World

WASHINGTON — Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte would face major obstacles to following through on his threat to reduce purchases of US weapons in favor of Russian and Chinese arms, including re-training a military deeply accustomed to working with the United States, experts said on Tuesday.

Duterte said in speeches in Manila on Tuesday that the United States did not want to sell missiles and other weapons to the Philippines, but that Russia and China had told him they could provide them easily.

His comments were the latest in a near-daily barrage of hostility toward the United States that has raised questions about the long-standing alliance that is important to the US strategy of rebalancing its forces toward Asia and countering an assertive China.

Angered by US expressions of concern over his war on drugs, Duterte has called President Barack Obama a "son of a bitch", threatened to call off joint military exercises with Washington and started to contrast the former colonial power with its geopolitical rivals Russia and China.

US officials have downplayed Duterte's remarks, focusing instead on the decades-long alliance which they have sought to bolster in recent years in response to China's moves to enforce its claims over the South China Sea. The White House said on Tuesday the United States had not received any formal communications from Duterte's government about changing the relationship.

The United States is the single largest provider of arms to the Philippines, according to figures maintained by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), which tracks military expenditures globally.

The two countries have become more intertwined militarily in the last two years, holding more exercises and training, and making more US ship and aircraft visits under President Barack Obama's shift of US military forces and diplomatic efforts toward Asia in the face of China's rise.

The Philippines is the largest recipient of US funds in the Asia-Pacific region under the Foreign Military Financing programme, which is provided by the United States to help countries purchase American-made weapons and equipment. It received $50 million under FMF in the 2015 fiscal year.

That dependence on US weapons and systems means the Philippine military would have to re-tool its command-and-control structure if it wanted to switch to Chinese or Russian systems, said Richard Javad Heydarian, a professor at De La Salle University in Manila and a former advisor to the Philippines House of Representatives.

"There will be some problems with configuration," Heydarian said. "It takes years for the Philippines' army to re-orient itself with new technology."

 The Philippines spent $3.9 billion on its military in 2015, according to SIPRI data. That spending has risen nearly every year since 2010, when it stood at $2.4 billion, the data show.

Deep ties

Though Russia in particular could offer high-quality weapons systems, the Philippines would have to take into account their interoperability with existing American stock, said Lyle Goldstein, an expert on Chinese maritime issues at the US Naval War College.

"You can't just buy a radar from this country and a missile from that country," Goldstein said. "The weaponry has to work together."

 He noted that many Philippine officers were educated in the United States, linking the countries' military cultures closely.

The military relationship between the United States and the Philippines goes well beyond arms sales, extending to training exercises and support for maintenance.

Russia and China do not have the same reputation of providing comprehensive training and support, said Amy Searight, until earlier this year the US deputy assistant secretary of defense for South and Southeast Asia.

"The United States is well known for being quite good at that full spectrum of support to build capabilities," said Searight, now with the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "It's not just the weapons or the armaments or vehicles or equipment. It's using those to build real capabilities."

 Most likely, Duterte's aim is to signal to China that he is willing to tinker with existing US-Philippines military cooperation, even if on the margins, Heydarian said.

That might mean relocating the annual US-Philippines "Balikatan" military exercises away from the South China Sea, or refusing to further expand American military access to Philippine bases, he said.

Duterte could also be trying to strengthen his position in order to get better prices on military equipment from the United States, experts said. Russian and Chinese weapons are typically cheaper than American systems.

BEIJING — A survey released Wednesday found that Hillary Clinton is better liked than Donald Trump in China, where the US presidential election — and the criticisms both candidates have made of Chinese policy — have generated intense attention.

Clinton was seen favorably by 37 per cent of respondents in a survey in mainland China conducted by the Washington, D.C.-based Pew Research Center, while just 22 per cent saw Trump favorably. At the same time, 35 per cent of respondents saw Clinton unfavorably, while 40 per cent had an unfavorable impression of Trump.

The survey found that Chinese interest in America comes with strong skepticism. More than 80 per cent of respondents said they considered the US to be a threat to China.

While the Pew survey has no bearing on the US election, it offers a rare glimpse of the opinions of ordinary Chinese, whose views can be hard to discern due to China’s censorship of the media and social media channels. State-sanctioned newspapers often publish nationalistic commentaries that deride American policies, but the survey suggests the public has a more nuanced opinion of the US

President Barack Obama was seen favorably by 52 per cent of respondents, up from 31 per cent in a similar survey in 2013 but still below 62 per cent shortly after he took office in 2009.

The next president will have to work with China on several important fronts. On issues like climate change, both countries have found some common ground and jointly announced last month that they would join an international agreement to cut carbon emissions. On others, like the South China Sea and North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, Beijing and Washington are deeply divided.

Chinese state broadcaster CCTV provides selective and largely sporadic coverage of the US presidential election. But ever-growing numbers of Chinese tourists, immigrants and students are traveling to the US and seeking information about the country on the internet. Pirated versions of American political dramas such as Netflix’s “House of Cards” are widely watched in China. Among the reported fans of “House of Cards” is Wang Qishan, a member of China’s highest decision-making body, the Politburo standing committee.

Pew’s survey was conducted between April 6 and May 8 and included in-person interviews with more than 3,100 Chinese. Pew said it had a margin of error of 3.7 percentage points. Participants were asked how much confidence they had in Obama, Clinton and Trump to “do the right thing regarding world affairs.”

 Clinton has a longer history of engagement with China than Trump, dating back more than two decades to her famous 1995 speech in Beijing in which the then-first lady declared that “human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights.” As secretary of state, Clinton oversaw the American “pivot” to the Pacific, a hallmark of Obama’s foreign policy that’s been derided by China.

Trump has made some of his signature clothing line in China and boasted during the campaign of his dealings with Chinese businessmen. But he has repeatedly blamed China for the loss of American jobs and accused China of cheating at global trade. His campaign website says he would use “every lawful presidential power” to punish China if it “does not stop its illegal activities, including its theft of American trade secrets.”

 While Chinese leaders have not publicly indicated their preference, the state-run Global Times newspaper, published by the Communist Party, has ripped both candidates, though Trump has generally received tougher criticism than Clinton. A September commentary on the first US presidential debate called Trump “seemingly unprepared and ill-informed,” but dismissed Clinton for “her poor performance as secretary of state, let alone her credibility issues.”

 China has also lashed out at the Republican Party over its criticisms of Beijing, accusing it of leveling groundless accusations and meddling in China’s internal affairs.

Zhang Ming, a political science professor at Beijing’s Renmin University who was not involved in the Pew survey, said he’s found opinions vary widely on the two candidates, depending in large part on how people feel about China itself.

“Some Chinese agree with government policies, so they hope the candidate who wins the election will be friendly toward China,” Zhang said. “Some people may want the new president to interfere in some issues in China if they disagree with government policy.”

BERLIN — WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange vowed Tuesday to publish new “significant” documents related to the US presidential elections ahead of the November 8 vote, as the online leaking platform celebrated its 10th birthday in defiant mood.

Taking aim at critics accusing him and his organisation of manipulation, Assange pledged he would not be muzzled as he sought to raise “an army” of supporters to join in the defence of WikiLeaks.

“We hope to be publishing every week for the next 10 weeks. We have on schedule... all the US election related documents to come out before November 8,” Assange, wearing a black T-shirt bearing the word “truth”, told journalists via webcast from the Ecuadoran embassy in London where he has been holed up since 2012.

He refused to reveal if the US-vote related documents would hurt Democrat candidate Hillary Clinton or target her Republican rival Donald Trump.

But the white-haired WikiLeaks founder described the material as “significant” with “a lot of fascinating angles”. 

“Do they show interesting features on power factions and how they operate? Yes they do,” he said. 

‘McCarthyist push’ 

Ten years after it was founded, Wikileaks has faced growing charges that it is manipulated by politicians — either by recycling documents provided by Moscow, or by allegedly serving the interests of Trump in the US presidential election race.

And Assange himself took refuge in the Ecuador embassy to avoid extradition to Sweden where he is accused of raping a woman while she was asleep.

The 45-year-old has always maintained the allegations are false and has refused to travel to Stockholm for questioning due to concerns that Sweden will hand him over to the US to stand trial for espionage.

He has come under fresh pressure after WikiLeaks published some 20,000 internal e-mails on the eve of the US Democratic Party convention that forced top party officials to quit. 

Assange charged that WikiLeaks was now the target of a witch hunt orchestrated in particular by Clinton, likening it to the repression of American communists in the 1950s driven by then senator Joseph McCarthy.

But he said he would not back down. 

Rather, WikiLeaks will scale up operations to “amplify our publications and to defend us against what is really a quite remarkable McCarthyist push in the United States at the moment, principally by Hillary Clinton and her allies because she happens to be the person being exposed at the moment”, he said.

Call to arms

The domain name wikileaks.org was registered in 2006 and launched in January 2007, with Assange saying it would use encryption and a censorship-proof website to protect sources and publicise secret information.

The site has since published more than 10 million leaked documents.

It first caught the world’s attention when it released manuals for US prison guards at Guantanamo Bay.

But it really hit its stride in 2010, unveiling logs of US military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and a video showing a US helicopter crew mowing down a group of unarmed civilians — including two journalists — in Baghdad.

That same year it also published a cache of diplomatic cables from US embassies around the world, deeply embarrassing Washington.

But Assange’s abrasive style and insistence on publishing unredacted documents quickly grated on colleagues and journalists who worked with him.

“If an Afghan civilian helps coalition forces, he deserves to die,” Guardian journalist Nick Davies later recalled Assange saying in an argument over whether to remove names from the war logs.

Top US government officials have called him a security threat.

Assange pledged to expand WikiLeaks’ activities through extra staff and new media partnerships, with plans to employ 100 more journalists over the next three years.

“We’re going to need... an army to defend us from the pressure that is already starting to arrive,” he said, adding that “we will give if necessary a call to arms if pressure increases more than it already has.”

 And even if he were forced to resign one day, “the publication will continue,” pledged Assange, who had cancelled at the last minute what would have been a rare public appearance Tuesday on the balcony of his 18-square-metre room in the Ecuadorean embassy, citing security reasons.

MANILA — Philippine leader Rodrigo Duterte on Tuesday told US President Barack Obama to "go to hell" and said the United States had refused to sell some weapons to his country but he did not care because Russia and China were willing suppliers.

In his latest salvo, Duterte said he was realigning his foreign policy because the United States had failed the Philippines and added that at some point, "I will break up with America". It was not clear what he meant by "break up".

During three tangential and fiercely worded speeches in Manila, Duterte said the United States did not want to sell missiles and other weapons, but Russia and China had told him they could provide them easily.

"Although it may sound [sh...] to you, it is my sacred duty to keep the integrity of this republic and the people healthy," Duterte said.

"If you don't want to sell arms, I'll go to Russia. I sent the generals to Russia and Russia said 'do not worry, we have everything you need, we'll give it to you'.”

"And as for China, they said 'just come over and sign and everything will be delivered'."

 His comments were the latest in a near-daily barrage of hostility towards the United States, during which Duterte has started to contrast the former colonial power with its geopolitical rivals Russia and China.

When asked about Duterte's comments, US State Department spokesman John Kirby said on Tuesday, "Frankly, it seems at odds with the warm relationship that exists between the Filipino and American people and the record of important cooperation between our two governments, cooperation that has continued under the Duterte government”.

 'Hell is full'

On Sunday, Duterte said he had received support from Russia and China when he complained to them about the United States. He also said he would review a US-Philippines Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement.

The deal, signed in 2014, grants US troops some access to Philippine bases, and allows them to set up storage facilities for maritime security and humanitarian and disaster response operations.

He said the United States should have supported the Philippines in tackling its chronic drugs problems but instead criticised him for the high death toll, as did the European Union.

"Instead of helping us, the first to hit was the State Department. So you can go to hell, Mr Obama, you can go to hell," he said.

"EU, better choose purgatory. Hell is full already. Why should I be afraid of you?"

 At a later speech he said he was emotional because the United States had not been a friend of the Philippines since his election in May.

"They just... reprimand another president in front of the international community," he told the Jewish community at a synagogue.

"This is what happens now, I will be reconfiguring my foreign policy. Eventually, I might in my time I will break up with America."

 It was not clear if by his "time", he was referring to his six-year term in office.

According to some US officials, Washington has been doing its best to ignore Duterte's rhetoric and not provide him with a pretext for more outbursts.

While an open break with Manila would create problems in a region where China's influence has grown, there were no serious discussions about taking punitive steps such as cutting aid to the Philippines, two US officials said on Monday.

Several of Duterte's allies on Monday suggested he act more like a statesman because his comments had created a stir. On Tuesday, he said his outbursts were because he was provoked by criticism of his crackdown on drugs.

"When you are already at the receiving end of an uncontrollable rush, the only way out is to insult," he said.

"That is my retaliation."

MOSCOW — Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday ordered a halt to an agreement with the United States on plutonium disposal, citing Washington’s “unfriendly actions”.

The deal, signed in 2000, was meant to allow both nuclear powers to dispose of weapons-grade plutonium from their defence programmes, a move seen as a key step in the disarmament process.

The two countries recommitted to the deal in 2010.

Putin charged earlier this year that the United States was not honouring the agreement by disposing of plutonium in a way that allowed it to retain its defence capabilities.

The suspension is symbolic of the breakdown in nuclear nonproliferation cooperation, an expert said.

The decree published on Monday states that Russia is pulling out of the agreement “due to a drastic change in circumstances, the appearance of a threat to strategic stability due to unfriendly actions of the United States toward Russia”.

It claimed that Washington was “unable” to carry out the terms of the agreement and that Moscow “must take urgent measures to defend Russian security”.

“It’s a symbolic gesture that demonstrates that the sides no longer cooperate in this sphere,” said independent military expert Alexander Golts, adding that it was not the first agreement to be suspended in the non-proliferation sphere.

The US-Russian Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement obliged Moscow and Washington to dispose of no less than 34 tonnes of weapon-grade plutonium by irradiating it or transforming it into so-called MOX (mixed oxide) fuel.

The building of a MOX fuel reprocessing plant was opposed in the United States in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan over safety fears and high cost of the project, which is already billions of dollars over budget.

US energy officials have pushed for using another method of disposal, calling for plutonium to be mixed with other substances and stored underground, but Moscow argues that any method to dilute plutonium is reversable.

Russia is locked in its worst stand-off with the West since the Cold War over its 2014 annexation of Crimea and the conflict in Ukraine.

KUNDUZ, Afghanistan —  Taliban fighters entered the northern Afghan city of Kunduz on Monday, almost exactly a year after they briefly seized it in their biggest success of the 15-year war, while heavy fighting in the south underscored the country's deteriorating security.

Sheer Ali Kamawal, commander of the 808 Tandar police zone in Kunduz, said the attack began at around midnight  and fighting was going on in and around the city. Some Taliban fighters had entrenched themselves in homes.

The fighters appear to have slipped through a defensive security line set up around Kunduz, entering the city itself from four directions before clashes broke out, witnesses in the city said.

In Kabul, Brigadier General Charles Cleveland, spokesman for Afghanistan's NATO-led force, said it was ready to provide support if needed.

"At this point, we are not observing evidence via our internal means to support the reports that Kunduz is under significant attack," he said in an e-mailed statement.

With fighting intensifying across the country, the attack on Kunduz, a day before a major donor conference in Brussels, underlined Afghanistan's precarious security situation and the Taliban's ability to strike against important targets.

Government forces, fighting with limited NATO-force support following the end of the main international combat mission in 2014, are estimated to have control over at most two-thirds of the country.

In Kunduz, police spokesman Mahfozullah Akbari said security forces were preparing to drive out the fighters, who had infiltrated the Khak Kani area in the city's southwest.

"The Taliban are inside some civilian houses and we have to carry out operations very carefully," he said.

Military helicopters flew overhead and gunfire could be heard in Kunduz, where a year ago to the day, Afghan troops backed by US air strikes and special forces were battling to drive out Taliban who had raised their flag in the city centre.

Residents piled into cars and trailers to escape the city centre and shops were shut. Several checkpoints were burned out but there was little actual fighting as security forces held back from confrontation in the city centre.

However, witnesses saw Taliban fighters armed with AK-47 assault rifles, machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades walking around the deserted streets of the city, entering homes and taking up position on rooftops.

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said in his official Twitter account that four government checkpoints in Kunduz had been captured and some soldiers had been killed.

"A massive operation started on Kunduz capital from four directions early this morning," he said.

The renewed attack on Kunduz forced officials to cancel a ceremony planned for Monday to commemorate the first anniversary of a US air strike that destroyed a hospital run by the international charity Médecins Sans Frontières during the fighting.

The assault on Kunduz came as the Taliban have stepped up attacks in different parts of Afghanistan, including the southern province of Helmand, where they have been threatening the provincial capital of Lashkar Gah.

On Monday, Taliban fighters, positioned just across the Helmand river from the centre of Lashkar Gah, also took control of Nawa district to the south, killing a district police chief, officials said.

Heavy fighting has also continued along the main road to Tarin Kot, the provincial capital of Uruzgan, also in the south, where a Taliban raid on September 8 sparked fears of another collapse like that in Kunduz last year.

The raid on Tarin Kot was beaten back but alarmed security officials because the militants were able to enter the city without significant resistance after police abandoned dozens of checkpoints.

The fall of Kunduz last year was one of the most serious blows suffered by the Western-backed government in Kabul since the withdrawal of most international troops in 2014.

Although the insurgents abandoned Kunduz after a few days, the capture of a provincial capital underlined their growing strength and exposed flaws in Afghan security forces and the city has remained effectively besieged ever since.

"Every day the militants come to the city and are pushed back by security forces," said Amruddin Wali, a member of the provincial council as he stood with security forces on the edges of the city. "There is killing and fighting every day."

ISLAMABAD — Pakistani and Indian troops on Monday exchanged fresh fire across their de facto border in Kashmir, Pakistan's military said, following an overnight militant raid on an Indian army camp in which one trooper was killed.

No casualties were reported in the latest skirmish, which came five days after India said its troops had crossed the border to carry out "surgical strikes" across the Line of Control (LoC) which separates the disputed territory — a claim Pakistan has flatly denied.

"Indian troops yet again resorted to unprovoked firing after midnight at the Line of Control in Iftikharabad sector and Pakistani troops befittingly responded," Pakistan's military said in a statement Monday, adding the exchange ended in the morning.

It said troops also responded to unprovoked Indian firing in Nezapir and Kailer sectors. 

The latest exchange came after suspected militants fired on an army camp in the Indian Kashmir town of Baramulla late Sunday killing one trooper, before being repelled.

Senior local police official Imtiyaz Hussain Mir on Monday told media between two and four militants were involved in the attack, which also injured one trooper.

"There is a big civilian population around the camp because of which we could not go all out. Otherwise there would have been civilian casualties. They took advantage of the darkness and used civilian houses as a shield to escape," he said.

Indian Kashmir Police Chief Danish Raja said up to five people were wounded at two other places along the Line of Control.

"There was a ceasefire violation in Sawjian and Shahpur in Poonch sector. Five people have been injured. One has minor injuries and four subsistential. The firing has stopped." 

Tensions have been high in the region since the killing of a young Kashmiri separatist in July, which was followed by weeks of imposed curfew and deadly protests in the Indian-controlled portion.

On September 18, 19 Indian soldiers were killed in an attack on the Uri army base, which India blamed on Pakistan-backed militants.

Last week India launched what it termed "surgical strikes" across the LoC in what would be a significant blow to Pakistan, which prides itself on its military prowess. Pakistan said troops had not crossed and two of its soldiers had been killed in small arms fire.

India and Pakistan have fought three wars since they gained independence from Britain seven decades ago, two of them over Kashmir. Both claim the region in full.

A number of armed separatist groups in the Indian-controlled part of the picturesque territory have for decades been fighting to break free from New Delhi.

LONDON — Britain will trigger the formal process for leaving the European Union before the end of March, Prime Minister Theresa May said on Sunday, putting to rest weeks of speculation on the timing of the move.

May outlined her vision for a post-EU Britain at her Conservative Party’s annual conference in Birmingham and took the first steps to making a British exit — or Brexit — a reality.

As her fellow lawmakers applauded wildly, May made it clear that the British people expected to see the moment “on the horizon” when Britain would leave — and that she was going to deliver.

“We will invoke it when we are ready, and we will be ready soon,” she said. “We will invoke Article 50 no later than the end of March next year.”

 While the prime minister previously had hinted she planned to initiate Britain’s EU exit early next year, many observers had speculated she would wait until France’s presidential election ends in May or perhaps even the Germany elections, set for the late summer or fall of next year.

But May insisted there would be no unnecessary delays in bringing it to pass — and that it would fight any legal challenges intended to derail the move. She sternly rejected the idea that the government would circumvent the result, making a face as she raised the idea to underscore her disdain.

Britain voted in a June referendum to leave the EU, but has not formally notified the bloc of its intentions by invoking the article of the EU treaty that would trigger negotiations. Doing so will launch two years of talks to work out the details of Britain’s future relationship with the single market.

While the two-year timetable is mandated by the EU treaty, it can be extended by a unanimous vote of the remaining members of the bloc.

The prime minister also said she would ask parliament to repeal the European Communities Act, which automatically makes EU rules the law of the land in Britain.

May said her government instead would incorporate all EU laws into British law and then repeal measures as necessary on a case-by-case basis.

“That means that the United Kingdom will be an independent, sovereign nation,” she said. “It will be making its own laws.”

 May said that by offering a timetable now, she hopes to encourage the two sides to engage in preliminary work that would help the negotiations go smoothly once they begin. EU leaders so far have rejected any such discussions.

The president of the 28-nation EU’s governing European Council, Donald Tusk, offered a tweet in support of her position. He had told her at a recent Downing Street meeting that the “ball is now in your court”.

“PM May’s declaration brings welcome clarity on start of Brexit talks,” he tweeted Sunday. “Once Art. 50’s triggered, EU27 will engage to safeguard its interests.”

 One of the biggest sticking points in any talks will be immigration. The free movement of labour is a founding principle of the EU, and millions of EU citizens live and work in Britain.

The perception that immigrants have strained public services and changed the face of many communities was a factor for many British citizens who voted to leave the EU. May said that she intends to heed public opinion on that point.

“Apart from the message of leaving the European Union, I think there was also a clear message from the British people that they wanted us to control movement of people from the EU coming into the UK, so we will deliver on that,” she said.

May also flatly rejected the idea that elements within the United Kingdom might be able to negotiate a deal for themselves. The message was clearly aimed at Scotland, which only narrowly rejected an independence move in 2014 and had voted overwhelmingly to stay in the EU. Scotland wants a place at the table because of its numerous trade ties with the EU.

“We will negotiate as one United Kingdom and we will leave the European Union as one United Kingdom. There is no opt-out for Brexit,” May told the conference. “I will never allow divisive nationalists to undermine the precious union between the four nations of our United Kingdom.”

Critics quickly pounced on the first tangible moves on the process in weeks. Conservative Anna Soubry, a former minister who is in the Tory pro-Europe wing of the party, told ITV that she was concerned that May would trigger the article so soon, warning that companies such as Nissan might leave without a deal on the single market.

“Triggering Brexit as early as March really concerns me, troubles me hugely, because we won’t have had the French elections, we won’t have had the German elections, and I’m sorry, it is going to take a lot of time and effort to disentangle ourselves and get the right deal,” she said.

“The other thing that’s got to be said is this — this idea that we hold the cards and that the EU is going to come to us and say ‘do you know what, we’ll give you pretty much what you want’, — the idea we’re going to get anything like we’ve got now is rubbish.”

The opposition Labour Party asked for more clarity on the proposals. Stephen Kinnock, a member of parliament from Aberavon, said May has yet to say what leaving will mean in practice.

“The Brexit process will give this government more power to re-shape Britain than any government has had since the Second World War,” he said in a statement. “And yet what Brexit means is still unclear, and the government has no specific mandate for its negotiating position, assuming that it has one.”

MANDHOLE, Pakistan  — Pakistani military officials point to an Indian army post high on a forested ridge along the Line of Control dividing Kashmir, insisting any incursions are impossible, after skirmishes ignited dangerous tensions between the nuclear rivals.

The army took the rare step of flying international media to the de facto border to make its case in a battle of competing narratives, after India said its commandos penetrated up to 3 kilometres into Pakistan on anti-militant raids.

The presence of Indian forces so far across the Line of Control (LoC) would be a stinging blow to Pakistan, particularly after the 2011 US raid that killed Osama Bin Laden which took place on its territory without its consent. 

The media visit came on Saturday as India's Army Chief Dalbir Singh congratulated commandos involved in what New Delhi has described as "surgical strikes" to take out terrorist launchpads after a deadly attack on an Indian army base last month. 

Pakistan has flatly denied the claim, saying two of its soldiers were killed but only in cross-border fire of the kind that commonly violates a 2003 ceasefire on the LoC. 

The helicopter tour took journalists to sectors just 2 kilometres from the dividing line, and near the locations India said it targeted in assaults on four militant camps.

On hand were senior local commanders as well as army spokesman Lieutenant General Asim Bajwa — an omnipresent media personality who has taken centre stage on Pakistani television since the tensions erupted. 

In villages like Mandhole, daily life was going on largely as normal despite the tensions, with shops and businesses open and children in pressed white uniforms walking to school.

"You have seen the lay of the land," said Bajwa, speaking from a command post overlooking the lush green Bandala Valley, with Pakistani and Indian fortifications visible on the opposite hill. 

"You can see the way the fortifications are built and the way Pakistan has layers of defence and they have layers of defence... the LoC cannot be violated," he said. 

"If they've caused that damage to us, we don't know any has been caused to us! You can go and meet the civilian population. Our side is open: to the UN mission, to the media, to the general public," he said.

News spreads

It was not possible to verify the general's claims, though villagers who spoke with a second AFP reporter in the area independent of the military-guided trip were also incredulous. 

Sardar Javed, a 37-year-old journalist for Kashmiri newspapers and a resident of Tatta Pani sector, which lies just west of India-controlled Poonch sector where one of the strikes was said to have been carried out, said he had seen no evidence of a raid. 

"I'm not saying it's not true because that's the army line. It's because I'm from the LoC and I'm a local journalist. News spreads fast around here and people get to know whatever happens," he said. 

Mountainous Kashmir is seen as one of the world's most dangerous flashpoints, where Indian and Pakistani soldiers watch one another across valleys divided by barbed wire and land mines. 

The bitter neighbours agreed on the de facto border in 1972, but both claim the territory in full. Two of their three wars have been fought over the Himalayan region. 

Areas close to the 720 kilometre LoC are normally off-bounds even for Pakistani nationals, and the past three years have seen a surge in cross-border shelling. 

Big lie? 

Tensions have been simmering for months over unrest on the Indian side, where more than 80 civilians have been killed, mostly in clashes with security forces, during protests linked to the killing of a charismatic young separatist in July.

Some Pakistani observers say the vaunted raids are an attempt to shift the focus and allow India to escape scrutiny over its actions in Kashmir. 

Pakistan-backed militants were blamed for the attack on an Indian army base last month in which 19 soldiers were killed, prompting angry calls for action from the Indian public ahead of Thursday's action. 

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has offered to mediate in the dispute as the international community urged restraint. 

Pakistan is eager to dispel to the world the notion it harbours terrorists; and to its own citizens vanish the idea it can be pushed around by its bigger neighbour, with whom it has long attempted to maintain a semblance of military parity. 

India, for its part, seeks to diplomatically isolate Pakistan following a series of attacks that it blames on Islamist militants backed by its western neighbour.

Leaning on a walking stick in the pristine hillside village of Baghsar Saturday, 76-year-old local councillor Mirza Abdul Ghani told visiting journalists that the Indian claims were "a big lie". 

"I myself am ready to fight if they dare — I have my weapon in my house," he said.

ISTANBUL — President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has stirred up controversy over the treaty that almost a century ago set the borders of modern Turkey, alarming both neighbouring Greece and secular opposition at home.

In a speech Thursday, Erdogan for the first time rejected the notion that the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne was a "victory" for Turkey and wistfully lamented the loss of Aegean islands which are now Greek territory.

The treaty — the founding basis of the modern Turkish state out of the ruins of the Ottoman Empire — has usually been seen inside the country as a triumph of its secular leadership led by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.

For the secular opposition in Turkey, Erdogan's comments have represented another dangerous lapse into neo-Ottomanism, signalling his regret that Ankara does not control territory stretching from Balkans to Africa as Constantinople did in Ottoman times.

But for pro-Erdogan commentators his remarks were a timely reminder that modern Turkey has just a fraction of the territory controlled by the Ottoman Empire.

'Is this a victory?'

"You see the Aegean, don't you?" Erdogan told local officials in the speech at his presidential palace.

"In Lausanne, we gave away islands [so near that] your voice can be heard if you shout across to them. Is this a victory?" he asked.

"They were ours. There are our mosques, our shrines there."

Erdogan rounded on those who negotiated the treaty who included Ismet Inonu, Ataturk's right-hand-man who would later succeed him as president and still a hero for secularists.

"Those who sat at that table could not make the best of the agreement. Today we are suffering the consequences."

After the Ottoman defeat in World War I, the existence of any future Turkish state had been in question.

However thanks to the strategic brilliance of Ataturk and victory in the War of Independence against Greece, modern Turkey was founded in 1923 as a state stretching from the Mediterranean to Persia.

The military victory and Lausanne Treaty reversed the outcome of the 1919 Treaty of Sevres which, if implemented, would have seen modern Turkey reduced to a rump around Istanbul and Anatolia.

Under the new borders enshrined in Lausanne, all the Aegean islands went to Greece, with the exception of Gokceada (Imroz) and Bozcaada (Tenedos). Several islands however had already been captured from the Ottoman Empire in a 1912 war.

'Dangerous for relations'

Athens, which has had generally solid relations with Ankara during Erdogan's rule, said the controversy would not do ties any good.

"Calling the Treaty of Lausanne into question... is dangerous both to relations between our two countries and the wider region," Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras said.

Junior foreign minister for European affairs Nikos Xydakis told SKAI TV "Erdogan's surprise outbursts" were becoming customary.

"He is facing great pressure inside," he said, pointing to the July 15 failed coup and the troubles in neighbouring Syria and Iraq.

Erdogan's comments were indeed surprising, given that on the 93rd anniversary of the treaty on July 24 he lauded the treaty as the "founding document of the Republic" and a "victory won with our glorious people's faith, courage and sacrifice".

Aykan Erdemir, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Foundation for Defence of Democracies, said Erdogan's "U-turn" marked a crumbling of unity with the secular opposition in the aftermath of the July 15 coup.

"Now that the Turkish president has reestablished full control over the country, he feels comfortable to go back to his anti-republican and polarising narrative," Erdemir told AFP.

'Betray history'

Turkey's main opposition party leader spoke out against Erdogan's comments, describing them as a betrayal of history.

"Don't forget that you sit on that chair thanks to Lausanne," said Kemal Kilicdaroglu of the Republican People's Party, the party founded by Ataturk which sees itself as the guardian of his secular principles.

"Nobody has the right to betray their history."

Yusuf Kaplan, columnist in the pro-government Yeni Safak newspaper, however described Lausanne as a "death warrant" and praised Erdogan for throwing "taboos on the trash”.

"Turkey could not be invaded from outside but was captured inside by being secularised from the top by secular elites."

But Hayri Inonu, mayor of the Sisli district in Istanbul and grandson of Ismet Inonu, said the proof of Lausanne's success is the existence of "the [Turkish] Republic itself" where the crescent and star Turkish flag would wave forever. "The rest is empty talk."