beginning in 2015 put China in a position to replace contracted criminals with new blood from universities. The CCP’s first effort in 2015 was to standardize university cybersecurity degrees by taking inspiration from the United States’ National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education — a NIST framework for improving the U.S. talent pipeline. One year later, China announced the construction of a new National Cybersecurity Talent and Innovation Base in Wuhan. Including all of the Base’s components, it is capable of training and certifying 70,000 people a year in cybersecurity.

Along similar lines, in 2017, the Central Cyberspace Administration of China announced an award for World-Class Cybersecurity Schools; a program that currently certifies eleven schools in the same way some U.S. government agencies certify universities as Centers of Academic Excellence in cyber defense or operations. But having a new pool of talent untainted by criminal activity is not reason enough to change China’s operational approach.

Efforts to professionalize state hacking teams are also directly linked to President Xi's political goal of reducing corruption. Xi’s recent purge of China’s state security services demonstrates the risk officials run by enriching themselves using government resources. Patronage relationships between contract hackers and their handlers are precisely the type of profiteering behavior that Xi has targeted in his sweeping anti-corruption campaign.

In an increasingly cutthroat environment, officers running operations that draw international ire or foreign criminal indictments are vulnerable to being turned in by rivals. Officials targeted by internal investigators may find themselves locked up in “black jails.” China’s security services will shed their relationship with underground hackers as they weed out corrupt officials and directly hire hackers.

The implications of these measures suggest that the Chinese hackers that the world’s companies and intelligence services are accustomed to defending against will be far more professional by the end of the decade.

A more capable China will behave differently than the China we see today. Given its reliance on illicit hackers to hide its criminal and espionage activities, the Ministry of Public Security has tolerated some cyber criminals’ Chinese operations, despite the problems they cause. Once criminal activity is no longer the norm, China’s security services will find that they can move these operations in-house, since government spying is an accepted behavior in international relations. As a result, China’s Ministry of Public Security may conduct more operations against cyber criminals. Analysts should be on the lookout for a rise in these internally focused, anti-crime operations, which would be a good indicator of a change in operational tactics.

This shift in Chinese cyber capabilities will be felt abroad as the list of targeted countries and entities grow. Espionage priorities that long languished near the bottom of the list are likely to receive renewed attention as the roster of state hackers swells. These campaigns will not be more “sophisticated” than past operations, since China’s hacking teams are already on par with the best. But they will become more frequent.

As China’s security-backed hacking steadily sheds its veneer of criminality, we can expect to see a slowdown over the next decade in cybercrime conducted by contract hackers and others connected to the state. But this trend away from thuggery will be paired with a rise in espionage and intellectual property theft. In hindsight, China’s reliance on criminal hackers will seem like a vestige of the old MSS — corrupt and even amateurish.

While this shift will be gradual, we can expect certain indicators, like rumors of crackdowns within the security services or reports of disappearing or indicted criminal groups. Over time, we can expect to see the gradual separation of technical indicators between known criminal and espionage hacking teams.

But since spying isn’t against the rules, U.S. policymakers will need to continue prioritizing cybersecurity across government agencies, the defense industrial base and critical infrastructure operators. The White House is already moving in this direction; in August 2021 the administration rallied NATO allies on cyber policy and identified 500,000 unfilled cybersecurity jobs. For its part, the NSA launched the Cybersecurity Collaboration Center earlier this year to increase systemwide cybersecurity. The United States already uses competitions like CyberPatriot to push students into the well-developed cybersecurity talent pipeline. Creating new programs aimed at encouraging job retraining through community colleges certified in cyber defense would leverage existing resources but may attract new students who missed the K-12 pipeline the first time around.

Above all, policymakers should remain vigilant. A decline in China’s use of criminals doesn't mean the threat has disappeared, only changed. The U.S. government should be prepared to seriously consider the full range of options to meet the challenge of China’s next generation of hackers.

8.5 million student-loan borrowers get one more year with a company Elizabeth Warren says was 'caught lying to Congress about its atrocious record of fines and penalties


Ayelet Sheffey
Thu, November 11, 2021,

Sen. Elizabeth Warren speaking to PHEAA in July. Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images


PHEAA, a student-loan company servicing 8.5 million borrowers, is extending its contract by a year.

It first announced in July that it was ending its federal loan servicing this year.

PHEAA has come under fire over accusations of misleading borrowers and lying to Congress.

In July, the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency - a student-loan company that handles 8.5 million borrower accounts - announced it would be shutting down its federal loan services in December.

But on Wednesday, the company reversed course, announcing an agreement with the Education Department to extend its contract by one year to allow more time to transition borrowers to new student-loan companies.

A PHEAA spokesperson told Insider in August that although the company was planning to end its contract on December 14, it would continue to work with Federal Student Aid to "ensure a smooth transition for all borrowers beyond that date - for as long as it takes under the Department's direction." On Wednesday, the company said this extension would ensure that all loans were successfully transferred from PHEAA to other companies before the end of next year.

This extension would also allow more time to account for the Education Department's recent overhaul of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which forgives student debt for public servants after 10 years of qualifying payments. The new reforms include implementing a temporary waiver to allow borrowers to count payments from any federal-loan programs or repayment plans toward loan forgiveness through PSLF, including programs and plans that were not previously eligible.

Insider has previously reported on the significant administrative hurdles with transitioning millions of borrowers to new student-loan companies before the pandemic pause on payments lifts on February 1. Along with PHEAA, two other companies - Granite State Management and Resources and Navient - announced they would also be ending their federal loan services, affecting a combined 16 million borrowers.

But while PHEAA's extension may allow more time for borrowers to transition, it doesn't wipe the company's slate clean regarding its treatment of borrowers. After the company first announced its plans to end federal servicing, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren lauded the news. She said in a statement:

"Millions of loan borrowers can breathe a sigh of relief today knowing that their loans will no longer be managed by PHEAA, an organization that has robbed untold numbers of public servants of debt relief and was recently caught lying to Congress about its atrocious record of fines and penalties."

Warren was referring to an April hearing in which she and John Kennedy, the ranking member of the Senate Economic Policy Subcommittee, asked CEOs of all the student-loan servicers in the country to testify on the influence of student debt on borrowers. James Steeley, PHEAA's CEO, said the company had never been penalized for its mismanagement of PSLF.

But weeks after the hearing, Warren and Kennedy sent a letter to Steeley regarding "what appear to be false and misleading" statements and cited nine Education Department reviews in their letter that suggested the company's mismanagement of the program had resulted in corrective action plans and two fines, each more than $100,000.

Warren also recently expressed concern that 16 million borrowers could be facing "millions of mistakes and problems" at the hands of new student-loan companies once payments restart, and she requested more information on how each of the companies would ensure "a smooth transfer of tens of millions of borrowers' accounts to new student loan servicers."


Biden owes his core voters student loan forgiveness

Michael Arceneaux, Contributing writer
Thu, November 11, 2021,


President Biden. Illustrated | Getty Images, iStock

Although Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has historically been one of the loudest political voices in support of student loan debt cancellation, he warned this week not to expect any meaningful action from Congress on the matter.

Citing the evenly split Senate and thin Democratic majority in the House, Schumer explained why Congress shouldn't even bother debating student loan debt legislation. "You read about the tough time we're having with legislation, the bill to build roads, bills to make prescription drug costs lower, the bills to get a tax break and get our kids out of poverty and get them to get a good education, to help small businesses," he said at a virtual event hosted by Mitú, a Latino digital media company. "Those all require the House and Senate to pass it, but these days, with the partisanship, filibuster, and all that, it's not so easy."

Schumer is correct in saying partisanship and the filibuster impact a myriad of issues that can be addressed with legislation. But his comments also suggest that, of all the things to fight for, student debt is not a priority for congressional Democrats. Unfortunately, this about-face comes as no surprise: As a Black person who likes to vote and hates police brutality, I'm all too familiar with how quickly the rhetoric from Democratic leadership can shift to passive language following an election.

But student loan debt is the perfect issue on which President Biden can take the lead. As Schumer himself noted, "the president can do this on his own."

For months now, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has also called on Biden to cancel $50,000 in student debt per borrower, likewise expressing concern that doing so through legislation would take too long. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), too, has said that "given how much [Build Back Better] has been slashed, there is more opportunity than ever to bring the heat on Biden to cancel student loans."

Beyond momentum in Washington, Biden owes answers to people like me. After all, he campaigned on approving $10,000 in student debt cancellation but has yet to fulfill that promise or provide any details on his next steps.

We can't even get a definitive answer from the president about what he believes his authority is here. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said in February that Biden would ask the Justice Department to review his authority to use executive action to cancel student debt, but it's unclear whatever came of that. In April, White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain said Biden had asked Education Secretary Miguel Cardona to create a memo on the president's legal authority to forgive $50,000 in student loans per person. But, as Insider reported, the Biden administration has known whether or not he has had that authority since at least the spring. And while Biden has canceled more than $11 billion in targeted student loan debt, that accounts for less than 1 percent of all federal loans. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking: There are fewer than 85 days until federal student loan payments restart.

Polling shows public opinion is quite mixed on the issue of canceling student debt, particularly for graduates with higher incomes. But even if this doesn't seem like an immediate political win, Biden should still step up. The common criticism from politicians like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) — who has suggested canceling student debt is unfair to people who did not take out loans for college — is clearly out of touch and comes from a place of privilege. As someone who has lived and written about my own struggles with student loan debt extensively, I don't want to hear the rich and detached be so dismissive about the crushing debt many struggle to tackle.

Pelosi should listen to experts like Bharat Ramamurti of the COVID-19 Congressional Oversight Commission, who tweeted a thread last November spelling out the benefits of canceling student loan debt for millions of borrowers based on previous studies and government data. One of his sources was a study from the Levy Economic Institute of Bard College that found a one-time cancellation of the $1.4 trillion outstanding student debt load would translate to an increase of $86 billion to $108 billion a year in GDP. "The bottom line is that broad debt cancellation via executive order is popular, economically potent, and — most importantly — life-changing for millions of Americans struggling through this crisis," Ramamurti wrote on Twitter.

Likewise, Lowell Ricketts, lead analyst for the Center for Household Financial Stability at the St. Louis Fed, told Insider that even $10,000 in forgiveness could benefit low-balance borrowers. It could "carve out an income-based repayment plan or a payment plan that is more workable" for those with $20,000 in debt, he said. There are tangible benefits to debt cancellation, and it doesn't take hard work for our political leaders to locate them.

Moreover, public opinion can be molded and shaped, and progressives need to be mindful of their audience in this debate. Arguing for full student debt cancellation for the Brookings Institution, authors Andre M. Perry, Marshall Steinbaum, and Carl Romer explain how a focus on income alone obscures the Black student loan debt crisis, because many assume people with similar incomes have similar abilities to pay back student loans. Yet Black college students graduate with far more debt than their white counterparts, which only exacerbates the existing racial wealth gap. Without action from Biden, Black student debt will hinder his administration's agenda with respect to eliminating racial inequities. Arguably, debt elimination would give Black people stronger participation in the economy in terms of spending power, homeownership, and access to capital to start businesses.

As of now, Biden and Democrats in Congress haven't delivered on other crucial promises to Black voters, like better protection of voting rights or police reform. They aren't giving historically Black colleges and universities anywhere close to the $45 billion originally promised in the reconciliation bill tied to the Build Back Better agenda. And their excuses are tired and uninspiring — not exactly the best themes for a looming midterm election.

I know there's a wing of Democratic leadership that feels bipartisanship still matters to the electorate, but in the age of "critical race theory" and other racist conspiracy theories, the Democratic Party should think less about appeasing Republicans and more about mobilizing its own core voters.

Student loan debt cancellation could be that issue for Black and younger voters alike, both important blocs — if only Biden would finally act.

GM Defense Is Making a Prototype Military Version of the Hummer EV


Mack Hogan
Thu, November 11, 2021

Photo credit: Steve Fecht/GM Defense

GM Defense is looking to sell the U.S. military on electric vehicles, with CNBC reporting that the business unit is creating a prototype for U.S. forces based on the upcoming GMC Hummer EV.

The prototype, dubbed the electric Light Reconnaissance Vehicle (eLRV), could develop into the first all-electric passenger-carrying land vehicle in the U.S.'s military fleet. That'd be a huge step forward for an organization that is—as The Verge noted—the single largest emitter of greenhouse gases, according to a 2019 study from Brown University.

Photo credit: GM

The Pentagon said earlier this week that electric vehicles for the military will be part of President Joe Biden's overarching climate agenda, so GM's moves are no coincidence. The automaker already has spent billions on EV research and development, developed a suite of proprietary Ultium batteries, and started work on multiple large EV trucks designed to be worked hard.


Still, expect substantial differences between the consumer-focused Hummer EV and the eLRV that GM Defense will pitch to the Department of Defense. GM plans to use and modify components from the Hummer, including its frame and batteries. But the equipment and design will likely be quite different, as was the case with the Colorado ZR2-based Infantry Squad Vehicle that GM started delivering to the U.S. Army last year.

PERSPECTIVE

The fascist coup of January 6

David North@davidnorthwsws
WSWS.ORG

The fascist insurrection in Washington DC—which resulted in the storming of the US Congress, the panicked dispersal of terrified senators and members of the House, the delay of the official validation of Joseph Biden’s Electoral College majority, and even the occupation of the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi—is a turning point in the political history of the United States.

The hoary glorifications of the invincibility and timelessness of American democracy have been totally exposed and discredited as a hollow political myth. The popular phrase “It Can’t Happen Here,” taken from the title of Sinclair Lewis’ justly famous fictional account of the rise of American fascism, has been decisively overtaken by events. Not only can a fascist coup happen here. It has happened here, on the afternoon of January 6, 2021.

Trump supporters storm the Capitol, Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington. (AP Photo/John Minchillo)

Moreover, even if the initial effort has fallen short of its goal, it will happen again.

What occurred yesterday was the outcome of a carefully planned conspiracy. It was instigated by Donald Trump, who has been working with a gang of fascist conspirators strategically positioned within the White House and other powerful institutions, departments and agencies of the state. Wednesday’s operation carries with it the overwhelming stench of the Trump sons, close aides like Stephen Miller, and numerous others working behind the scenes within the military, the National Guard and the police.

The conspiracy utilized the well-known techniques of modern coups. The plotters identified the meeting of the Congress to ratify Biden’s Electoral College majority as the propitious time for action. The assault was prepared by weeks of lying claims by Trump and his minions that the 2020 election had been stolen. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell rendered critical service by withholding Republican recognition of Biden’s election for weeks, thus providing time and legitimacy to Trump’s efforts to discredit the election with totally fraudulent claims of ballot fraud.

A majority of Republican congressmen and a substantial number of Republican senators orchestrated Wednesday’s political debate at which the legitimacy of the Electoral College vote was challenged, to provide the necessary pretext for the planned right-wing uprising. The final signal for the storming of the Capitol building was given by Trump himself, who delivered an insurrectionary harangue to his supporters, who—one can be certain—were directed by elements with police, military and paramilitary training.

It has already been widely noted that the fascist gangs encountered virtually no resistance as they stormed the Capitol. In the most critical and vulnerable areas of the Capitol building, the police were hardly to be seen. To politically evaluate the police response on Wednesday, one has only to recall the violence deployed last June against a peaceful anti-police brutality demonstration in Lafayette Park.

Had a left-wing protest been called in Washington to protest Trump’s efforts to overthrow the results of the election, the demonstrators—as everyone knows—would have been met with a massive show of force by the police and National Guard. There would have been police sharpshooters placed strategically on every building in the vicinity of the protesters. Military helicopters and drones would have been circling overhead. The slightest unauthorized movement by the crowd, however peaceful, would have been met with demands for its immediate dispersal, followed within minutes by the launching of barrages of tear gas cannisters. Hundreds, if not thousands, would have been kettled and arrested.

The response of the Democratic Party to the coup has been a pathetic display of political spinelessness. The first hours of the insurrection passed without a single prominent Democratic leader issuing a clear denunciation of the conspiracy, nor did any prominent Democrats call for popular resistance to the coup. Former President Obama and the Clintons, who are followed by millions on Twitter, remained silent throughout the day.

As for the president-elect, Biden waited hours before finally appearing before the public. After describing the attack on the Capitol as sedition, Biden made this extraordinary appeal to the leader of the conspiracy: “I call on President Trump to go on national television now, to fulfill his oath and defend the Constitution and demand an end to this siege.”

Normally, when confronted with an attempt to overthrow the constitutional regime, the political leader threatened by the conspiracy must immediately seek to deprive the traitors of all access to the mass media and a nationwide audience. But Biden, instead, called on Trump to appear on national television—to call off the insurrection he himself had organized!

Biden concluded his remarks with the following clarion call. “So, President Trump, step up.” This bankrupt appeal to the would-be fascist dictator will go down in history as Biden’s “Hitler, do the right thing” speech.

The Democrats, let alone the media, have no intention of exposing the full depth of the conspiracy and holding its plotters and organizers responsible. The effort to cover up the crime has already begun, with the media bloviating on the need for Democrats and Republicans “to come together in bipartisan unity.”

The decision of the House and the Senate, in the evening hours, to uphold Biden’s election is not the end of the crisis.

Appeals for “unity” with the conspirators clear the path for the next effort to carry out a fascist coup d’état. This is the lesson of the invasion of the state Capitol last April by armed fascist thugs in Lansing, Michigan and the subsequent conspiracy in the autumn of 2020 to kidnap and assassinate the Democratic governor of the state, Gretchen Whitmer. The Democratic Party and media quickly suppressed coverage of these crimes and hardly defended Whitmer against the attack. The plotters, thus far, have received little more than a slap on the wrist.

The Democrats’ response to the fascist conspiracy is not dictated merely by cowardice or stupidity. Rather, as representatives of the financial-corporate oligarchy, they are frightened that the exposure of the criminal conspiracy and its political aims would ignite a mass response within the working class that would spiral into a movement against the capitalist state and the interests it serves.

The effort to conceal the conspiracy must be opposed. Workers must take up the demand for the immediate removal and arrest of Trump. He cannot be allowed to remain in office, utilizing the immense power of the presidency to continue his plotting. His retention of the White House represents a massive threat to the people of the United States and the world. Trump still has the power to declare a national emergency and even launch a war. His finger remains on the nuclear trigger.

Nor should his co-conspirators be left in office. The Republican senators and congressmen involved in the conspiracy must be likewise removed from the Senate and Congress, arrested, placed on trial and sent to prison.

The continuing reference by the Democrats to their “Republican colleagues” is itself a mockery of democracy.

The demand must be raised for a public investigation with open hearings, aimed at identifying all those involved in the conspiracy, leading to their arrest and imprisonment.

Absolutely no confidence should be placed in the in-coming Biden administration—assuming that his inauguration is not blocked by a further uprising—to hold the conspirators to account and defend democracy.

It must never be forgotten that Biden and the Democrats represent nothing more than another political faction of the same ruling class. As Obama declared immediately after Trump’s election, the conflict between the Democrats and Republicans is nothing more than an “intramural scrimmage,” i.e., a friendly fight between members of the same team. In a statement issued Wednesday evening, Obama singled out Republicans for praise, writing obsequiously: “I’ve been heartened to see many members of the president’s party speak up forcefully today.” The only purpose of such a statement is to conceal the truth about the extent of the fascist coup.

The events of January 6, 2021 must be taken as a warning. The working class must elaborate a political strategy and plan of action to defeat future efforts to impose a dictatorship.

The political and economic dynamic of capitalist reaction and counterrevolution will continue, even with Trump out of office. This dynamic will not abate after January 20. The Democratic Party, whose congressional and senatorial delegation is stacked with millionaires and people with the closest ties to the CIA and the military, are no less capable than the Republicans of organizing a conspiracy to suppress democratic rights.

In any event, the policies of the Biden administration, which will pursue policies set by Wall Street and the military, will perpetuate and escalate the anger and frustration exploited by the fascists.

Throughout the past year, as it has conducted an unrelenting struggle against the ruling class policy of herd immunity, the Socialist Equality Party has shown in detail the connection between the ruling class’s inhuman response to the pandemic and the Trump administration’s assault on democratic rights.

The danger has not passed.

It is essential to build a network of rank-and-file committees in factories and workplaces capable of organizing broad-based popular resistance through the mobilization of all sections of the working class.

Above all, workers must understand that the disintegration of American democracy is rooted in the crisis of capitalism. In a society riven by staggering levels of social inequality, it is impossible to preserve democracy.

Draw the lessons of January 6!

Take up the fight for socialism and the defense of democratic rights 

DAVID NORTH

7 January 2021

DAVID NORTH IS THE LEADER OF THE SOCIALIST EQUALITY PARTY AND THE WSWS A FACTION OF THE FOURTH INTERNATIONAL

Elon Musk sells another $700m of Tesla shares, prompting legal scrutiny after Twitter stock poll

The electric car maker’s share price dipped again as the markets opened yesterday, as the chief executive continued to sell off his holdings.

The Tesla boss had previously said he would have to exercise a large number of stock options in the next three months, which would create a big tax bill. (Photo: Patrick Pleul/Pool via Reuters/File Photo)

By Laurie Havelock

November 12, 2021 

Elon Musk, the founder and chief executive of Tesla, has sold a further $700m (£523m) of shares in his company, just days after abiding by a Twitter poll and dumping a $5bn stake.

The second round of hefty stock sales comes after the world’s richest person and Tesla’s top shareholder tweeted that he would sell 10 per cent of his shares if users of the social media platform approved the move.

Musk disclosed the additional sale of 639,737 shares in the firm, was worth about $687m, in filings with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on Friday.

The sale came shortly on the heels of Musk offloading 3.6 million shares worth about $4bn earlier this week, after asking his 63 million Twitter followers over the weekend whether he should do so.

The poll, which attracted 3.5 million votes, saw 58 per cent vote in favour of the sale.

Neither the SEC nor Tesla were available for comment on the latest share sale.

As with the previous sale, the chief executive’s second sell-off spooked investors. Tesla shares were down 1.5 per cent in early trading and were headed for their first weekly decline in 12 weeks.

So far this week, Tesla has lost $157bn in stock market value, more than the combined market values of its traditional rivals Ford Motor and General Motors. But the electric vehicle maker is still the most valuable US auto firm by some distance.

“Tesla investors are exhausted after the roller coaster ride they’ve been on. I don’t expect a big impact on the share price after what we’ve already been through,” said Fiona Cincotta, senior markets analyst at City Index in London.

It has again raised questions as to whether the billionaire breached any rules or the settlement he agreed with the SEC for tweeting in 2018 that he had secured funding to take Tesla private when in fact he had not.

That agreement, which the SEC refined in 2019, requires Musk to check any Tweets material to Tesla investors with a company lawyer. Given Musk’s Tweet appeared to harm the company’s share price, he may have been in breach of the settlement had he failed to vet it.

Read More

Shiba Inu coin price: Why the meme crypto climbed in value after Elon Musk tweeted about his puppy

“This case seems like yet another instance where regulators and private plaintiffs are going to spend years investigating what he knew, what he did, and why,” said Ty Gellasch, head of investor group Healthy Markets.

Howard Fischer, a partner at law firm Moses & Singer, said if Musk had concealed the real reason for his sales that could arguably be a disclosure violation, but there was also a lot of public information on his reasoning for the sales.

“If Tesla was a normal company, and Musk a normal executive, this kind of behaviour would lead to a board rebuke or worse,” said Fischer. But investors appear by now to accept his “oddities,” he added.

Open Ocean Robotics aims to protect coastlines

Solar-powered, autonomous boats patrol, collect data

October 18, 2021 By Sohail Kamal, West Coast Correspondent

The origin of Open Ocean Robotics can be traced back to Hurricane Vince, the most north-easterly Atlantic hurricane ever. In the midst of this tempest, in a small plywood rowboat, were Julie and Colin Angus. The newly engaged couple spent five months successfully completing the first human-powered row from mainland Europe to North America.

Open Oceans Robotics thinks its uncrewed, autonomous and solar-powered boats could be key to understanding our vastly unexplored oceans, enforcing illegal fishing and so much more.

From there, they partnered with National Geographic and Random House, and spent decades exploring remote parts of the world in rowboats, sailboats and white-water kayaks. After these adventures, they started their first boat company, Angus Rowboats, to hone their craft-building skills. Moved by their love and respect for the ocean, they decided to help protect coastal waters from abuses such as oil spills, trafficking, and illegal fishing by starting Open Ocean Robotics in 2019.
Plan to grow to 500 staff in five years

Their aim is to protect the oceans using autonomous uncrewed solar-powered vessels to patrol coastal waters to collect data, crack down on illegal activities, detect oil spills, and monitor climate change. With nearly $5 Million raised from investors and grants, the pair just received another $300,000 by capturing a top prize at the NexStream 2.0 Tech Challenge.

West Coast Report recently had the opportunity to meet virtually with Julie Angus about uncrewed service vehicles (USVs), how Open Ocean Robotics plan to grow to 500 staff in five years, and the many applications that exist for autonomous, zero-emission boats.


The crew from Open Ocean Robotics stands in front of an uncrewed solar-powered vessel used to patrol coastal waters to collect data, detect oil spills and monitor climate change.

Angus explains that, constructed with composite glass carbon fiber, their 12-foot USV is light enough that two persons can carry it, but big enough to harness sufficient solar energy to be sea-worthy. The craft’s design gives it great self-righting ability, while minimizing drag and optimizing energy input. Perhaps, in short, their vessels can become the roving eye of the ocean, as they can be deployed six months at a time.

The only USV company in Canada


The firm is headquartered next to the ocean in Victoria, BC, providing direct access to the ocean.

“This has allowed us to test our boat when we need to, getting instant and actionable insights to constantly improve and develop our product, says Angus. “We also proudly represent Canada as one of the only USV companies in the country.” Canada has more shoreline than any other nation, without a sufficient population to properly patrol and monitor these waters.

Julie Angus, CEO of Open Ocean Robotics.

Open Ocean Robotics’ path hasn’t been without challenges. Starting up a year before a worldwide pandemic forced them to adjust to new funding programs and juggle priorities, especially in the face of parts shortages that any OEM can relate to, explains Angus.

“COVID has been devastating for many of us… For us personally, and many thanks to the help of the government in COVID grants and loans, we have been fortunate enough to advance our technology despite the global pandemic.”

There were even projects that were nearly cancelled, and they had to pivot where necessary. This included offering to conduct trials and projects in domestic Canadian waters.

“There were instances where international projects were at risk of failing, but we planned and found new ways to deliver,” Angus adds. The firm hired remote teams, and leaned on new perspectives in order to communicate and remain agile. Thankfully they source mostly Canadian oceanographic sensors, and they have relied heavily on virtual meetings to maintain collaborative teamwork during the pandemic.

“First, believe in yourself. People sometimes overestimate what they can do in a day, but underestimate what they can achieve in a year, or two years, or even a lifetime,” Angus shares. “And, surround yourself with people that believe in you, will cheer you on, and never give up on you because those are the people you want in your corner.”

To learn more about how they provide real-time data analytics to monitor, protect, and more sustainably operate on our ocean, go to openoceanrobotics.com.

Taiwan’s TSMC to build first chip plant in Japan amid crunch

Construction will start next year for the plant to be up and running by 2024

November 10, 2021 By Yuri Kageyama, The Associated Press, Tokyo

Japanese electronics maker Sony and TSMC of Taiwan announced plans to jointly build a computer chip plant in Japan with an initial investment of $7-billion. The plant in the southwestern city of Kumamoto will be the first foundry in Japan for TSMC, one of the world’s leading chipmakers. Construction will start next year for the plant to be up and running by 2024, employing 1,500 high-tech professionals.

The move comes as a supply crunch in chips has slammed various Japanese companies, including automaker Toyota Motor Corp. and video-game maker Nintendo Co., as lockdowns and other coronavirus measures in parts of Asia have hurt chip production.



Sony Semiconductor Solutions Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of Sony Corp., will be a minority stakeholder, with less than 20% equity, investing $500 million in the new TSMC subsidiary, Japan Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing. The overall investment is getting “strong support from the Japanese government,” the joint statement said. The deal is subject to regulatory approval.

Speculation is that Toyota may join in

Terushi Shimizu, president of Sony Semiconductor Solutions, said the global semiconductor shortage was expected to continue. The partnership with TSMC will help not only Sony but also other companies, he said. There has been speculation other Japanese companies, such as Toyota Motor Corp., may join the project, but TSMC declined comment, saying nothing was decided.

“We are pleased to have the support of a leading player and our long-time customer, Sony, to supply the market with an all-new fab in Japan, and also are excited at the opportunity to bring more Japanese talent into TSMC’s global family,” said Chief Executive C.C. Wei.

THE HAQQANI NETWORK: THE NEW KINGMAKERS IN KABUL
JEFF M. SMITH
NOVEMBER 12, 2021
COMMENTARY


LONG READ 

In some ways, the Taliban that is now in power in Kabul looks a great deal like the Taliban that ruled Afghanistan in the run-up to 9/11. In their first weeks in office, the Taliban whipped women in public, tortured journalists, targeted minorities, executed former collaborators with the United States, and canceled female sports and secondary education.

In other ways, the Taliban, and its new leadership, looks very different. The recent focus on the Taliban’s human rights violations and the group’s escalating battle with the Islamic State in Afghanistan risks overshadowing a potentially bigger story: the bloodstained rise of Sirajuddin Haqqani and the Haqqani Network. A loyal proxy of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence, the network has been active in Afghanistan since the 1970s. Through brutal tactics and battlefield successes, the Haqqani Network — a terrorist group allied with, and increasingly embedded in, the Taliban leadership structure — has now established itself as a dangerous and influential kingmaker in Kabul.

Throughout the course of the Afghan War, the Haqqani Network was often responsible for the deadliest and highest-profile terrorist attacks on U.S. forces. It may be no coincidence that Khalil ur-Rahman Haqqani, a terrorist with a $5 million U.S. bounty on his head, was appointed to serve as the head of security in the Afghan capital one week before an August 2021 suicide bombing at the Kabul airport killed 13 U.S. soldiers and over 160 Afghan civilians. The fox was finally guarding the henhouse.

When the Taliban announced a new hardline government in September, several members of the Haqqani Network were given key ministerial positions, handing the terrorist group control of internal security in Afghanistan. It increasingly seems that the fall of Kabul was as much a victory for the Haqqani Network as it was for the traditional Taliban leadership. Indeed, within days of announcing the new government, senior Haqqani commanders engaged in a fistfight with a key Taliban leader, sending him fleeing from the capital to traditional Taliban strongholds in the south.

The ascendence of the Haqqanis has also been a victory for Pakistan’s military and intelligence agencies. As longtime Afghanistan scholar Barnett Rubin notes, today “Pakistan’s favored Taliban, the Haqqanis, dominate. Taliban leaders who sought to gain some independence from Pakistan or to seek a negotiated solution have been marginalized.”

A Taliban-ruled Afghanistan was already a nightmare scenario. The Haqqani Network, with its “track record of supporting overseas jihad,” is even more ideologically and operationally aligned with global jihadist groups like al-Qaeda and the Islamic State in Afghanistan than the Taliban is. The Biden administration recently warned that both al-Qaeda and the Islamic State in Afghanistan are intent on conducting terrorist attacks on the United States, and the latter could generate that capability in as soon as six months.

With limited access to Afghanistan following the withdrawal of U.S. forces, the Biden administration should begin preparing for the worst — for the possibility that globally ambitious terrorist groups find either direct support or a more permissive environment to operate by an Afghan government heavily influenced by the Haqqani Network. It should lead international efforts to pressure the new Taliban-Haqqani government to abandon support for global terrorist groups, and it should seek to re-establish counter-terrorism capabilities in the country and broader region. Critically, it should do so while avoiding falling into a Faustian bargain with Pakistan, exchanging access to Afghanistan for acceptance of Pakistan’s support to the very same terrorist groups the United States is targeting.

Haqqani’s Aces

The origins of the Haqqani Network date back to a 1973 coup in Afghanistan that brought to power Prime Minister Daoud Khan. When Khan offered “shelter, training, and weapons to Baloch insurgents and Pakistani Pashtun nationalists alike,” Pakistani intelligence began mobilizing exiled Afghan dissidents like Jalaluddin Haqqani for “anti-regime operations.” From their base in Pakistan’s tribal areas, in 1975, Haqqani’s fighters launched their first attack in Afghanistan, killing 12.

After the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Pakistani intelligence re-activated various Afghan mujahideen proxies, with Haqqani and his allies receiving an “extraordinary share” of the arms and aid. Pakistan accepted arms and aid from the United States and Saudi Arabia for the anti-Soviet jihad, even as Pakistani intelligence “controlled their distribution and their transport to the war zone,” while limiting contact between the CIA and the mujahideen. Nevertheless, CIA officers, who observed that Jalaluddin “could kill Russians like you wouldn’t believe,” idolized him.

Jalaluddin’s tribal connections, fundraising skills, and fluency in Arabic were key assets in his ascension. Haqqani’s Zadran tribe straddles the Afghan-Pakistani border where Loya Paktia meets Waziristan. The border crossings under its control provided the network leverage over the flow of drugs, trade, and fighters coming across the porous border, with additional revenue earned from smuggling, kidnapping, and extortion.

Jalaluddin further distinguished himself by drawing Gulf money and Arab fighters to the anti-Soviet Afghan jihad, even taking an Arab wife from the United Arab Emirates with which he had a son, Sirajuddin. According to Steve Coll, the “Haqqanis did more than any other commander network in Afghanistan to nurture and support Arab volunteer fighters, seeding al-Qaeda’s birth.” Indeed, al-Qaeda’s first training camp was established in Haqqani territory, though at the time Haqqani did not espouse a global jihadist ideology.

After the 1989 Soviet withdrawal, Afghanistan was consumed by civil war. In the chaos, a movement of ultra-conservative Pashtun religious students (“Talibs”) arose seemingly out of thin air, vowing to end corrupt warlordism and implement strict Islamic law in Afghanistan. After a string of battlefield victories, in late 1994, Pakistan “threw its support behind the emerging Taliban movement” led by Mullah Omar. Initially opposed to the group, in 1995, Jalaluddin “defected” to the Taliban while maintaining his own power base in Loya Paktia. The following year, the Taliban seized control of Kabul and effectively ended the Afghan civil war. Jalaluddin was later appointed Minister of Borders and Tribal Affairs in the Taliban government that ruled from 1996 to 2001.

After the 9/11 attack and U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, U.S.-allied forces cornered key Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders, as well as Pakistani army officers and intelligence advisers, along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. As Pakistan arranged an airlift to ferry these groups to its tribal areas, the Haqqani Network reportedly “served as [a] key conduit for the escape of al-Qaeda operatives into Pakistan.”

The Rise of Siraj

From his sanctuary in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas, Jalaluddin “began to remobilize his front, and [by late 2002] Haqqani fighting groups were operating in Paktia and Khost” in eastern Afghanistan. In 2003, the Taliban formed new regional leadership councils or “shuras.” The quasi-autonomous “Miram Shah shura,” headquartered in North Waziristan, was “composed exclusively of the Haqqani Network.”

Meanwhile, Sirajuddin (“Siraj”) began assuming operational control of the Haqqani Network from his aging father. By mid-2005, he was “spearheading the insurgency in Loya Paktia,” eventually overseeing an expansion of the network’s operations and stretching a campaign of terror to the Afghan capital.

Inside Pakistan, Siraj was making the Haqqani Network increasingly indispensable to Pakistani intelligence. In the mid-2000s, militant groups in the Haqqani stronghold of North Waziristan began turning their guns inward, targeting the Pakistani state and civilians, eventually coalescing under the banner of a new Pakistani Taliban in 2007. Pakistani intelligence leaned on the Haqqani Network to broker a series of peace deals with the Pakistani Taliban. Siraj used his connections to “pressure them to cease attacking [Pakistan’s] security forces — and attack Afghan and Western forces in Afghanistan instead.”

In 2007, the Haqqani Network became “officially affiliated” with the Taliban. Siraj was granted membership to the Taliban Leadership Council and was later appointed head of the Miram Shah Shura.

U.S. military officials began warning that the Haqqani Network were “becoming more violent and self-serving” under Siraj, who was part of a “younger, more aggressive generation” usurping power from traditional Zadran tribal elders. The Haqqani Network was the first among all Taliban factions to embrace suicide bombing tactics and is believed to have played a role in the July 2008 suicide bombing at the Indian embassy in Kabul that killed over 50 people, as well as the December 2009 suicide bombing of a CIA outpost in Khost.

In 2011, the Haqqani Network orchestrated a suicide bombing at the Inter-Continental Hotel in Kabul, wounded 77 U.S. soldiers in an attack on a U.S. military base, and assaulted the U.S. embassy in Kabul. The same year, Siraj published a violent manifesto advocating for global jihad outside Afghanistan’s borders, a departure from his father’s more traditional focus on eastern Afghanistan. It urged Muslims to travel to the West on student visas and attack soft targets, praising al-Qaeda and promoting suicide bombings and beheadings.

The Haqqani Network had by now positioned itself in the crosshairs of the United States, which began heavily targeting the group in Loya Paktia and, through drone strikes, in North Waziristan. However, Pakistani intelligence would reportedly “warn Siraj of an impending drone strike, after which he would seek shelter in the mountains surrounding Miram Shah,” limiting the United States’ ability to degrade the network’s capabilities in its Pakistani safe havens.

Frustrated U.S. officials began publicly and privately pressuring Islamabad to cut all ties with the network. In 2011, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen described the Haqqani Network as a “veritable arm” of Pakistani intelligence. In 2012, the same year Siraj officially assumed control of the network from Jalaluddin, the U.S. State Department designated the group a terrorist organization.

Pakistan ostensibly “banned” the Haqqani Network in 2015. However, the following year Senator Bob Corker vented about how the group had simply moved from Pakistan’s tribal areas, where they were being targeted by U.S. drones, to Pakistan’s suburbs, where they were receiving protection and medical care.

Haqqani and the Taliban

When the Afghan government fell in August 2021, it should have been cause for a joint celebration by Taliban and Haqqani leaders. After all, Siraj had been named deputy emir of the Taliban in 2015 and, to the outside world, the Taliban and Haqqani Network appeared increasingly indistinguishable. Yet, within days of forming a new government, Haqqani and Taliban leaders were reportedly involved in a power-sharing struggle that descended into violence, sending a key Taliban leader fleeing the capital.

While the Haqqani Network is generally billed as an “autonomous but integral” part of the Taliban hierarchy, it has always maintained “distinct command and control, and lines of operations.” In 2010, U.S. assessments concluded Siraj “operates independently, choosing his own targets and only loosely coordinating with the Taliban’s supreme leadership.”

The Taliban is perhaps best seen as a conglomeration of roughly aligned Pashtun tribes of which the Haqqani Network is a part. However, the traditional Afghan Taliban leadership and the Haqqani Network are separated by geography and identity. Among others, legacy Taliban leaders like the late Mullah Omar, his son Mullah Yaqoob, and current Afghan deputy prime minister Mullah Baradar hail from the greater Kandahar region in southern Afghanistan. The Haqqani’s Zadran tribe lies to the more mountainous northeast.

According to Jeffrey Dressler, the Haqqani stronghold of Loya Paktia was “an area in which the southern Taliban were never able to gain influence because of a history of strong tribal independence and a fierce aversion to outsiders.” The Haqqani Network and the eastern Zadran tribes have historically resisted centralized authority, operating autonomously despite periods of intimate cooperation with the southern Taliban factions.

The announcement of Mullah Omar’s death in 2015 further propelled Siraj’s rise while exacerbating fissures between the Haqqani Network and the Taliban’s Kandahari leaders. Siraj was named deputy emir of the Taliban under Omar’s immediate successor, Mullah Mansour. When the latter was killed in a drone strike in 2016, a religious scholar, Haibatullah Akhundzada, was named the Taliban’s new emir. By one account, Akhundzada “intentionally split operational control of the Taliban’s military forces between [his two deputies] Haqqani and Yaqoob in order to prevent the two from creating potentially powerful breakaway factions.”

With Mullah Omar out of the picture, Siraj reportedly enjoyed final authority over the appointment of Taliban shadow governors while “Akhundzada’s relative lack of battlefield experience meant Sirajuddin had almost total autonomy over military strategy and operations.” By 2016, scholars observed that the “pre-eminence of Sirajuddin’s voice amongst the Taliban elite is palpable — so much so that certain critics have pointed to a ‘Haqqanization’ of the Taliban.”

When Kabul fell amid a chaotic U.S. withdrawal in August 2021, Haqqani leaders and Taliban Deputy Prime Minister Mullah Baradar sparred over the allocation of ministerial posts and who deserved credit for the Taliban’s victory: Baradar’s political negotiations with the United States in Doha or the Haqqani Network’s brutal battlefield tactics. The dispute was serious enough that Pakistan’s intelligence chief flew to Kabul to oversee negotiations. (There is a rumor that the Taliban’s reclusive Supreme Leader Hibatullah Akhunzada was killed in Pakistan in 2020, but that is unconfirmed. The Taliban, for its part, claimed he made a public appearance last month.)

Four Haqqani leaders were ultimately given ministerial positions in the new Taliban government: Khalil (refugees minister); Najibullah (communications minister); Abdul Baqi (minister of education); and Siraj (interior minister). As head of the Interior Ministry, Siraj oversees internal security and the power to issue passports. He also secured the right to nominate governors for several eastern Afghan provinces.

Within days of forming the new government, Haqqani leaders and Baradar reportedly engaged in a fistfight, which sent Baradar and Mullah Yaqoob fleeing to Kandahar. Baradar later released what some said looked like a “hostage” video claiming the two sides had settled their differences. By October, he had returned to Kabul, apparently refusing a security detail from the Haqqani-led interior ministry.

Pakistan and the Haqqani Network

In this internecine rivalry, Pakistani intelligence has predictably “backed the Haqqanis over Baradar.” The Haqqani Network’s relationship with the Pakistani state is older, deeper, and less contentious than the Taliban’s.

Siraj’s uncle, Khalil Haqqani, reportedly enjoys “recurring” meetings with Pakistan’s army chief and was “a regular visitor to Pakistan’s military headquarters in Rawalpindi.” By contrast, Pakistan arrested Baradar in 2010 for daring to explore early peace talks with the United States. “We picked up Baradar and others because they were trying to make a deal without us,” a Pakistani security official told the New York Times that year.

The Taliban’s relationship with Pakistani intelligence has been characterized by tactical cooperation and mutual dependency but also substantial mistrust. Strains of Pashtun nationalism within the Taliban’s ranks make Pakistan uncomfortable. As a result, Pakistani intelligence has sought to make itself indispensable to the group while populating it with more loyal operatives and factions, including the Haqqani Network. But it hasn’t always been smooth sailing.

When the Taliban ruled Afghanistan in the 1990s, it categorically refused to recognize the Durand Line, the de facto Afghan-Pakistani border created by the British Raj in 1893 that divides the nearly 60 million Pashtuns in both countries. Mullah Omar is said to have grown irate with his Pakistani counterparts when the issue was raised. Since taking power last month, the Taliban has again withheld recognition of the Durand Line, complaining about Pakistan’s efforts to fence the Afghan-Pakistani border.

Notably, the Taliban has also rebuffed requests by Pakistan to pressure the Pakistani Taliban to cease attacks inside the country. “The issue of the [Pakistani Taliban] is one that Pakistan will have to deal with, not Afghanistan,” a Taliban spokesman explained in August. Since the fall of Kabul, the Pakistani Taliban has launched an escalating campaign of terror inside Pakistan from its base in North Waziristan. Initial Pakistani government efforts to secure a truce with the group failed, but a tentative peace agreement was reportedly reached in mid-November. The Pakistani government claimed the Afghan Taliban helped serve as a mediator in the peace talks but a Taliban spokesman denied the claim: “we have not been involved in such talks, nor are we aware of it.” As in the past, Islamabad is likely leaning on the Haqqani Network to serve as an interlocutor with the Pakistani Taliban and other restive militant groups in its tribal areas.

The Haqqanis and the Islamic State in Afghanistan

The Haqqani Network’s relationship with the Islamic State in Afghanistan is a hotly debated topic. Abdul Sayed and Colin Clarke recently argued that, while there are connections between the groups at lower ranks, “there is scant evidence of a more robust relationship or anything resembling organizational support.” However, other analysts have found evidence of significant operational links among the terrorist groups.

The shadowy regional offshoot of the Islamic State has become a point of concern for the international community since emerging in the region in 2017 and claiming responsibility for the deadly suicide bombing at the Kabul airport this August. Initially comprised of disaffected former members of the Pakistani Taliban driven out of North Waziristan by a Pakistani military offensive, the Islamic State in Afghanistan first established a base in eastern Afghanistan. From there it engaged in an increasingly bloody turf war with the Taliban, fighting over territory and recruits.

After a series of battlefield defeats at the hands of the Taliban and U.S. forces from 2017 to 2020, the regional affiliate of the Islamic State began reinventing itself. In 2020, the group appointed a former “midlevel Haqqani commander” as its new leader. A 2020 U.N. report noted “most attacks claimed by [the Islamic State in Afghanistan] demonstrated some degree of ‘involvement, facilitation, or the provision of technical assistance’ by the Haqqani Network.” In May 2020, the Afghan government busted a “joint cell” of Haqqani Network and Islamic State fighters. Reports that year suggested Pakistani intelligence was pushing the Haqqani Network to establish closer links to the group in order to “maintain plausible deniability in future terror attacks.”

Scholar Theo Farrell contends “the Haqqanis have the deepest links with [the Islamic State] of any faction within the Taliban,” noting that the Haqqani Network “sent hundreds of fighters to support [its] struggle in Iraq and Syria. Many of these ‘foreign fighters’ returned home to join [the group].”

Nevertheless, the Islamic State’s turf war with the Taliban has intensified since the fall of Kabul. The former has claimed responsibility for dozens of attacks across the country in recent weeks, including a funeral ceremony attended by senior Taliban figures and an attack on a Shi’ite mosque that killed over 70. According to a Lowy Institute report, these attacks are meant to distinguish [the Islamic State in Afghanistan’s] brand from the Taliban’s, cast doubt on the Taliban’s ability to govern and provide security, and signal their own resolve to various audiences—all of which can ultimately increase terrorist organizations’ longevity and serve as a recruiting tool. [It] also uses these attacks to paint its long-time Taliban rival as illegitimate collaborators with the West, incapable of delivering security to the Afghan people.

The Haqqanis and Al-Qaeda

Finally, the Taliban and Haqqani Network both continue to maintain robust links to al-Qaeda. According to a 2021 U.N. report, the Haqqani Network “remains a hub for outreach and cooperation with regional foreign terrorist groups and is the primary liaison between the Taliban and Al-Qaida.”

Khalil Haqqani is “known to American intelligence as the Taliban emissary to Al Qaeda.” Stanford’s “Mapping Militant Organizations” explains that Khalil “has acted on behalf of Al Qaeda and facilitated its terrorist operations” and “organized the detention of enemy prisoners captured by [the Haqqani Network] and Al Qaeda.” Experts believe al-Qaeda and the Haqqani Network are today “intertwined, and it is highly unlikely they will cut ties.”

Last year, the U.S. Treasury Department concluded that, “as of 2020, al-Qaeda is gaining strength in Afghanistan while continuing to operate with the Taliban … Senior Haqqani Network figures have discussed forming a new joint unit of armed fighters in cooperation with and funded by al-Qaeda.”

Looking Ahead

America’s counter-terrorism options in Afghanistan, like its access to the landlocked country, are limited. The Biden administration could opt to take a hands-off approach, maintaining a modest over-the-horizon strike capability. Perhaps it believes predictable governance challenges, internal infighting, and fear of U.S. retaliation will mitigate the risk that Afghanistan will again be a platform for terrorist attacks against America or its interests and allies abroad. Perhaps in their desire for international recognition and aid, more pragmatic Taliban leaders intend to uphold their pledge to prevent terrorists from using Afghan soil to launch such attacks.

However, it is far from clear the Taliban has either the intent or the ability to enforce their commitments. In any event, it is the Haqqani Network — not the Taliban’s Doha negotiators — that is increasingly pulling the strings in Kabul.

Under Jalaluddin, the Haqqani Network was historically unconcerned with global jihad, confining its operations to Afghanistan. But this is a different Haqqani Network under new management. One that pioneered suicide bombing in Afghanistan. One that sent several hundred fighters to the Middle East to support the Islamic State’s efforts in Iraq and Syria. One that published a global jihadist manifesto. One that has refined a “signature brand of urban terrorist attacks and cultivated a sophisticated international fund-raising network.” One that maintains operational ties to the Islamic State and al-Qaeda, as well as to India-focused Pakistani militant groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba. One that has developed a knack for hostage-taking in recent years, among them several American citizens. One that honors the families of notorious suicide bombers, doling out cash rewards and promising more attacks to come. One that just assumed key levers of power in a new government and whose ultimate intentions and capabilities are simply unclear at this point.

At the very least, the United States should prepare for the possibility that globally ambitious terrorist groups find either direct support or a more permissive environment in which to operate by an Afghan government heavily influenced by the Haqqani Network. “[The Islamic State in Afghanistan] and al Qaeda have the intent to conduct external operations including against the U.S.,” Under Secretary of Defense Colin Kahl testified in October 2021. “We could see [the Islamic State in Afghanistan] generate that capability in somewhere between six to twelve months … al Qaeda would take a year or two.”

To enhance its counter-terrorism reach into Afghanistan the Biden administration is reportedly exploring options for basing and overflight arrangements with neighboring countries like Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. However, domestic resistance and Russian opposition make these unlikely prospects.

The Biden administration thus confronts the same tragic dilemma that has haunted U.S. policy in Afghanistan for 20 years: Fighting terrorists in the landlocked country requires cooperation with one of its neighbors. Since cooperation with Iran, China, and Russia is impractical, the only alternative is Pakistan, the key patron of the Taliban and the Haqqani Network for decades. In late October, CNN reported the Biden administration was in negotiations with Pakistan to use the country’s airspace for counter-terrorism operations in Afghanistan “in exchange for assistance with [Pakistan’s] own counter-terrorism efforts and help in managing the relationship with India.”

While the Biden administration is unlikely to alter America’s burgeoning strategic partnership with India, it might consider an extension of the same Faustian bargain from the Afghan War: provide aid to Pakistan and tacitly accept its “double game” in exchange for U.S. access to Afghanistan. Such an arrangement risks trading short-term relief for long-term pain. Acceptance of Pakistan’s double game is arguably what got the United States in this position in the first place.

Breaking the cycle won’t be easy. Pakistan has skillfully leveraged Afghanistan’s cruel geography to position itself as indispensable to the United States. But U.S. policymakers have consistently failed to appreciate that Pakistan has far more to lose from an openly adversarial relationship with the United States than vice versa.

Over the past 20 years, Pakistan has squandered the substantial goodwill it once enjoyed in Washington. The frustration on Capitol Hill is palpable. U.S. lawmakers recently introduced a bill in the Senate under which “the US president will have the power to impose sanctions on individuals who provide military, training or logistical support to the Taliban or provide safe haven to their fighters.” It would open the door to a range of targeted sanctions on Pakistani military and civilian officials. Others have called for Pakistan to be listed by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism. The U.S. also has substantial means to apply pressure via numerous international fora, including the Financial Action Task Force, an international terrorism financing watchdog.

Pakistan stonewalling the United States on counter-terrorism cooperation in Afghanistan would remove any remaining leverage and any remaining guardrails preventing the relationship from a vicious cycle of hostility and recriminations. By necessity, the Biden administration may seek a new aid-for-access arrangement with Islamabad, but the next chapter in Pakistani-U.S. relations can’t look like the last chapter. The foundations of any new pact should carry both carrots and sticks, including the specter of real, biting sanctions if Pakistan’s military and intelligence agencies continues supporting the region’s most dangerous terrorist groups.


Jeff M. Smith is a research fellow in the Heritage Foundation’s Asian Studies Center.

SEE  LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for PAKISTAN TALIBAN