A Lost Sunken City of Gold and Jewels Found in the Mud of Indonesian River

 

A LOST CITY OF GOLD AND JEWELS FOUND IN THE MUD OF INDONESIAN RIVER

Nighttime divers on the Musi River in Indonesia are beginning to fish out fistfuls of gold, gems, and other treasures from the mud—and it might be the site of a fabled kingdom known in the 8th century as the ‘Island of Gold’.

WreckWatch Magazine

Dr. Sean Kingsley, a British maritime archaeologist, suspects the finds, such as a ruby-studded life-size golden Buddha worth millions, represent the gradual-rediscovery of a lost merchant palace city from the kingdom of Svirijaya, which ruled the trade routes in large parts of Indonesia for 400 years.

Situated around the town of Palembang, sometimes called “Venice of the East,” the palace city would have sat on a major artery of the maritime version of the Silk Road, and like its terrestrial counterparts in the cities of Qashqar, or Tashkent, would have bustled in its heyday with people of every faith and skin color.

Earlier diving expeditions conducted by Australian archaeologists have recovered pristine collections of ceramics preserved in the mud of the river, representing a staggering number of cultures—including every major Medieval power in Asia, and even the Dutch, British and Portuguese.

But now the treasures coming from the Musi River have a more legendary quality: Dr. Kingsley picks up the narrative when he spoke with Dalya Alberge at The Guardian about his upcoming presentation on the lost city in Wreckwatch Magazine.

“From the shallows have surfaced glittering gold and jewels befitting this richest of kingdoms – everything from tools of trade and weapons of war to relics of religion. From the lost temples and places of worship have appeared bronze and gold Buddhist figurines, bronze temple door-knockers bearing the demonic face of Kala, in Hindu legend the mythical head of Rahu who churned the oceans to make an elixir of immortality. Bronze monks’ bells and gold ceremonial rings are studded with rubies and adorned with four-pronged golden vajra scepters, the Hindu symbol for the thunderbolt, the deity’s weapon of choice.”“Exquisite gold sword handles would have graced the sides of royal courtesans, while bronze mirrors and hundreds of gold rings, many stamped with enigmatic letters, figures and symbols, earrings and gold necklace beads resurrect the splendor of a merchant aristocracy going about its daily dealings, stamping shipping manifests, in the palace complex.”

The image is of a city on wooden silts yet covered in golden decorations, floating on the river like a solid gold water lily. All around would have been hundreds of boats piled with luxury goods of every description, piloted by traders as from as far west as Turkey, and as far north as Korea. It would have been as stunning a sight to see as the great tent cities of the Mongol Empire.

Its disappearance isn’t detailed in any histories, or known by archaeology. The prevalence of volcanic activity in Indonesia could offer a Pompeii-like explanation, while it’s also possible that riverine activity could have swallowed the city up during a flood or mud slide.

Kingsley hopes an official, wide-scale excavation will begin immediately.

https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/lost-indonesian-city-of-gold-of-svirijaya-found-under-the-musi-river/

 

Watch out, America! A crisis on the Korean peninsula might just be up next...

Tom Fowdy

is a British writer and analyst of politics and international relations with a primary focus on East Asia.

18 Aug, 2021 14:47

FILE PHOTO. Anti-war activists hold placards reading "Stop war exercise!" during a protest against a 

joint military drill between South Korea and the United States in Seoul.

The world’s gaze may now be focused on Afghanistan, but can North Korea resist the opportunity to kick out at Washington when it’s down?

The world’s eyes are focused on Afghanistan, so much so that the other potential  “flashpoints” around the globe have been forgotten. Nowhere is this more relevant than the Korean Peninsula, where North Korea has voiced firm, yet not overwhelming, opposition to a series of joint military drills taking place this week between South Korea and the US. 

Its ambassador to China made the unusual step of giving an interview to the Global Times, with the article warning that the “US is bound to pay a price for joint drills with S.Korea”. 

Pyongyang has a record for this kind of stance: On only three occasions has North Korea in the past decade not responded to the annual war games with provocations of its own, seeing them as a rehearsal for an invasion against it. 

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has not played his hand as of yet, and has not so far pursued any missile tests in 2021, and, unusually, even made diplomatic overtures to Seoul just three weeks ago where “plans for a summit” were reportedly discussed.

These contradicting and unpredictable turn of events are typical of the DPRK and its diplomacy, but observers are nonetheless surprised that seven months into the Biden presidency nothing has happened yet, despite subtle indications that North Korea wants to advance its nuclear and missile capabilities. Why is this? And what is going on? And what will happen?

One can never rule out a potential “provocation” by North Korea in the near future, in the midst of the chaos the US is experiencing right now over Afghanistan. Logically speaking, now might be a good time to make its voice heard. Yet recent evidence points to Pyongyang biding its time, attempting to seek dialogue, and seemingly ensuring the US and South Korea are not pushed closer together. 

What’s behind this dovish stance, at least prior to this week’s drills? Potential clues might lie in the fact the country is suffering badly from the impact of Covid-19 on its economy and that it may be wary of accelerating intensified pressure against it. 

For over a year and half, North Korea has pursued one of the most intense border shutdowns in the world. In fact, it was the first nation to close its borders to the virus; for a great deal of time, this even involved blocking off all trade with China. With limited healthcare resources and an ideology that rejects making political concessions readily in exchange for outside support, even in desperate scenarios, the only strategy Pyongyang was willing to apply was to forcefully keep the virus out altogether. The extent of success or failure in that ultimately remains a mystery. Yet the country has nonetheless been open of late about the huge economic toll this policy is taking, on top of the heavy international sanctions it labours under; it cannot afford to do anything that makes these any tighter.

As a result, whilst it has been traditional for the DPRK to provoke a new US president near the start of his term, it has notably not chosen to with the Biden administration. 

Some say this is a sign of weakness, but that doesn’t mean there are no problems looming. Despite having made overtures directly for dialogue on its humanitarian situation, Kim finds that the White House is simply ignoring them. There is no indication that Pyongyang is high on President Joe Biden’s agenda, especially not now. 

Apart from the staple line of demanding “complete denuclearization” which appears every now and then in some statements, the administration has put no effort into pursuing that aim. 

So what will Kim do now? North Korea has held back, but discontent is starting to emerge again against the US in its official messaging and media, as it periodically does at the time of the annual US-South Korea exercises.

If the DPRK is going to make its discontent known, it is going to do it soon. First of all, the US and its allies are distracted by the events in Kabul, disorientated even. Like what China has done over Taiwan, when would there be a better time for North Korea to demonstrate a show of force, even when they’re on the back foot? Seldom are these kinds of opportunities missed. 

Secondly, its diplomatic shift towards South Korea and the dangling of peace incentives may be designed to drive a wedge between Seoul and Washington. Moon Jae-in’s presidency is coming to an end, and there are indications that whoever succeeds him may brand his engagement with the DPRK a failure, especially if the Conservatives win. This may force Seoul’s hand. 

Thirdly, the DPRK's signature style of diplomacy is astute at creating disruption in order to gain international attention and get what it wants. In this case, Kim’s move may come sooner, rather than later. At the same time, North Korea is seeking to strengthen its relationships with Russia, China, Iran and Syria in order to hedge against the US by reaffirming a common opposition to them, a move which could also be motivated by economics. 

Otherwise, all eyes should be on this hotspot, and what happens next remains truly unpredictable. North Korea never sits idly by, and after seven months of quietness, Kim is about to initiate his next strategy, be it carrots or sticks, and when is there a better time to do that than at a time of weakness for America? 

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/532399-america-crisis-korea-drills/

 

As America’s attempt to Westernise Afghanistan by force fails, Kabul may now find its place in Russian & Chinese-dominated Eurasia

17 Aug, 2021 19:05

FILE PHOTO: US Army soldiers from the 10th Mountain and the 101st Airborne units disembark from a Chinook helicopter March 11, 2002. © Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Even the Taliban must be surprised at the immense speed of its victory in Afghanistan. The collapse of the US-backed government affects more than just daily life in Kabul, however, causing political echoes across the continent.

One of the last bastions of Euro-Atlantic influence in the Eurasian heartland has collapsed. As the US and its allies absorb the consequences of their defeat in Afghanistan, the major powers on the continent, such as Russia, China and Iran, will attempt to reorient the country towards a solution consistent with the Greater Eurasian Partnership.

A long way from Washington

The world has changed remarkably over the past two decades. The US was at the height of its power when it invaded Afghanistan at the end of 2001, and its unchecked capabilities were matched by the grand ambitions of reshaping the entire world in its own image.

Military action in the Central Asian nation was ostensibly in response to the September 11 terrorist attacks, although the nation-building that followed encompassed greater ideological and geostrategic ambitions. The US, as a liberal hegemon, was intent on converting Afghanistan into a democratic state allied with Washington.

Besides imposing its own system of governance on Afghanistan, it was also open about the strategic significance of expanding US military presence and influence in the Central Asian region to contain the influence and power of both Russia and China. While Moscow, Beijing and Tehran shared Washington’s objective of a peaceful and stable Afghanistan, they all opposed the American military footprint and hegemonic ambitions.

Strengthening US influence in the Central Asian region was deemed important to prevent the emergence of potential rivals – a strategic imperative of a global hegemon. Zbigniew Brzezinski advocated a US hegemonic strategy on the great Eurasian continent that aimed “to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and keep the barbarians from coming together”. As US power declines, the security guarantees become unreliable, political loyalties towards Washington diminish, and its adversaries gain influence.

Imperial overstretch

Now, 20 years after invading Afghanistan, the world has changed and the US is now in relative decline. Continuous warfare has been a drain on its resources, and its military commitments are overextended and appear increasingly unsustainable.

The humiliating defeat in Afghanistan has also inflicted irreparable damage on liberal interventionism. The scenes from Kabul, reminiscent of Saigon, will make it difficult for Washington to convince its already war-weary public to support another military campaign in the name of spreading its values. Allies of the US that invested two decades of blood and money in the nation-building operation will likely be more hesitant to take part in similar military adventurism in the future, now they know it can be abandoned on a whim. After 20 years & billions of dollars, the American defeat in Afghanistan is worse than the Soviet failure...how has this happened?

The ability to recruit locals to put themselves on the frontline has also diminished. Afghans who co-operated with the US will likely suffer greatly in the time ahead. While frontline states of a global hegemon can enjoy very favourable conditions, the frontline states of a declining hegemon risk being thrown under the bus. Much like the former US-backed government in Kabul, the Kurds, Hong Kong, Ukraine, Taiwan and other partners on America’s global frontlines will enjoy less support and could suddenly be abandoned as US power fades and Washington must revert to pragmatism.

Afghanistan’s future

Following NATO’s defeat, the major regional powers such as Russia, China and Iran must respond to the insecurity of a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. An extremist Islamic government in their region is a profound challenge, and these countries are now scrambling for a tenable post-NATO solutions.

The end of NATO’s presence also presents opportunities, as states in the region that previously looked towards the US as a security provider must now rely on the regional powers. In a case in point, Russia is filling the power vacuum in Central Asia by strengthening the defence of neighbouring Tajikistan and Uzbekistan in response to the risk of Islamic fundamentalists using Afghanistan as a staging ground for destabilising Central Asia.

However, both Russia and China are aiming for a cordial relationship with the new Afghanistan. While Western governments have rapidly evacuated their embassies and fled the country, it is noteworthy that Russia and China are keeping their diplomatic missions in place. Over the past weeks, both Moscow and Beijing have engaged in diplomacy with the Taliban to reach agreements for peaceful co-existence in the neighbourhood. Co-operation from China and Russia will depend on the Taliban abiding by the commitments it has made over the past weeks.

There is reason for optimism. The Taliban has referred to China as a “friend” and welcomed Chinese investments in reconstruction, while the new government in Kabul is also attempting to reassure Russia of its benign intentions. It is not yet clear if the Taliban will take political responsibility and whether the current non-threatening posture towards Russia and China may be only temporary, while it consolidates power.

However, the Greater Eurasian Partnership appears to be the best path for a stable and peaceful Afghanistan. After four decades of war, the Taliban needs to restore some degree of prosperity and peace.

Rather than occupying the country and imposing foreign values, Russia and China aim to align Afghanistan’s interests with that of Greater Eurasia – integration, not domination. While US efforts to establish hegemony with military power failed, China’s Belt and Road Initiative and other co-operative programmes under the Greater Eurasian Partnership may convince the Taliban it shares a common future with the wider region.

https://www.rt.com/russia/532278-afghanistan-future-russian-chinese-dominated/

 

The US, the Taliban and the stunning defeat in Afghanistan

The Taliban victory is a major humiliation for the US, but perhaps that’s the silver lining of the Afghan tragedy.

• 
  Marwan Bishara

  Senior political analyst at Al Jazeera
• 
  
• 
  

Taliban fighters take control of Afghan presidential palace after Afghan President Ashraf Ghani fled the country, in Kabul, Afghanistan on August 15, 2021 

Last week’s turn of events in Afghanistan has been utterly shocking but hardly surprising.

The Taliban’s blistering takeover of the country’s main cities was breathtaking in its speed and ease, culminating in their march on the capital almost unopposed as President Ashraf Ghani fled the country.

It was expected, yes, but no so rapidly, so victoriously, so humiliatingly.

Since the war began almost 20 years ago, successive US administrations have ignored the writing on the wall, prolonging the inevitable, while failing to prepare for it.

It took the US and its allies only two months to “liberate” Kabul from the grip of the Taliban in 2001, and less than two years for the smug Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, to declare at a news conference in Kabul on May 1, 2003, that “major combat activity” was over.

But it was not over. Not by any measure.

As the US occupation stumbled, the deposed Taliban regrouped and launched a merciless asymmetrical war on the US and Afghan government forces for much of the following two decades.

But successive US administrations deliberately deceived the American public into thinking everything was dandy on the war front in Afghanistan, when in fact, it was anything but – just as they did previously during the Vietnam war.

The scene of US personnel fleeing Kabul last week, just as they did Saigon in 1975, was downright eerie.

The US has suffered a few thousand casualties, but tens of thousands of Afghan security forces have died, and an untold number of civilians have become the real victims of the war, which has destroyed the lives and livelihoods of countless families and communities.

During the past decade, the Taliban has demolished Washington’s “clear, build and hold” strategy, terrorising entire communities that cooperated with the US forces.

The total collapse of the Afghan government forces following the withdrawal of the remainder of US combat troops has left many in Washington and other western capitals scratching their heads for answers.

Some of these answers have been readily available by the “we-told-you-so” war sceptics, who long warned that Afghanistan was a proven “graveyard of empires”, whether it is the 19th-century British empire or the 20th-century Soviet empire.

In the words of the ancient Greek Macedonian emperor, Alexander the Great, Afghanistan is “easy to march into but hard to march out of”.

But an overconfident post-Cold War America was in no mood for such historical references after the 9/11 attacks hit at the heart of its economic and military symbols in New York and Washington and killed almost 3,000 Americans.

Those of us who warned against waging vengeful wars and occupying faraway lands as a way to combat “global terrorism” and establish a “pax America” in the greater Middle East, were ignored.

The Bush administration’s decision to launch a second disastrous and costly war against Iraq left Afghanistan in dire straits, and for all practical purposes, Washington was unable to recover the initiative afterwards.

The failure of the Obama administration’s Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy of troop surge signalled the beginning of the end of the war. From then on, only its pride prevented it from recognising the obvious and acting on it.

The Trump administration’s decision to engage the Taliban diplomatically appeared to be the beginning of the US surrendering the country to the hardline group in part or as a whole.

The Biden administration’s decision to speed up US withdrawal regardless of the diplomatic, military or strategic outcome, left the Afghan government to fend for itself, while knowing all too well it could not last long.

But was it really inevitable?

It is hard to say what would have been the outcome if the US remained focused on Afghanistan, rooting out al-Qaeda and paving the way towards a more stable regime with the help of neighbouring countries. Even Iran offered to help during those early years.

But the Bush administration’s decision to launch the “global war on terror”, including the disastrous war on Iraq, eventually downgraded and bungled its Afghan mission.

It also alienated major regional and international allies by its exclusionary “US or against US” approach to the Middle East and international affairs.

Afghanistan was left on the backburner and came to be known as the “forgotten war” as US attention focused on Iraq. Then came the 2008 financial crisis further forcing Washington to turn inward, weakening its foreign commitments.

But even if the US had remained totally focused on Afghanistan, there was no guarantee that it could have accomplished the more modest mission of stabilising the country.

In fact, since World War II, the US has failed to decisively win any major war, whether in Korea, Vietnam or Iraq.

Moreover, geography has long trumped strategy in such asymmetrical conflicts as that of Afghanistan, where local forces and regional dynamics outperform and outmanoeuvre the more sophisticated imperial forces deployed from across the seas.

Such is the lesson most 20th-century colonial powers learned the hard way, as any military historian would tell you.

Afghans knew that the US may have controlled the timings of its deployments but the Taliban had the time. And it had the will.

The US may have won certain hearts and minds, especially in Kabul, where it spent untold sums of money, but Afghans knew deep in their hearts that America will depart sooner or later, and they would have to deal with the Taliban.

It did not help that their successive governments were rather inept and corrupt, garnering little or no confidence. Their complete dependency on US military and financial aid ensured they would never be able to try to stand on their own.

The same applied to the armed forces. Despite outnumbering the Taliban four to one, corruption, nepotism and neglect reigned high, especially among the top brass.

In sum, this may have been inevitable considering the US blunders and its partners’ failings, but it did not have to be so utterly humiliating.

But then again, the humiliation may be the one silver lining after the two decades of tragedy, teaching Washington to avoid war at all cost in the future, especially those horrific wars of choice in the greater Middle East.

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/8/16/the-us-the-taliban-and-the-stunning-defeat-in

Ashraf Ghani Fled Kabul With Cash-Filled Cars: Russian Embassy

 

Ashraf Ghani Fled Kabul With Cash-Filled Cars: Russian Embassy

Taliban fighters take control of Afghan presidential palace after the Afghan President Ashraf Ghani fled the country, in Kabul, Afghanistan, Sunday, Aug. 15, 2021.

On Sunday, Ashraf Ghani ostensibly fled Kabul for Tajikistan after Taliban* militants entered the Afghan capital without a fight.

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, who stepped down to prevent further violence in his country, was fleeing Kabul escorted with cars filled with cash, a Russian Embassy spokesman told Sputnik on Monday. Ghani reportedly left Kabul for Tajikistan, but his current location and status remain unknown. 

"As for the collapse of the regime, it is most eloquently characterised by the way Ghani fled from Afghanistan: four cars were full of money, they tried to put part of the money into a helicopter, but everything did not fit. And some of the money was left on the runway", Russian diplomatic mission spokesperson Nikita Ishenko said.

He spoke after Russia's special presidential representative for Afghanistan Zamir Kabulov told reporters that the seizure of Kabul was unexpected, and that Russia and other countries had overrated the Afghan Armed Forces.

"It came as a surprise to a certain extent, as we were guided by the understanding that the Afghan Army, whatever it may be, will still resist for some time", Kabulov pointed out.

The diplomat stressed that Moscow will not make any hasty decisions concerning recognition of the new Afghan government, adding that the removal of the Taliban from the list of terrorist organisations is out of the question at this stage.

According to Kabulov, it is up to the United Nations Security Council to initiate the relevant procedure.

The Taliban entered Kabul without a fight on Sunday, with Ashraf Ghani fleeing the country shortly thereafter and explaining that he did so in order to avoid bloodshed. 

According to Ghani, the militant group may have won the "trial of sword and guns", but is yet to win the hearts of the Afghan people.

"Never in history has raw power given legitimacy to anyone and never will. [The Taliban] are now facing a new historic test: either they will protect the name and honour of Afghanistan or they will prioritise other places and networks", Ghani argued in a post published on his Facebook page.

https://sputniknews.com/world/202108161083620203-afghan-president-ghani-fled-kabul-with-cash-filled-cars-russian-embassy/

---

*The Taliban is  banned in Russia and a spate of other countries as a terrorist organisation

 

‘US saved dogs over Afghan lives’: Washington accused of valuing animals over civilians, after soldiers evacuate K-9s

16 Aug, 2021 15:11

(L) © Telegram / RT; (R) © Twitter / @RT_com

The US was accused of valuing the lives of its military dogs more than those of Afghan civilians, after soldiers were seen evacuating their animals while those desperate to escape the Taliban clung on to departing planes.

Videos and photos published on Monday – which showed dogs being walked to Kabul Airport, where they were evacuated along with US military personnel – angered many across the world, who viewed the apparent prioritization of animals over humans as an insult to the many Afghans attempting to flee the Taliban as the US pulls out of the country.

Others noted that “the optics” of dogs “being evacuated in an orderly fashion and Afghan citizens clinging to plane wheels and falling to their deaths” did not reflect well on the US, and that it served as the “perfect depiction of betrayal.”“There was room for the dogs, and all the luggage, but the people that allied themselves to the US had to latch onto the outside of a plane,” tweeted geopolitical analyst and RT contributor Maram Susli.

Some social media users did defend the US evacuation of dogs over people, however, arguing that the animals were expensive, highly trained, and considered active military personnel.

“A dog weighs less than a human. Dogs are family. The plane cannot carry everyone, it has a weight limit. More planes are coming. Life’s rough, sorry. Much love,” one person wrote, while another claimed that sometimes dogs “are more important than anything else.”

“If you have NEVER been ‘bonded’ with a working dog then you’d NEVER understand!” the user declared.

Germany was also criticized on Monday for its own evacuation of Afghanistan.

Deutsche Welle reporter James Jackson called out the German military for shipping 22,500 litres of beer, wine, and champagne back home from Afghanistan in June, “meanwhile people were only given permission [to evacuate] if they worked directly for the Bundeswehr in the last two years” – leaving many subcontractors and translators at the mercy of the Taliban.

https://www.rt.com/usa/532197-us-saved-dogs-over-afghan/