India-Pakistan conflict: Why both sides lost this round
A schoolboy walking towards his home near the Line of Control between India and Pakistan in the Krishna Ghati pass in Jammu, India, on May 6. PHOTO: AFP
For most of May, the conflict headlines in Asia centred around the 96-hour clash between India and Pakistan, following New Delhi's punitive strikes on its neighbour, which it blamed for a terrorist attack in Kashmir.
After the Trump administration claimed it had intervened to stop the conflict for fear it would escalate into a nuclear exchange, phrases like 'nuclear flashpoint' and 'world's most dangerous trouble spot' have emerged all over again as descriptors for the sub-continent .
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
25 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Trump gets key wins at Supreme Court on immigration, despite some misgivings
The US Supreme Court most recently let the Trump administration end temporary legal status provided to migrants for humanitarian reasons. PHOTO: REUTERS Trump gets key wins at Supreme Court on immigration, despite some misgivings The US Supreme Court swept away this week another obstacle to one of President Donald Trump's most aggressively pursued policies – mass deportation – again showing its willingness to back his hardline approach to immigration. The justices, though, have signalled some reservations with how he is carrying it out. Since Mr Trump returned to the White House in January, the court already has been called upon to intervene on an emergency basis in seven legal fights over his crackdown on immigration. It most recently let Mr Trump's administration end temporary legal status provided to hundreds of thousands of migrants for humanitarian reasons by his Democratic predecessor Joe Biden while legal challenges in two cases play out in lower courts. The Supreme Court on May 30 lifted a judge's order that had halted the revocation of immigration 'parole' for more than 500,000 Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants. On May 19, it lifted another judge's order preventing the termination of 'temporary protected status' for more than 300,000 Venezuelan migrants. In some other cases, however, the justices have ruled that the administration must treat migrants fairly, as required under the US Constitution's guarantee of due process. 'This president has been more aggressive than any in modern US history to quickly remove non-citizens from the country,' said Dr Kevin Johnson, an immigration and public interest law expert at the University of California, Davis. No president in modern history 'has been as willing to deport non-citizens without due process,' he added. That dynamic has forced the Supreme Court to police the contours of the administration's actions, if less so the legality of Mr Trump's underlying policies. The court's 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Mr Trump during his first term as president. 'President Trump is acting within his lawful authority to deport illegal aliens and protect the American people. While the Supreme Court has rightfully acknowledged the president's authority in some cases, in others they have invented new due process rights for illegal aliens that will make America less safe. We are confident in the legality of our actions and will continue fighting to keep President Trump's promises,' White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told Reuters. The justices twice – on April 7 and on May 16 – have placed limits on the administration's attempt to implement Mr Trump's invocation of a 1798 law called the Alien Enemies Act, which historically has been employed only in wartime, to swiftly deport Venezuelan migrants who it has accused of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang. Lawyers and family members of some of the migrants have disputed the gang membership allegation. On May 16, the justices also said a bid by the administration to deport migrants from a detention centre in Texas failed basic constitutional requirements. Giving migrants 'notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster', the court stated. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions. The court has not outright barred the administration from pursuing these deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, as the justices have yet to decide the legality of using the law for this purpose. The US government last invoked the Alien Enemies Act during World War Two to intern and deport people of Japanese, German and Italian descent. 'The Supreme Court has in several cases reaffirmed some basic principles of constitutional law (including that) the due process clause applies to all people on US soil,' said Professor Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic. Even for alleged gang members, she said, the court 'has been extremely clear that they are entitled to notice before they can be summarily deported from the United States'. A wrongly deported man In a separate case, the court on April 10 ordered the administration to facilitate the release from custody in El Salvador of Mr Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran migrant who was living in Maryland. The administration has acknowledged that Mr Abrego Garcia was wrongly deported to El Salvador. The administration has yet to return him to the United States, which according to some critics amounts to defiance of the Supreme Court. The administration deported on March 15 more than 200 people to El Salvador, where they were detained in the country's massive anti-terrorism prison under a deal in which the United States is paying President Nayib Bukele's government US$6 million ($7.74 million). Dr Ilya Somin, a constitutional law professor at George Mason University, said the Supreme Court overall has tried to curb the administration's 'more extreme and most blatantly illegal policies' without abandoning its traditional deference to presidential authority on immigration issues. 'I think they have made a solid effort to strike a balance,' said Dr Somin, referring to the Alien Enemies Act and Abrego Garcia cases. 'But I still think there is excessive deference, and a tolerance for things that would not be permitted outside the immigration field.' That deference was on display over the past two weeks with the court's decisions letting Mr Trump terminate the grants of temporary protected status and humanitarian parole previously given to migrants. Such consequential orders were issued without the court offering any reasoning, Prof Mukherjee noted. 'Collectively, those two decisions strip immigration status and legal protections in the United States from more than 800,000 people. And the decisions are devastating for the lives of those who are affected,' she said. 'Those individuals could be subject to deportations, family separation, losing their jobs, and if they're deported, possibly even losing their lives.' Travel ban ruling Mr Trump also pursued restrictive immigration policies in his first term as president, from 2017 to 2021. The Supreme Court gave Mr Trump a major victory in 2018, upholding his travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries. In 2020, the court blocked Mr Trump's bid to end a programme that protects from deportation hundreds of thousands of migrants – often called 'Dreamers' – who entered the United States illegally as children. Other major immigration-related cases are currently pending before the justices, including Mr Trump's effort to broadly enforce his January executive order to restrict birthright citizenship – a directive at odds with the longstanding interpretation of the Constitution as conferring citizenship on virtually every baby born on US soil. The court heard arguments in that case on May 15 and has not yet rendered a decision. Another case concerns the administration's efforts to increase the practice of deporting migrants to countries other than their own, including to places such as war-torn South Sudan. Boston-based US District Judge Brian Murphy required that migrants destined for so-called 'third countries' be notified and given a meaningful chance to seek legal relief by showing the harms they may face by being sent there. The judge on May 21 ruled that the administration had violated his court order by attempting to deport migrants to South Sudan. They are now being held at a military base in Djibouti. The administration on May 27 asked the justices to lift Judge Murphy's order because it said the third-country process is needed to remove migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. Dr Johnson predicted that the Supreme Court will side with the migrants in this dispute. 'I think that the court will enforce the due process rights of a non-citizen before removal to a third country,' he said. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
25 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Mistakenly deported man Abrego Garcia returns to US to face migrant transport charges
Mr Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran migrant who lived in the US legally with a work permit, was erroneously deported to El Salvador. PHOTO: REUTERS WASHINGTON - Mr Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the man mistakenly deported from Maryland to El Salvador by the Trump administration, has returned to the United States to face criminal charges of transporting illegal immigrants within the US, Attorney-General Pam Bondi said on June 6. Mr Abrego Garcia's case has become a flash point for escalating tensions between the executive branch and the judiciary, which has blocked a number of Mr Trump's signature policies. The US Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to facilitate Mr Abrego Garcia's return, with liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor saying the government had cited no basis for what she called his 'warrantless arrest.' Ms Bondi said Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele agreed to return Mr Abrego Garcia to the US after US officials presented his government with an arrest warrant. The indictment was filed in federal court in Tennessee on May 21, more than two months after Mr Abrego Garcia's deportation. 'The grand jury found that over the past nine years, Abrego Garcia has played a significant role in an alien smuggling ring,' Mr Bondi said in a press conference. In a statement, Mr Abrego Garcia's lawyer, Andrew Rossman, said it would now be up to the US judicial system to ensure he received due process. 'Today's action proves what we've known all along – that the administration had the ability to bring him back and just refused to do so,' said Mr Rossman, a partner at law firm Quinn Emanuel. Mr Abrego Garcia was deported to El Salvador, despite an immigration judge's 2019 order granting him protection from deportation to El Salvador after finding he was likely to be persecuted by gangs if returned there, court records show. Critics of President Donald Trump pointed to the erroneous deportation as an example of the excesses of the Republican president's aggressive approach to stepping up deportations. US District Judge Paula Xinis has opened a probe into what, if anything, the Trump administration had done to secure his return, after his lawyers accused officials of stonewalling their requests for information. Officials countered by alleging that Mr Abrego Garcia was a member of the MS-13 gang. His lawyers have denied that Mr Abrego Garcia was a member of the gang and said he had not been charged with or convicted of any crime. The indictment alleges that Mr Abrego Garcia worked with at least five co-conspirators to bring immigrants to the United States illegally, and then transport them from the border to other destinations in the country. Mr Abrego Garcia often picked up migrants in Houston, the indictment said. The indictment also charges Mr Abrego Garcia and two unidentified co-conspirators with transporting firearms illegally purchased in Texas for resale in Maryland. Mr Abrego Garcia also transported illegal narcotics purchased in Texas for resale in Maryland and was on some occasions accompanied on those trips by members and associates of MS-13, according to the indictment. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
40 minutes ago
- Straits Times
US, China set for trade talks in London on June 9
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (left) and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick will represent Washington in the talks. PHOTO: AFP WASHINGTON - Three of President Donald Trump's top aides will face their Chinese counterparts in London on June 9 for talks to resolve a trade dispute between the world's two largest economies that has kept global markets on edge. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer will represent Washington in the talks, said Mr Trump, who announced the talks in a post on his Truth Social platform but provided no more details. It was not immediately clear who would represent China. The Chinese embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for more details. "The meeting should go very well," Mr Trump wrote. The scheduling of the meeting comes a day after Mr Trump spoke to Chinese President Xi Jinping in a rare leader-to-leader call amid weeks of brewing trade tensions and a battle over critical minerals. Mr Trump and Mr Xi agreed to visit one another and asked their staffs to hold talks in the meantime. Both countries are under pressure to relieve tensions, with the global economy under pressure over Chinese control over the rare earth mineral exports of which it is the dominant producer and investors more broadly anxious about Trump's wider effort to impose tariffs on goods from most US trading partners. China, meanwhile, has seen its own supply of key US imports like chip-design software and nuclear plant parts curtailed. The countries struck a 90-day deal on May 12 in Geneva to roll back some of the triple-digit, tit-for-tat tariffs they had placed on each other since Mr Trump's January inauguration. That preliminary deal sparked a global relief rally in stock markets, and US indexes that had been in or near bear market levels have recouped the lion's share of their losses. The S&P 500 stock index, which at its lowest point in early April was down nearly 18 per cent after Mr Trump unveiled his sweeping "Liberation Day" tariffs on goods from across the globe, is now only about 2 per cent below its record high from mid-February. The final third of that rally followed the US-China truce struck in Geneva. Still, that temporary deal did not address broader concerns that strain the bilateral relationship, from the illicit fentanyl trade to the status of democratically governed Taiwan and US complaints about China's state-dominated, export-driven economic model. Since returning to the White House in January, Mr Trump has repeatedly threatened an array of punitive measures on trading partners, only to revoke some of them at the last minute. The on-again, off-again approach has baffled world leaders and spooked business executives. Beijing sees mineral exports as a source of leverage - halting those exports could put domestic political pressure on the Republican US president if economic growth sags because companies cannot make mineral-powered products. In recent years, the United States has identified China as its top geopolitical rival and the only country in the world able to challenge the US economically and militarily. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
