 And welcome to NewsClick's first international roundup of 2019. In this episode, we look at five countries which have had a momentous 2018 and for whom 2019 is also likely to be a decisive year. To talk more about this, we have with us Prabir Prakashan, editor-in-chief of NewsClick. Hello Prabir. Prabir, let's start with Syria. So Syria in December 2018 and January 2019 is a very different country from the beginning of last year. The battle lines have been drawn to some extent. The U.S. is in the process of withdrawing. The Syrian regime is maybe perhaps at its most stable ever. And even the regional negotiations have taken a particularly decisive turn and only Idlib remains as one of the last strongholds of resistance from the rebel forces. At the same time, there's also concern about what Turkey is likely to do and then the Kurdish question as well. So how do you see the developments panning out in the next couple of months? Well, the big picture first as you talked about is that the Syrian government has regained control of at least west of Euphrates where the main population is. It has been able to control almost from what I can see about 75 to 80 percent of the territory. Now this is a sharp change from the earlier period where say one year back as you said where the amount of territory it controlled was relatively much less. It controlled of course the population centers which always was under the control of the government forces but it had lost a lot of the territory. So it's regained most of the territory west of Euphrates. As you know, east of Euphrates it's really with the Kurdish supported militias and Arab militias, what are called tribal groups over there. I'm skeptical about the name tribal groups and of course also the U.S. which has been backing them. So that part of it still remains outside the Syrian government control as of now. There is one another territory which is still not under the control which is Altanaf and that enclave is with the United States and NATO forces which hopefully will also withdraw but it stops really the connection between Baghdad and Damascus. So in that sense Altanaf is an important enclave which that's the reason why the Americans are there and also Euphrates is another block. Therefore the fact that the forces supported by the United States at the moment controls the area east of Euphrates means also the relationship that Syria and Iraq can establish that also gets weakened. So this is still strategically Syrian government forces have some problems but broadly they have gained back territory and they have certainly appeared today much more stable. Then from the start of the 2011 insurrection some people would call it proxy war, some people would call it whatever we call it. From that time to now it seems that the Syrian government has really earned legitimacy. You have seen the Gulf states now willing to come back. Their embassies are coming back. This is the readmission of Syria back into the Arab League. So that legitimacy internally and externally now the Assad government seems to have got. Coming back to what you raised, what about Turkey, United States and so on. It's also interesting, it does appear that Turkey, the Syrian government, Russians and Iranians seem to be in negotiations what to do about Idlib and what to do with the Kurdish areas which actually as you know are basically pockets and some areas contiguous to Iraq which is spanning from northwest to northeast of Syria. But they have occupied a lot of territory which is not really Kurdish areas at all. So what happens to that? The Kurdish forces seem to be at the moment also talking to the Assad government as well as to Russia. We do not know how it will pan out but it does seem that the major player in all of these negotiations is Russia and they are acting in order to broker a peace and agreement both with Turkey and remember Turkish and the Kurdish forces are really the oppositional ones and using that shall we say contradiction to say that the Kurdish forces may be better off being an autonomous region, some local autonomy, regional autonomy and being a part of Syria and let the Syrian government handle the border. The problem that has been there and I think that's a big one which also we need to take stock of that Israel could bomb Syria at will and they have been doing it for last five, six years. Whenever they wanted they would bomb Iraq, they would bomb Syria and claim they are bombing Iranian forces in Syria and so on. That with the S-300s now being placed in Syria, integrating of the air defenses with the older weapon systems they had S-200 and so on with the S-300, it seems that Israel's ability to counter or ability to hit Syria has weakened considerably. So I think we are seeing a new equilibrium where Syria is actually in terms of air defense. It's much stronger than it ever was and the impunity with which Israel could attack Syria has now stopped. So I think yes, a major shift globally with the US talking about withdrawal to see when they carry it out what happens. So I think this is a big, I would say it's a big victory in larger geostrategic terms for Russian intervention over here, Russian policies and for the Syrian government survival and also the regional importance of Syria and Iran now growing with Iraq sort of coming over in different ways to this alliance. One should not underestimate the importance of this because Syria has always punched far beyond its weight and Damascus is one of the oldest cities in the world, settled cities in the world. I think therefore influence of Damascus and Syria is coming back to the Arab region and I think that's also significant development for this year. And moving on to another country in the region, Yemen. So the year ended on what seemed like a positive note after this conflict which had lasted for years, for nearly three years and was almost completely ignored by the West as well as the global media in which Saudi Arabia had a lot of impunity to murder at will. There was a ceasefire that was announced in which the attempt was to basically try to resolve the humanitarian crisis so to speak in Hodeidah and both the Houthis and this alliance were to withdraw. So do you see this as a building block for something more positive ahead or is it just a moment of, say, truth temporarily? Well, it was one of the consequences of the Khashoggi murder, if you will, which took place as we know in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. And one of the consequences was the legitimacy of Saudi Arabia and government itself, for the regime itself. As you know, monarchy as a regime is a problem in today's world. That's what Saudi Arabia is. So it seemed therefore that Americans and the British were more pressured to make some overtures and Saudi's ability to also continue the war is going to get increasingly limited. That's what we thought. What we see now is Saudi regime has sort of weathered the storm and the kind of ceasefire talks that were going on centered around, as you said, the ability to reach food. Now, if you see Yemen today, about 2 to 3 billion under a dire conditions and there are another 15 to 17 million also in pretty bad condition, which need food from outside. And the only port through which the food can come in at least in the Houthi control areas is Udeda and that is where the battle has been between the Saudi forces and the Houthis. So the agreement that the UN we thought had broken meant that food aid will continue. And the forces would, both sides would withdraw from Houthi and UN would control the port. But what seems to have happened recently is a threat which has been given by the UN food program, which is the one controlling the food flow, that Houthis should control the theft otherwise of the food aid, otherwise they will stop the food aid completely which is roughly 3 billion people near starvation. While the same complaints about pilfering of supplies are there on the forces supported by Saudis and the Americans, but the UN food program does not seem to have given them any threats. So this is still something that we have to see, whether it's a serious attempt to reach peace, whether the UN can be an honest broker today when we have seen repeatedly in getting compromised under US pressure or NATO pressure. These are the things we have to see, because as it stands today, the ability to reach peace in Yemen would be Saudis have to come to the table with honest intentions. At the moment we still don't think they have done that. So I think that seems to be the problem in Saudi Arabia today with the Yemen war, the cost is to the Yemenis and it's a huge cost to which the world has shut its eyes to no food, no electricity, no medicine, no water, all of it barred by Saudi and United Arab Emirates. I will not call them forces, I will call them mercenary forces and also the shipping, this ban that they have installed over there, put in place over there and the support of the United States and Britain without which Saudis cannot bomb or continue this attack for more than a week or more than two weeks. And again if you move on to Afghanistan which was again recently the news after Trump's Jaibet Modi for building a library. But this year has also been very crucial for Afghanistan because reports now say that at least 50% of the country if not more is under the direct influence and at the same time there have been more attempts at negotiation and now with Trump's recent announcement there is even the possibility that half the US forces might withdraw. So how do you see the negotiations, the various kinds of negotiations that are going on, panning out and for instance does India have any real say in this whole issue as of now? You see the first thing let's look at the geography of Afghanistan which I think is the most important in this issue. It's a very rugged place. It's a rugged place which has been impossible for the British to also subdue. And Russians did intervene on the side of the democratic regime which had taken control over in Afghanistan. And the faulted on the feudal shall we say lines, fault lines of Afghanistan. The warlords or the local lords combining against the democratic government as well as the other republican government as well as the Russian forces over there, the Soviet forces over there. But if you look at the Afghan size you will see that this is a difficult area that it is roughly about say 5 to 6 times the size of Pajab for instance with almost similar population, numbers. So if you look at the numbers and the size of Afghanistan it could be even larger than what I said that this is not an area which is going to be easy to control against the wishes of its people. Americans coming in, winning Kabul was an easy one but staying in Kabul and getting control over the entire country and being able to have its regime which it supported, control Afghanistan was always going to be the difficult task and that we now see the Americans are accepting that this is a battle which is either continue for next 10, 15 years or they should really find a way to withdraw from. What Trump's problem is. So he might fulminate against Pakistan against every other country in the world but if you again see the borders of Afghanistan you will see it has Iran on one side you have the Central Asian Republic Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan you can see all of them over there then you have Pakistan and then of course you have India which is not having a continuous border with Afghanistan but still wants to be a player there. So in all of this mix if China has a small border with Afghanistan if you say in all of this mix it's very clear that everybody put together must cooperate in order for Afghan problem to seize to be a problem for all of us and I think that's where the problem lies because international diplomacy still operates on basically understanding it's a zero sum game and if Pakistan wins, India is going to lose if America loses, Russia is going to win or China is going to win this is the vision with which we are coming to the table this is not the vision that can solve the Afghan problem and yes I think that Taliban as you know are people who are important today because they have 50 to 60% of the territory or at least control directly or indirectly 50 to 60% of the territory and as you know the Afghan government barely controls the major population centers given this Taliban is a player whether we like it or we don't so Americans are trying to approach it to Pakistan as you can see after Trump's or American fulminations against Pakistan now they are making nice with Pakistan talking of the new government how good Imran Khan might be and Imran Khan is also making overtures so Pakistan is definitely back in Afghanistan Iran has also said we are also a player because they have the Hazara influence over there Hazaras are Shias who were attacked by Taliban so they also have shall we say interest in this part of Afghanistan so I think that this Taliban how it comes back in Afghanistan will depend a lot on Pakistan, Iran, United States and the Central Asian Republic some of whom have very close relations with Russia and how India will play in this is the real issue will we be shall we say talk about our library or the parliament building which we have built and should we accept Trump's nub and be and sulk is something we have to see question is this is a regional issue and it's the players in the region which would determine this not United States and if we don't fight with each other yes all of us can come together and say whatever our differences are Afghanistan will all come together is the only way I think a long-term solution to the Afghan problem can be reached and moving on to the Korean Peninsula again another historic year maybe after many decades and what we see is that it's also been a very uneven year so for every step that has been made there have been maybe two steps backwards or every two steps that have been made it's been a step backwards and even the latest announcements have been greeted with some skepticism there's a lot of various players pushing there's China of course both the Koreas which are working in one track there is a United States which different officials have different voices at various points of time so do you see things smoothing over the year or is it likely to be as chaotic well you know one thing is predicting the United States is always going to be difficult they have reached agreements from which they have gone back it happens with different presidents it can happen to the same president Mr. Trump because quite possible he does not agree with himself the next day so I think this is always going to be difficult to predict what we do see yes there was a major breakthrough in the Korean Peninsula last year we had the Singapore summit which Trump and Kim Jong-un met and it appeared that there has been a process by which certain agreements have been reached which will be carried out in the future negotiations well it started by the fourth item on that list being put in the first one by the United States and saying they have to denuclearize we have won and they have to now surrender to us before we do anything further so as you know there is an armistice but there is really no declaration of shall we say peace that has not happened and that is I thought the first step or all of us thought that would be the first step to take the United States is not willing to take that it is sort of I think the size that should be the last step otherwise the undeclared war should still continue and what it has done of course is that at least the major irritant in the relation with the US side which is this large scale military exercises it seems to have toned down abandon some of it and so on so let's see where it goes on that but I think the important part is not the United States important part is south and north Korea are coming together and they are continuing on their peace discussions and normalize of relations at the moment can South Korea do it without the consent of the United States without their support is something we have to see but they are creating conditions on the ground which will make it very difficult for the US to actually sabotage this peace process but here is the catch in the next election in South Korea do they have enough strength the United States to have a new government because US has always played this card the ability to influence elections outside its borders it might be screaming about Russia and its influence let's face facts the South Korean government quite often has been selected in the White House and not in South Korea so how much they will they can play with that is something we have to see but yes I think I will say cautious optimism because South and North Korea are continuing their peace process and I am still hopeful that the United States will not be able to scupper it the way it has done for instance vis-a-vis Iran and the Iran agreement that it had signed and moving on to the last country Brazil which kind of this year emerged is in some senses a classic example of how the right wing is mobilizing across the world so we have Bolsonaro who won a considerable victory on of course the basis of the law fair that was mounted against Lula and how he was eliminated from the race and at the same time his antiques or his actions after the elections have been have been as provocative as his campaign his decision to appoint Sergio Moro as a minister the kind of terminology he's used against social movements and for that fact that immediately after coming to power one of his first actions was to slash social security benefits so it's clear that there's no pretend so subtlety here and it's an all out war that is being launched against the legacy of the broad left as well as progressive movements in Brazil so how do you see the year going out going on for Brazil here and the possibilities of resistance well let's put it this way he said that he's not a Hitler he's Winston Churchill now for us in India where Winston Churchill was the cause the single cause of the great famine that took place particularly in the Bengal the Bengal famine that's not a very good shall we see analogy for him to seek but rest of the world may not see Winston Churchill in the same light Bolsonaro represents the Christian right and there is always an understanding that Brazil is a Christian country there's a Catholic church which is very important therefore what is the Christian right well then obviously the church has different faces as it and it is also different kinds of movements that are within the larger rubric of the Christian church and he represents the evangelical sections who have been far more right-wing in that sense and also today have growth are growing fastest in Latin America in Brazil 27% today are these evangelical churches so here the issue is that the Christian right and Bolsonaro represent one broad block which has been against a whole lot of things the Christian right has been against LGBT rights it's being against women's rights women should really be in the homes and should be producing children they should not be in the workplace it's been against also the homeless people's movements which has taken place of seizing land which under the constant should be given to them and building communes on that it's been against the workers rights as well but the workers rights also combined with the big capital in Brazil who are against of course all these sections so it's a combination of big business and Christian right with the United States direct support that's has been the shall we say the block they failed to win the elections but repeatedly this time they seem to have succeeded because of the what's called the car wash campaign the anti-corruption car campaign with just Judge Moro was the figure head he was the main inspirer of that campaign and the fact that he's not joined the cabinet would seem to throw under open to the question that was this all just a witch hunt against the pete whose candidate Lula was and the fact that Lula was disqualified was all of this only that because Judge Moro's campaign in actually involved far more oppositional right shall we say functionaries of the other parties who are all aligned to Bolsonaro that Bolsonaro could get them with the cabinet into the cabinet with ex-generals and fact is Bolsonaro himself has always supported the military rule earlier and in fact said that more people should have been killed only so many thousands were killed more should have been killed that does not portend well for democracy and Judge Moro's credibility because if he was this great defender of clean politics how come he's now a cabinet minister with all the other people who are involved in corruption from these parties that's an open question but I think it Brazil also is very important though overall Latin American scene and therefore the role that Brazil played to counter US influence and at least those kind of neo-colonial approaches Latin America in terms of trade deals various other things what has weakened considerably with Bolsonaro winning so I think for Latin America it's a bigger issue not just for Brazil alone that we have the Christian right coming in this form a relatively rapid right-wing government coming into coming into power in Brazil and therefore we do see the rise of what would be called ethno-nationalism so you have a Trump like figure you have Modi here you have Erdogan and the of your Bolsonaro that all of these seem to represent forces which are in some sense using religious as an identity and using that to fight against what would be called liberal progressive values in society Thank you Papir that's all we have time for today keep watching Newsclick