Leftist observers have long characterized several entities as the “Axis of Resistance.” This group includes Iran, Iraq’s militia groups, Assad’s Syria, Lebanon’s Hezbollah and more recently Gaza’s Hamas and Yemen’s Ansar Allah (a.k.a. “the Houthis”). They are seen as a collective counterweight to the American Empire’s regional domination. This domination is enforced via Israeli military strength and the Gulf states’ financial heft.

A failed response to Gaza

There is some geopolitical truth to that characterization. While one can debate the strategic wisdom of Hamas’ October 7 attack, many argue it was inevitable. Few options were left available due to the unending blockade of Gaza, the stifling of all diplomatic and non-violent means to resist occupation and expulsion and the abandonment of the Palestinians throughout the region, particularly by Gulf monarchies.

Once fighting started in Gaza, feckless Arab regimes did not offer anything useful to the Palestinian resistance — indeed, several continue to collaborate with the Israeli state. Yes, Hezbollah launched an effective war of attrition against the Zionist regime and imposed real costs on Israel’s ongoing aggression against Gaza, as did Yemen’s Ansar Allah. Such responses further highlighted the ineffectual, even hypocritical, complaints lodged by Arab autocrats acting as US allies throughout the region.

However, how much support did Iran, the supposed anchor of this Axis of Resistance, actually offer Palestinians? In their tit-for-tat exchanges with the Israelis, Iran demonstrated prowess with ballistic missile technology sufficient to potentially overwhelm Israeli air defenses and trigger catastrophic military and economic losses. But the Iranian regime was not about to go to war for Palestine. Their responses were calibrated to save face, while re-establishing a limited measure of deterrence.

A harsh truth is that the Iranian regime has often treated its Arab allies as kindling, using them to generate smokescreens when necessary. They do this to deflect American and Israeli military designs against their sovereignty. Iran deftly exploited the 2003 Anglo-American invasion of Iraq to tie down the US military for years, likely preventing an American attack on Iran under George W. Bush. Similarly, the Iranian regime has long used Hezbollah for geopolitical leverage, as they are a useful mercenary force, no matter the expense to broader Lebanese society.

​​Hezbollah’s attempt to relieve Israeli military pressure on Gaza this past year stands in glaring contrast to the rest of the Arab and Islamic world’s inaction at the state level. Meanwhile, the people of Lebanon, particularly southern Lebanon, can take pride in their support for Gaza.

Hezbollah’s role in the region

At the same time, is it fair that Hezbollah has operated effectively unchecked inside the Lebanese state, in turn preventing Lebanon from being governed normally? Is it right that as Lebanon’s economy collapsed, its politics remain gridlocked by Hezbollah? Is it right that no one was held accountable when the port of Beirut suffered a nuclear-sized explosion because fertilizer was carelessly left in a warehouse for months by Hezbollah, which runs the ports and siphons off tax revenues?

While Hezbollah’s militia has proven quite effective in fighting Israel, its political strategy has remained a failure. How strong can Hezbollah be if it continues to paralyze Lebanon? When push came to shove, the group largely chose to answer to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) rather than the people of Lebanon.

Once the current dystopian conflict subsides, Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon’s south could be reorganized into a national guard or territorial army to defend the country from future Israeli invasions. If Lebanon were a functioning state with a functioning military, that state might also choose to uphold international law and intervene in an attempt to stop the genocide in Gaza — but such a decision belongs to Beirut, not Tehran.

Around the beginning of the Syrian revolution, Arab militia leaders faced a similar choice. Khaled Mashal, the Hamas leader, and Hassan Nasrallah, the now-departed leader of Hezbollah, visited Bashar al-Assad and encouraged him to moderate and compromise with the still peaceful demonstrators. Assad thundered back, in effect stating, “it’s my way or the highway,” demanding they support his crackdown.

On behalf of Hamas, Mashal refused to obey, promptly moving Hamas’ main office from Damascus to Qatar, where it remains today. As a result, Hamas remained estranged from Iran’s “Axis of Resistance” coalition for years afterward.

In contradiction, Nasrallah led Hezbollah into a needless civil war in Syria, massacring thousands in Qusayr, Aleppo, around Damascus and elsewhere. Hezbollah’s intervention even included the use of starvation in Madaya and Zabadani — where militia members on loan to the Assad regime laid siege to opposition enclaves and mocked their starvation with social media posts of banquets boasting the hashtag “in solidarity with Madaya.”

Before the rebel victory, Hezbollah was admired among both Sunni and Shia populations throughout the Arab world. Still, their intervention on behalf of this ruthless sectarian regime poisoned relations between different religious and ethnic groups for years. Only in recent years did those divisions begin to ease, largely due to how destructive they were throughout the region.

Syria’s past, present and future

As long as Assad was in power, no path forward was open for Syria. He devastated the country instead of relinquishing any control. At least half a million Syrians died in the process. Before Assad’s fall, as many as half of all Syrians were displaced — about 12 million in total — scattered throughout the country, Turkey, Germany and multiple other safe havens.

Syria was reduced to a bankrupt narco-state, led by a regime financed by smuggling Captagon on international drug markets. Bashar al-Assad’s regime never confronted Israel directly. Syria’s military stopped fighting for its external defense decades ago, including for the liberation of occupied Golan. Like every other Arab military, Syria’s existed only to oppress its own population. That ended when its soldiers voted with their feet and put an end to the oppression.

What now? The Assad regime was brutal and useless to everyone, including Syria, Lebanon and Palestine. From Syria’s perspective, external powers such as Turkey, Russia, Iran, Israel and the United States will happily manipulate or even dismember Syria for their own state or imperial interests. Israel has already underscored that point over the past few days, seizing several villages in Golan’s Mt. Hermon as a “buffer zone” and mounting a punishing new bombing campaign.

However, Syria’s people have agency. Against all expectations and after a lengthy civil war, they recently shattered this brutal regime with astonishing speed, without incurring massive civilian casualties and without significant external support. They put an end to the Iranian regime’s cynical game of defending their own interests in Syria while using Arabs as cannon fodder. By liberating Syria, they shattered the Arab republican dictatorship model of governance.

For the first time in decades, the people of Syria have a chance for a future. Syrians have long had to emigrate abroad to succeed, and many who did so made remarkable achievements. Now, they have an opportunity to build a country that can harness the talents of its people. That alone is worth celebrating today and fighting for tomorrow — but for this liberation to succeed, external powers must exercise restraint and let the Syrian people chart their own future.

[Joey T. McFadden edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post The Axis of Resistance: Fault Lines and Fallout appeared first on Fair Observer.

The Assad regime recently collapsed after opposition groups like Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and Syrian National Forces (SNF), backed by Turkey, launched a military push. At the same time, Russia and Iran reduced this support for Assad. This shift offers a glimmer of hope for a nation scarred by war and oppression. 

With the fall of the Assad regime, Syria has effectively come under the de facto influence of Turkey and Israel. The October 7 events, when Hamas launched a large-scale attack on Israel, further weakened Iran’s axis of resistance and its strategic project aimed at undermining Israel, delivering a significant blow to Iran. The attack triggered a full-scale war, leading to devastating Israeli retaliatory strikes on Gaza and escalating regional tensions.

Additionally, Russia anchored its foothold in the Middle East through a close alliance with the Assad regime and a naval base in Latakia, which gave it access to the Mediterranean. This allowed Russia to project power in the region and counter Western influence directly. The loss of this strategic leverage has diminished Russia’s ability to maintain a strong presence and shape events in the Middle East. 

Turkey and Israel stand to benefit from this new dynamic. They will use their influence to combat terrorist organizations within Syrian borders.

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham: savior or threat?

Bashar al-Assad’s father, Hafez al-Assad, established the Assad regime in 1971 and entrenched a model of authoritarian rule centered on the Baʿath Party and the military security apparatus. Hafez consolidated power through ruthless suppression. He favored sectarian divisions and had an extensive patronage network. Bashar al-Assad succeeded his father in 2000. He initially offered hope for reform but quickly reverted to autocracy. The authorities brutally cracked down on the 2011 Arab Spring protests. The war plunged Syria into a devastating civil war. Assad’s regime, backed by Iran, Hezbollah and Russia, clung to power through scorched-earth tactics. They massively used chemical weapons and a campaign of mass terror.

At the forefront of the opposition is HTS. It traces back to al-Nusra Front, an al-Qaeda affiliate that emerged in 2012 during the early years of the Syrian conflict. Initially committed to global jihad, the group rebranded itself as HTS in 2017 under the leadership of Abu Mohammed al-Jolani. It declared a break from al-Qaeda and positioned itself as a nationalist force focused on Syria’s liberation.

Over the years, HTS has transitioned from a shadowy jihadist group to the dominant force in Syria’s northwest. It achieved a level of military and administrative control unmatched by other opposition factions. Its leadership claims a commitment to inclusive governance and minority rights, but its history of draconian social policies and sectarian leanings undermines these assertions.

Despite its pivotal role in Assad’s ouster, HTS faces challenges in gaining legitimacy. Turkey, the United States and other international actors still designate it as a terrorist organization. This limits HTS’s ability to secure external support. Allegations of corruption, intimidation and arbitrary detention have marred its governance in areas under its control. Moreover, its Islamist orientation raises alarms about the safety of Syria’s minority communities, particularly Alawites and Christians.

The fall of Assad is a blow to Iran and Russia’s regional ambitions

Iran’s intervention in Syria’s civil war after the Arab Spring was critical in sustaining the Assad regime. Qasem Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), was instrumental in Iran’s involvement. Soleimani coordinated a network of militias, including Hezbollah from Lebanon and other Shiite paramilitary groups from Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, to bolster Assad’s forces. His maneuvers in battles, such as the recapture of Aleppo in 2016, not only saved Assad’s government but also cemented Iran’s influence in Syria.

Iran invested billions of dollars in Syria, financing military operations and rebuilding infrastructure in areas under Assad’s control. This financial and material backing was coupled with an extensive military presence, including IRGC forces, advisors and bases across Syria. Syria became a conduit for Iranian support to Hezbollah, enabling Tehran to transfer advanced weaponry, including missiles and drones, to its Lebanese proxy. Establishing weapons factories and logistical hubs in Syrian territory allowed Iran to bypass international sanctions and enhance Hezbollah’s military capabilities.

The fall of Assad’s regime dismantled the axis of resistance that Tehran painstakingly built. Following the October 7 escalation and the broader war with Israel, Hamas suffered devastating losses, and its leadership, including Yahya Sinwar and Ismail Haniyeh, was eliminated. Hezbollah, already stretched thin from years of engagement in Syria, faced intensified Israeli retaliation that crippled its command structure. During this period, Israel killed Hassan Nasrallah, the secretary-general of Hezbollah, dealing a symbolic and operational blow to the group.

Moqtada-al Sadr, a Shiite cleric and leader of the Sadrist Movement in Iraq, refused to stand by Assad during his downfall, underscoring Tehran’s waning influence, even among its Shiite allies. Among Iran’s loyal partners, only the Houthi movement in Yemen remains severely curtailing Iran’s ability to project power in the region.

Now, Iran faces the prospect of direct confrontation with Israel, which has set its sights on Tehran’s nuclear infrastructure. The fall of Assad underscores Iran’s growing vulnerability. Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, may confront the possibility that it could be the next target in a reshaped Middle East dominated by Israeli and Turkish influence.

Russia’s intervention in Syria, beginning in 2015, was a game-changer for the Assad regime. Vladimir Putin aimed to stabilize Assad’s rule and preserve Moscow’s influence in the Middle East by deploying airpower and special forces. Russian military support, including the bombing campaigns in Aleppo and Idlib, turned the tide of the war in Assad’s favor. Putin also leveraged diplomatic efforts, such as the Astana peace talks, to secure Russia’s position as a key power broker in the conflict.

Syria was more than an ally for Russia — it was a strategic asset. The naval base at Tartus and the airbase at Hmeimim allowed Moscow to project power into the Mediterranean to counterbalance NATO’s presence.

Syria represented a symbolic victory for Putin’s broader geopolitical strategy. It demonstrated Russia’s resurgence as a global power capable of challenging the West, especially after the annexation of Crimea and tensions in Ukraine.

The collapse of Assad’s regime undermines Russia’s ambitions in the region. The loss of its military bases jeopardizes Moscow’s ability to counterbalance NATO and maintain a foothold in the Mediterranean.

Alexander Dugin, known as Putin’s “brain,” has remarked that the fall of Assad symbolizes a collapse of Moscow’s ability to shape outcomes in the Middle East. This failure, he argues, is a profound setback for Putin’s vision of a multipolar world where Russia stands as a counterweight to Western dominance.

Moreover, the downfall of the Assad regime questions Russia’s reliability as an ally. It parallels the US withdrawal from Afghanistan and the Taliban’s subsequent rise to power. Just as the chaotic exit from Kabul signaled a blow to American credibility, Assad’s fall marks a significant setback for Russia’s regional strategy. For Putin, the challenge now is twofold: to salvage Russia’s position in the Middle East and to manage the domestic fallout from another costly foreign venture that failed.

Turkey and Israel as Syria’s de facto decision-makers

Before Bashar al-Assad came to power, Israel’s relationship with Syria was full of hostility and conflict. Syria, under Hafez al-Assad, supported Hezbollah in Lebanon and harbored Palestinian militant organizations. Israel captured the Golan Heights during the Six-Day War in 1967, and it has remained a focal point of tension. Syria demands its return, while Israel prioritizes its strategic importance for security.

The 1990s saw limited attempts at peace negotiations, including the 1991 Madrid Conference and subsequent talks mediated by the US. However, these efforts failed to yield a breakthrough due to mutual distrust and irreconcilable differences over the Golan Heights.

When Bashar al-Assad assumed power, hopes for reform and improved relations with Israel were quickly dashed. Assad’s regime deepened its alliance with Iran. He continued providing support to Hezbollah. Then, the Syrian Civil War entrenched hostility as Assad’s government accused Israel of backing rebel factions.

Israel primarily focused its involvement in the Syrian conflict on countering Iranian influence and preventing the transfer of advanced weaponry to Hezbollah. Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) targeted Iranian bases, arms depots, and convoys. IDF has admitted to hundreds of strikes targeting Iranian and Hezbollah positions to prevent arms transfers and deter threats near its borders. 

With the fall of the Asad regime, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has hailed it as a pivotal moment in Middle Eastern geopolitics. It marks a continuation of Israel’s strategic policies aimed at dismantling terrorist organizations and curbing Iran’s influence in the region. Netanyahu’s celebration is not merely symbolic; it underscores Israel’s proactive stance in shaping the Middle East. Israel sends a clear message that it will not tolerate any actor that threatens its sovereignty or regional stability.

Netanyahu explicitly warned the new leaders of Syria that they must not emulate Assad’s policies, cautioning that they would face the same fate if they did. Israel’s post-Assad policies should include:

• Preventing the Iranian regime’s entrenchment.
• Securing the Golan Heights to prevent cross-border attacks.
• Collaborating with international partners, especially Turkey, to support a political solution that prioritizes regional security and limits the resurgence of extremist factions.

Turkey has experienced shifting dynamics in its relationship with the Assad regime. Initially, Ankara and Damascus shared a pragmatic relationship during the late 1990s and early 2000s, as both countries sought to resolve border disputes and enhance economic ties. The Adana Agreement of 1998, which led to Syria expelling the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) — designated as a terrorist organization by the US, EU, Turkey and Israel — leader Abdullah Öcalan exemplified this period of cooperation. However, the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War in 2011 caused a significant rift. President Erdoğan openly opposed Assad’s brutal crackdown on protesters and began supporting opposition groups.

Turkey became a key supporter of SNF to bolster their fight against Assad. Turkey’s military operations, such as Euphrates Shield, Olive Branch and Peace Spring, were aimed at establishing a buffer zone along its southern border. These operations targeted ISIS and Kurdish terrorist organizations. They also indirectly benefited factions such as HTS, which capitalized on the chaos to expand their influence in northern Syria.

In the post-Assad era, Turkey’s ambition to expand its regional influence is evident in its efforts to position itself as a key power broker in Syria. Alongside Israel to shape the postwar order, Turkey has established de facto Turkish-administered zones in northern Syria, complete with Turkish schools, hospitals, and currency.

As a NATO member, Turkey’s active role in Syria enhances the alliance’s presence in the Middle East as it counters Russian and Iranian influence. Ankara’s strategic location and military capabilities make it a pivotal regional player. Turkey aligns its interests with those of NATO while pursuing its national objectives.

Neutralizing Kurdish threats and managing the refugee crisis are central to Ankara’s agenda. Turkey has committed to continued operations aimed at dismantling Kurdish terrorist organizations to ensure that they do not exploit the post-Assad vacuum to establish a foothold near its borders. 

[Liam Roman edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Assad’s Fall Starts a New Era in the Middle East appeared first on Fair Observer.

The Indian Constituent Assembly, a body of elected representatives tasked with drafting the Indian Constitution after India gained independence from British rule in 1947, modeled the Indian Union legislature after the British “sovereign” Parliament, making Parliament the supreme legislative body in India. This decision prevented the Supreme Court, the highest judicial authority in India, from having equal status with Parliament. The Assembly designed the SC to be a weak, subordinate institution. The Indian Constitution, under Article 368, allowed Parliament to override SC judgments by making constitutional amendments. This arrangement ensured that the SC could not challenge Parliament’s decisions effectively.

Indian legal tradition inherited the British approach of Austinian Positivism, a legal theory associated with the British philosopher John Austin, which focused strictly on formal legal rules and interpretations. This approach placed too much emphasis on adhering to strict legal formalism, rather than considering broader moral or social concerns, further limiting the flexibility of Indian jurisprudence and weakening the role of the SC.

When the SC began its work in 1950, it did not receive strong support from the public. Many viewed it as an elitist institution with no clear mandate from the people. This perception worsened after the SC’s early clashes with the government in the 1960s and 1970s. In response, the Indian Parliament used its power to amend the Constitution to limit the SC’s influence. Parliament introduced several changes, including the Ninth Schedule and Articles 31B and 31C, along with the 24th, 25th and 29th Amendments. These amendments allowed Parliament to bypass minor delays caused by the SC’s judicial reviews, encouraging the SC to avoid directly challenging the central government.

The SC’s landmark Kesavananda Bharti case (1973), which established the Basic Structure Doctrine, limited Parliament’s ability to amend the Constitution. However, this ruling led to hostility from the executive branch. The government responded by superseding senior judges when appointing the Chief Justice of India and strategically filling the Court with judges who were more sympathetic to the government’s views.

The Emergency

The Emergency period (1975-77) saw a further increase in the government’s power. This was a turbulent and controversial time when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi declared a state of emergency across the country, citing internal disturbances. The government used this period to consolidate power and curtail political opposition. During the Emergency, civil liberties were suspended, and a number of democratic practices were suppressed, including censorship of the press and the imprisonment of political leaders. The executive branch, led by the Prime Minister, was able to operate with increased authority, while the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, faced pressures that limited its independence.

The 40th, 41st and 42nd Constitutional Amendment Acts played a pivotal role in altering the balance of power between the branches of government. These amendments were designed to limit the scope of judicial review, reducing the Court’s ability to challenge government actions and decisions. One of the most controversial measures during the Emergency was the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), which allowed the government to detain individuals without trial. MISA was often used to suppress political dissent by imprisoning opposition leaders, activists, and anyone deemed a threat to the government’s authority.

The Supreme Court’s failure to intervene against the government’s use of preventive detention and other authoritarian measures during this time significantly damaged its credibility. Its reluctance to challenge abuses under MISA, notably in cases like that of Shiv Kant Shukla, who was detained under the Act, led to widespread criticism. In these cases, the Court largely upheld the actions of the government, failing to protect the civil liberties of citizens. This contributed to a perception of the judiciary as a “regime court”—an institution that not only failed to defend fundamental rights but also seemed complicit in supporting the government’s authoritarian agenda. The Emergency period, thus, marked a period of heightened executive power, limited judicial independence and widespread repression of political freedoms.

After the Emergency

The post-Emergency era ushered in a new age of judicial activism in India. During this time, the Supreme Court played an active role in shaping public policy and ensuring government accountability. A key development in this period was the rise of Public Interest Litigations (PILs), which allowed citizens and organizations to file cases on behalf of public causes. This expanded the reach of the judiciary and increased public access to the courts, making it easier for individuals to seek judicial intervention in matters of public concern.

In an attempt to restore public trust and confidence in the judiciary, the SC broadened the interpretation of Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. Article 32 guarantees the right to constitutional remedies, allowing individuals to approach the SC if they believe their fundamental rights have been violated. By expanding this article’s interpretation, the SC widened the scope of locus standi, which refers to the legal standing or right to bring a case to court. Traditionally, only those directly affected by an issue had the standing to file a case, but the SC’s interpretation allowed both private and public interests to seek judicial relief. This meant that citizens, social organizations or even associations could now bring cases to the court on behalf of the general public.

In what can be described as a “classic Marbury move” (referring to the landmark Marbury v. Madison case in the United States, which established the principle of judicial review), the SC’s S.P. Gupta v. Union of India verdict in 1981 endorsed the standing for PILs. This case marked a shift in the Court’s approach, as it allowed public interest cases to be brought before the judiciary even if the petitioner was not directly affected. Following this, in Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India (1981), the SC assumed new roles of oversight and accountability, holding national and state entities to higher standards. The judgment established that citizens could challenge government actions and policies that were in violation of the public good.

By putting the PIL system into operation, the SC allowed all cases filed by citizens or organizations to be heard, even if they were not directly impacted by the issue at hand. This significantly broadened the scope of the judiciary’s involvement in public welfare and reinforced the judiciary’s role in ensuring government accountability.

Expansion of PILs

Throughout the 1980s, the Supreme Court of India significantly expanded its powers in Public Interest Litigation, which allowed the Court to take proactive actions in cases that concerned the public welfare. The SC introduced a concept in the Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Gujarat case, which became known as “remedies without rights.” This innovative approach allowed the SC to issue mandamus (orders requiring the government to act) in PIL cases without providing a conclusive verdict, allowing the Court to maintain continuous oversight in these cases. This flexibility made it possible for the SC to address social issues more effectively, even without the usual formalities of concluding a case.

In another landmark case, Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, the SC further expanded access to justice by relaxing the standing requirements for filing PILs. The SC began accepting letters from individuals, social groups or any third-party litigant as legal petitions, thus allowing broader participation in the judicial process. This helped increase the Court’s role in addressing social justice issues, especially those affecting marginalized groups.

The SC also asserted its authority over the judicial appointment process. In the First Judges Case the SC had ruled that the executive had the final say in judicial appointments. However, in the Third Judges Case, the SC reversed this decision and established that the judiciary itself would have control over appointing judges. This decision greatly strengthened the independence of the judiciary in India.

During this period, the SC became more assertive in addressing corruption and maladministration. In the Jain Hawala Bribery Case, the SC took a strong stance in tackling corruption, even as it faced political pressure. The SC also played a critical role in protecting the right to information in cases such as Association of Democratic Reforms v. Union of India. In this case, the SC upheld the right of voters to access information about the criminal and financial records of candidates running for Parliament or state legislatures, ensuring transparency in the electoral process.

The SC further defended the right to information in the case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India, a case which also led the Court to declare the right to food as an integral part of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, and the SC’s decision broadened its scope to include the right to adequate food, emphasizing the state’s responsibility to ensure citizens’ basic needs are met.

In cases related to environmental protection, such as the Godavarman Case, the SC took on a quasi-administrative role. The Court set up a high-powered committee to act as its fact-finding arm in overseeing forest conservation efforts. This led some scholars to refer to the SC as a virtual Ministry of Forests, highlighting its increasingly active role in policy matters beyond traditional judicial functions.

Additionally, the SC took a leading role in human rights protection and played an essential part in police reforms. In the Prakash Singh verdict (2006), the Court issued directives for reforming police institutions to ensure accountability, transparency and the protection of citizens’ rights.

In RK Garg v. Union of India, the SC upheld the Special Bearer Bond (Immunities and Exceptions) Ordinance Act of 1981, which allowed the government to combat black money in the economy. The SC ruled that the Act did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the law. This decision supported the government’s efforts to curb illegal wealth and improve financial transparency.

Despite the Supreme Court’s growing activism, it did not undermine parliamentary supremacy, even as it carved out a more active role in governance. While the SC became a key player in shaping public policy, it still avoided directly challenging the central government. The SC adopted a selective approach to assertiveness, supporting key government policies when needed. During the 1980s, the SC upheld the socialist-statist policies of the Congress Party, which was in power at the time. These policies emphasized state control over the economy and social welfare programs. Later, in 1991, when the P.V. Narasimha Rao government introduced liberalization, privatization, and globalization (often referred to as the LPG reforms), the SC did not challenge these pro-market reforms but instead supported their implementation. This marked a shift from state control to a more market-driven economy, with the SC playing a supportive, rather than confrontational, role in the changes.

The decline of Parliament

In the 1990s, the Indian Parliament became increasingly incapacitated due to the decline of one-party dominance, the rise of regional parties, the birth of coalition politics and a series of weak coalition governments. This shift in the political landscape allowed the Supreme Court to shed its previous criticisms as a regime court. With Parliament’s diminished power and authority, the SC took a more active role in governance.

The SC used Public Interest Litigations as a tool to assume new oversight and accountability functions, intervening whenever governmental institutions, including Parliament, violated or failed to uphold the Constitution and laws of India. The SC began to act as a central, prominent and active player in decision-making for both state and national entities.

As the apex court of India, the Supreme Court played a pivotal role in policymaking, defending civil and human rights and protecting vulnerable groups in society. It expanded educational rights, recognizing access to education as a fundamental right, and provided interim relief to poor prisoners while initiating reforms to improve prison conditions. The Court asserted the rights of prisoners and marginalized populations, ensuring their rights were respected. It introduced development and affirmative action policies to uplift disadvantaged communities and worked to curb state repression of human rights, holding the government accountable for violations. In the landmark Maneka Gandhi case, the Court expanded the interpretation of fundamental rights, broadening the protection of personal freedoms. Additionally, the Court addressed the issue of bonded labor, aiming to eliminate forced labor in India, and played a significant role in enforcing environmental policies, handling key cases like the Delhi Pollution Case, the Taj Mahal Pollution Case, and the Shriram Fertilizer Case, which tackled industrial pollution and its harmful environmental effects.

In these ways, the SC recognized its growing influence and power, becoming a crucial institution in protecting rights, holding the government accountable and shaping public policy.

SLPs and the judicialization of governance

The judicialization of governance in India reflects the journey of the Supreme Court, which evolved from a court struggling to assert its relevance to one that plays a central role in political and policy discussions in India. This transformation has made the SC a key player in shaping the country’s laws and governance. However, this evolution is not without its complications. One of the key challenges faced by the assertive SC is its failure at self-restraint—the difficulty in balancing its expansive jurisdiction with the need for institutional efficiency.

Raeesa Vakil, a lawyer and legal commentator, discusses this issue in her contribution titled “Jurisdiction” in The Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution. Vakil expresses concern over the SC’s broadening role, pointing out the blatant imbalance in its jurisdiction. This refers to the SC’s increasing involvement in both policymaking and governance, sometimes stepping into areas traditionally handled by the executive and legislature. Vakil questions whether the Court’s expanding power is in line with its constitutional mandate or whether it undermines the principle of separation of powers among the branches of government.

The Supreme Court, as the apex court of India’s unified and integrated judiciary, holds a central position in the country’s legal system. It exercises appellate jurisdiction over a range of cases, including constitutional cases, civil cases and criminal cases. These cases typically involve appeals from lower courts, where individuals or organizations seek to challenge or review lower court rulings.

When the Constituent Assembly established the Supreme Court, it imposed strict restrictions on the types of cases the Court could hear. The primary concern was that if the Court had too broad a jurisdiction, it could become overwhelmed by appeals and ultimately collapse under the weight of the caseload. These restrictions were designed to act as filters, ensuring that the Supreme Court would only hear certain cases, including civil cases involving significant financial stakes, criminal cases involving a death sentence due to the severity and finality of such judgments, constitutional cases that raised important legal questions or impacted the public interest and cases certified by the High Courts for their importance.

In general, not all appeals have the automatic right to a hearing in the SC. The Court has discretion to choose which cases to entertain based on the above criteria.

Curiously, despite the SC’s original jurisdiction, appeals have come to form the core of its jurisprudence. A disproportionate amount of the SC’s caseload consists of Special Leave Petitions (SLP), which allow individuals or organizations to appeal a decision made by any lower court or tribunal in India. Shockingly, 88% of the cases heard by the SC are SLPs, highlighting the Court’s heavy reliance on its appellate role, rather than its original jurisdiction.

Over time, the Special Leave Petition has become a way for litigants to bypass the strict restrictions on appeals to the Supreme Court, allowing them to raise their grievances in the highest court in the land. This loophole has allowed more cases to reach the SC, despite the original limitations set by the Constituent Assembly to prevent the Court from becoming overwhelmed. Additionally, Parliament has gradually relaxed the qualifications for filing an SLP. For example, the 30th Amendment Act of 1972 removed the pecuniary threshold for civil cases, making it easier for civil appeals that raise substantial questions of law and public importance to be heard by the SC. Similarly, the Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1970 allowed all criminal cases resulting in a life sentence or imprisonment for more than ten years to automatically proceed to the SC.

Inefficiency within the Court

However, the intention to reduce the number of appeals through SLP has largely failed. This is because the SC has been unwilling to impose any restrictions on the SLP process, despite the burden of managing its vast jurisdiction. The SC has consistently defended the SLP process in an increasingly exaggerated manner, treating it as an “untrammeled” source of power that cannot be confined by clear definitions. The SC has resisted attempts to define the nature and scope of Article 136, which governs the SLP process, or to establish standard guidelines for the exercise of discretion in accepting or rejecting SLPs.

Moreover, Supreme Court jurisprudence has been shaped by the practice of division benches—two or more judges working together on a case. This system has led to a legacy of uncoordinated judgments, marked by inconsistency and discrepancies in the interpretation of law. As a result, the application of legal principles has been erratic, often influenced by emotional subjectivity when deciding whether to admit appeals under Article 136. This has led to arbitrary decision-making, with the criteria for accepting cases constantly evolving in unpredictable ways.

The absence of clear guidelines for how the SC should exercise its discretion in Special Leave Petitions has caused significant problems. Instead of maintaining its original purpose as a measure of last resort, the SLP process has become a normalized part of SC jurisprudence, with many cases routinely passing through the Court without sufficient restraint or consistent standards.The unequal expansion of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction has significantly contributed to the 300-year backlog of cases in the Court. While there has been much debate over the need for systemic reforms to address the burdens and structural issues of the SC, the judicial backlog is also a result of the jurisdictional imbalance in the Court’s role. In retrospect, the SC’s unwillingness to place limits on the number of petitions it hears has led to a loss of credibility in the judgments made by both higher courts and subordinate courts.

If parties involved in legal disputes can appeal to the SC for even the most trivial matters, what prevents someone from taking a menial issue all the way to the Court? The wide scope of the SC’s appellate jurisdiction—which allows it to have final authority to overturn decisions from lower courts—has left the subordinate courts with little power or control over their rulings.

In hindsight, the SC’s reluctance to better regulate its own jurisdiction has allowed it to maintain control over the entire judicial system in India, expanding its influence over national governance. However, this approach has also led to significant inefficiencies within the judiciary, as the SC becomes burdened with a massive number of appeals, leading to delays and a lack of timely justice.

While the Supreme Court’s ascendancy in governance has strengthened democracy and the system of checks and balances in India, the Court’s institutional insecurities regarding its hard-fought and hard-earned position have made it reluctant to reduce its jurisdiction. The SC’s failure to self-restrain is largely a result of the historical struggle it faced to gain a position of influence in the Indian government, especially in the context of the Westminster model of governance. In this environment, the SC had to fight for its independence and its role as a powerful institution. As a result, the SC’s growing pro-people activist stance—focusing on public welfare and rights—has come at the cost of its ability to function efficiently and manage its workload without being overwhelmed.

[Kaitlyn Diana edited this piece]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post From Subordination to Supremacy: The Indian Supreme Court’s Rise in Governance appeared first on Fair Observer.

A moral groundwork

From its inception, America has framed its defining conflicts as moral struggles to restore human and divine justice. For example, the Revolutionary War was not just a fight for independence; it was a battle against tyranny and a defense of individuals’ “unalienable rights endowed by a Creator” — a concept deeply influenced by Enlightenment philosopher John Locke. The Revolutionary War established core American values of individualism, egalitarianism and activism, values rooted in both Enlightenment ideals and Judeo-Christian principles that celebrate individual liberty and human dignity. These secular and spiritual ideals are embedded in foundational American documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

Similarly, the Civil War, while centering on economy and sovereignty, transformed into a moral crusade with President Abraham Lincoln’s opposition to slavery. By linking the war to the liberation of slaves, Lincoln set the groundwork for a United States based on equality and human dignity.

This moral foundation has defined America’s involvement in global conflicts throughout the 20th century. In both world wars, America intervened not merely out of self-interest but out of a sense of duty to preserve democracy, aligning national interests with moral responsibility. President Franklin D. Roosevelt framed America’s fight against Nazism and fascism as a battle between good and evil, reinforcing the nation’s belief that democracy must prevail globally. Through its wartime efforts, America created a world order in which liberal values could thrive. The United Nations and its Universal Declaration of Human Rights are the fruits of that moral American vision whose legacy has defined international order to this day.

The Cold War further emphasized America’s commitment to spreading liberal democracy. In contrast to the communist ideology that elevated the leviathanic state above the individual, America championed the right of every human being to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Democratic and Republican presidents, from John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan, equally emphasized the importance of this moral vision in the free world’s fight against communism. That philosophical commitment, more than mere technological or economic might, helped America win the Cold War and led to the spread of democratic governance across the world.

The loss of morality

Today, however, US foreign policy is increasingly abandoning its moral vision. This decline stems from a significant drop in bipartisan support for promoting democracy worldwide. Domestic challenges, along with perceived failures in recent nation-building efforts abroad, have dampened the American public’s and policymakers’ interest in promoting democracy overseas. This shift has triggered an isolationist trend in US foreign policy arguably unseen since the 1930s.

Because America’s global influence is built on not just military might or economic power, but a moral mission, the recent reluctance to follow that path risks undermining a legacy carefully built following WWII. By stepping back from the world stage, America risks creating a power vacuum that authoritarian regimes are eager to fill, leaving a more isolated US vulnerable to new threats in the long term.

When President Barack Obama refrained from supporting democratic uprisings in Iran and Syria, he left in the lurch populations striving for freedom against brutal dictatorships, undermining American credibility. Similarly, President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan ceded control back to the Taliban, reversing years of progress in women’s rights and civil liberties. Now, President-Elect Donald Trump may reduce support for Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression when he goes back to the White House in January 2025. US foreign policy risks yet another retreat — one that could determine the fate of Ukraine’s sovereignty and, by extension, the resilience of democracy in Europe.

If Ukraine falls to Russian aggression, it could destabilize much of Eastern and Northern Europe and set a dangerous precedent for the unchecked expansion of the Kremlin’s authoritarianism westward. This scenario would ripple across the region, threatening the democratic security of the Baltic states, the Caucasus and potentially Central Europe, posing the gravest challenge to democracy in Western Europe since World War II.

A collapse of democratic resistance in Ukraine could also embolden China to expand its influence in the Asia-Pacific. If America and its allies hesitate in Europe, Beijing might seize the opportunity to assert dominance over Taiwan and pressure Japan, while North Korea could feel encouraged to take aggressive steps toward South Korea. The effects could reach as far as India and Australia. Such outcomes would jeopardize decades of democratic progress in the Indo-Pacific and destabilize an entire region critical to global economy and security.

In addition to these risks, a potential US withdrawal from NATO would not only embolden external adversaries but could also fracture Europe internally. This move could empower pro-Russian factions within the European Union to pursue closer ties with Moscow, sidelining pro-democracy and pro-American parties. An eastward European shift would strain Washington and lay the groundwork for a strategic encirclement of the United States.

Given the rise of authoritarianism worldwide, the US must renew its commitment to human rights and democracy. While both Democrats and Republicans may hesitate to champion liberal values abroad, now more than ever, the US needs to reset its moral compass, recommit to its moral foundations in foreign policy, and prioritize the promotion of democratic ideals in the world. This renewed commitment to democracy in foreign policy is essential for preserving America’s global leadership but also critical for keeping the world a freer and safer place.

[Kaitlyn Diana edited this piece]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post American Foreign Policy Needs to Reset Its Moral Compass appeared first on Fair Observer.

This simple maxim is, in its two separate clauses, the nursery and the gallows of every piece of progressive judicial activism that has ever been forced upon an unwitting populace. Social change that is founded solely upon the whims of judges may be undone by the whims of contrary judges and there is no legitimate reason to gainsay the reaction.

The left loves judicial progressivism because it is a method tailor-made to enforce social engineering from the top down. This is always the primary means of social engineering, but when social engineering is done by things like a monarch’s religious conversion, as was the reason for the adoption of Christianity by tribes wholesale, or legislation, as was the case with things like the Civil Rights Act, there is a sense of legitimacy. There’s a feeling that the wheels of state are turning how they are supposed to. The sovereign is acting in its sovereign capacity and making decisions.

But with judicial activism, you don’t have this veneer of legitimacy because courts are not and never have been sovereign in any society. Power is sovereign. Whether power resides in the popular will or the divine mandate of kings, it doesn’t reside on the bench. United States President Andrew Jackson noted quite correctly when he stated, “[The chief justice] has his decision, now let him enforce it,” that rulings issued must be carried out, and judges don’t take their robes off to see their orders executed. And when one court issues an order, a new court can simply undo it using the exact same powers as the first did to enact it.

With President-Elect Donald Trump’s second victory, he will almost certainly have the opportunity to appoint at least one, but likely more, Supreme Court justices during this next term. Some of the elderly conservative judges will likely retire to make sure there’s no chance of a Democrat appointing their successor, as Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg so critically erred in not doing so before her death. There may be some opportune vacancies among the liberal judges, who are no spring chickens, either.

What will be done with these spoils of victory? I think two things that are likely to be dispensed with are Obergefell v. Hodges, the case that enacted nationwide gay marriage, and the assumption that the 14th Amendment provides for birthright citizenship to all persons born upon the US’s magic dirt.

Obliterating Obergefell v. Hodges

Obergefell v. Hodges is an easy one to dismantle. The decision is ludicrous in its reasoning and was meant to be a progressive high-watermark of the Barack Obama administration’s attempts to remake the country. Finding a fundamental right to homosexual marriage in the US constitution is simple wishing. It was not based on the much more procedurally solid grounds of building out full faith and credit requirements to all other states based upon the states that had already enacted homosexual marriage in 2015; it was based on a desire to find a “fundamental right” no one ever knew of before 2015.

That is, there is a requirement already in the constitution that each state give “full faith and credit” to the rulings, licenses, orders etc, of every other state. By 2015, 37 states had already legalized homosexual marriage through their regular lawmaking process. Instead of determining that because of this, all states must give full faith and credit to homosexual marriages enacted in the states that allowed them, and recognize the marriages, the Court got hasty. In its scramble to signal its progressive bonafides, it determined that there was a fundamental right hidden in the constitution that no one had ever noticed before.

How will this be undone? Simple: The second Trump court will get a case challenging Obergefell v. Hodges and the justices now will say, “No, there clearly isn’t a hidden right.” Wash hands, go home, have dinner, done.

Setting the record straight on the 14th Amendment

The presumption that the 14th Amendment provides for birthright citizenship will be tougher because it has more than a decade of inertia behind it. But where there’s the will — and there appears to be — there’s a way. But what is that way? The amendment says, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Seems clear, doesn’t it? If you’re born under the jurisdiction of the US, you’re a citizen, end of story.

Except no, of course it isn’t. It wasn’t that way for three-quarters of a century in practice. That pesky subordinate clause, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” may seem like it just means that if the US can impose its law upon you, you’re qualified.

It didn’t mean that way at the time, however. It didn’t mean that until the executive agencies, that pesky administrative state I’ve opined on at length numerous times, began actually issuing citizenship papers to anchor babies in 1929. What the hell was going on before then? Well, the US was doing exactly what every state had been doing since time immemorial and gatekeeping citizenship to its own people, that’s what.

Senator Lyman Trumbull, one of the key framers of the 14th Amendment, was exceptionally clear that its intention was to give the assurance of citizenship to freed black slaves in the South, and not just anyone who happened by, because “subject to the jurisdiction of” meant owing allegiance to. A freed black slave whose ancestors had been in the US for 300 years owed allegiance in a way that a Mexican illegal immigrant today simply does not.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, often cited as the case that defined birthright citizenship, was not decided for another 30 years. When it was, its result was decided because Wong, the son of Chinese legal residents, did not owe allegiance to the Empire of China any longer. 

Even this decision did not grant citizenship to the children of Native American tribes, which happened by special legislation in 1924. Why? Because tribes are sovereigns; their members do not first owe loyalty to the US, but to their tribe. This is why the major Native American tribes have also seen fit to issue their own declarations of war when the US has gone to war against, say, Germany in 1918.

So even today, a Native American is not a citizen of the US as well as a citizen of their tribe because of the 14th Amendment or because of United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Rather, they are because of special legislation that allows the children of a subsidiary sovereign, a vassal, to also be a citizen of the country. The 14th Amendment’s supposed provision of birthright citizenship to illegal aliens and foreigners is not nearly as ironclad as popular leftist publications and commenters would have you think.

And why should it be? Even today, it does not apply to the children of foreign ambassadors who happen to be born in the US during their parents’ tenure. Why? Because their parents do not owe this country loyalty and thus are not subject to its jurisdiction. But based on the popular maximalist take on the 14th Amendment, it should.

Birthright citizenship must end

Consider the absurdity that is nested in such a maximalist position. Let’s suppose that an actual invading army lands on US shores and sets up a beachhead base. Within that army’s camp followers, they have intentionally brought 10,000 heavily pregnant women. Once established, they induce labor, causing each woman to give birth. Under the current liberal understanding of the 14th Amendment, that enemy camp now has at least 10,000 US citizens in it. They were born here illegally, yes, but they were still born here regardless. They’re on our soil, and thus are subject to our laws. They’re citizens.

Can we attack that armed camp? Remember, a US citizen cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property by the government without due process of law. Will we refuse to attack the army occupying our soil because it has within it US citizens? Or will we understand that they’re not US citizens, and infants or not, they’re manipulation tactics meant to facilitate the extraction and expropriation of resources from the native populace? Let the reader understand here.

Birthright citizenship will end because it is not the intention of the text. It will end because it must end. In the opposite direction of repealing birthright citizenship is, ultimately, the necessary conclusion: Every person on the planet is a US citizen that simply doesn’t know it yet or simply hasn’t had the correct paperwork done yet. It’s not even that wild of an argument to make.

For the better part of the last century and all of the current one, we’ve been enforcing US laws and interests around the globe. So in a very real way, based on the current liberal understanding, all of the planet is subject to US jurisdiction and thus every person is a US citizen-in-waiting.

Is the US a nation that, like every other nation that has ever existed, is made up of a particular people with a particular culture occupying a particular place? Or is it an economic zone that you just need the right papers and stamps to be legal in, thus giving you the same right to the bounty as those whose ancestors tamed the land and built it? This is a critical question that Trump must answer decisively by heavily curtailing the ability for just anyone to be grafted into this vine. 

I hope he has the constitution for it.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Judicial Fiat and the 14th Amendment appeared first on Fair Observer.

Every nation-state in Europe has such a national historical narrative. Everyone has been taught about the people and events that built their nation. Perhaps most importantly, these narratives determine what lands and people belong within the state. For younger nations, this process resonates strongly in people’s minds. Most other European nations, however, established their own narratives long ago.

A frenzy is taking place among students, academics and intellectuals looking to rewrite the course of Ukrainian history in a way that empowers an independent, European Ukraine and, above all, denies Russia’s claims over its territory. This situation is highly understandable. After all, to justify his invasion Vladimir Putin concocted his own historical narrative about Ukraine. His long-winded article “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians,” written in mid-2021, depicted Ukraine (and Belarus) as culturally inseparable from Russia. For Putin, his piece serves to delegitimize Ukrainian nationhood and justifies Russia’s right to intervene. For Ukraine, refuting Putin’s narrative is paramount. However, the history of Ukrainian territory as a junction for cultural and political exchanges makes this an intricate task.

Caught between empires

As the American historian Timothy Snyder impressively illustrated over a 23-part lecture series in 2022 (all available on Youtube), throughout the last 2000 years up until the mid-20th century, different parts of Ukraine came under the control of different countries at different times. Despite this, three important periods stand out in Ukrainian history, which the country could draw upon to be cornerstones of its national story. Chronologically, these periods are Kievan Rus’ (c. 880–1240), the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1569–1795) and Austrian Galicia (1772–1918). This complexity means that drawing one narrative from one part of Ukraine may negate another narrative from another part. For example, stating that Crimea and Donbas belong to the modern Ukrainian nation, while also claiming a common history with Poland leads to difficulty. Identifying one single narrative of Ukrainian nationhood that encompasses all of contemporary Ukraine’s recognized borders is impossible.

Starting in the Middle Ages, the story of Kievan Rus’ marks the first major European state ruled from Kyiv. It was huge, stretching from the Black Sea to Finland, and was founded by Norsemen. This period saw the East Slavic peoples adopt Orthodox Christianity. However, as a pan-East Slavic state, its legacy is too closely shared with modern Russia to function as Ukraine’s main national origin story. At that time, the East Slavic peoples were much closer than they are today; they all spoke similar dialects and had similar customs. Crucially, Putin himself is currently using this story to justify his own narrative on Russian and Ukrainian unity.

Another period in question is Austrian Galicia, where a part of western Ukraine came under Habsburg control as part of the Austrian and later Austro-Hungarian empire. For the time, the region had considerable autonomy, and much Ukrainian nation-building, such as newly distinct Ukrainian literature, took place during this time and space. However, since most of modern-day Ukraine lay in the Russian empire during that time, Austrian Galicia was too small to be used as the main historical cornerstone for the whole Ukrainian nation. 

This leaves the period of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Another vast state stretching from the Baltic Sea almost to the Black Sea, the Commonwealth encompassed much of modern-day western and central Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania and Poland. Nominally a union between the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, towards the end of the period the state was also an early example of a constitutional, elected monarchy, characterized by great internal diversity. Indeed, most may not know that the state adopted Europe’s first written constitution — the May 3, 1791 Constitution — soon after the American and French Revolutions. Equally important is how the state met its end; between 1772 and 1795 the Commonwealth was carved up and partitioned by the absolutist monarchs of Prussia, Austria and Russia. Ukrainian lands were divided between the latter two. Poland and Lithuania would not exist as independent states again for another 124 years.

Lessons from the Commonwealth period

But where does Ukraine lie in all this? As an integral part of the Commonwealth, Ukrainians, referred to as “Ruthenians,” enjoyed certain religious freedoms, and Ruthenian lands and nobility were recognized as distinct and equal in rights to their Polish and Lithuanian counterparts. They were incorporated into a (proto) democratic European state, enabling them to draw on a legacy of Europeanness and democracy, but also victimhood at the hands of imperial Russia, by whom they were annexed. Whereas until 2014 Ukraine had been firmly tethered to Russia from a historical perspective, from this view Ukrainian history can be anchored externally in another neighboring country— Poland. As a modern, prosperous democracy in the EU, Poland’s success is what Ukraine also aspires for.

By granting Ukraine a degree of ownership of the legacy of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Poland will also benefit. Instead of another pro-Russian autocracy, like Belarus, Poland will have a friendly, democratic neighbor between it and Russia. Poland’s own history of Ukrainian oppression during the interwar period, perhaps its most painful source of historical guilt, will be overlooked in favor of common history and values. An example of this that comes to mind is when Poland and Ukraine co-hosted the UEFA Euro 2012 football championship, whose literal motto was “Creating History Together.” More recently, Poland’s overwhelming support for Ukraine has seen it take in millions of Ukrainian refugees and supply Ukraine with significant military and financial resources.

Maximum extent of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, c. 1619. Via Samotny Wędrowiec on Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0).

Shifting narratives westward

What does this rethought historical narrative mean for Ukraine’s future? First and foremost, by cutting threads with Russia, Soviet and imperial Russian history will be viewed through the lens of occupation and oppression, but also Ukraine’s overall triumph. Meanwhile, the linkage with Poland (and Lithuania) has worked to convince Ukrainians and other Europeans of Ukraine’s rightful place in European institutions (mainly the EU), bestow it with some valuable democratic credentials, and hopefully secure it from future Russian aggression by building solidarity with the rest of Europe. Outside of this Commonwealth legacy, importantly, are Crimea and southeastern Ukraine — areas currently under Russian occupation — as these lands never came under Polish rule.

Historical narratives are used in every country in the world to achieve societal harmony as well as political goals. Ukraine is no different. To pursue a European path it is necessary to convince people of Ukraine’s “Europeanness.” By emphasizing cultural and historical ties to Poland and EU values of democracy and tolerance, Ukraine is succeeding in pegging its tent in the European camp.

[Stephen Chilimidos edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post The (Re)Writing of Ukrainian History: Narratives and Legacies appeared first on Fair Observer.

Israel won that war and at least 750,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled from the new Israel and became refugees in surrounding and other countries. That enforced diaspora, including their descendants, now numbers approximately 6 million registered refugees plus a further 2.5 million unregistered.

Of the Palestinians who remained in Israel, and their descendants, approximately 2 million live in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, with a further 2.3 million in Gaza. Some Palestinians in the West Bank have Israeli citizenship while the majority have residency papers. Although many areas are officially designated as under administration by the independent Palestinian Authority, in reality, the entire West Bank is under Israeli military law.

Israel also won subsequent wars declared by a variety of Arab neighbors, in 1956, 1967 and 1973. Territorial gains for Israel included: part of Golan Heights (from Syria), part of Sinai (from Egypt, returned in a peace accord), Gaza (from Egypt, relinquished to autonomous Palestinian administration in another peace accord), and the West Bank and East Jerusalem (from Jordan).

In September 2024, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution condemning Israel’s continued occupation of Palestine and demanding it cease and desist. However, given Israel’s notorious decades-old contempt for the United Nations, and its ultimate rejection of all previous resolutions and internationally brokered attempts to secure Palestinian rights and nationhood (examples include the 1947 UN Resolution 181 (II), the 1993 and 1995 Oslo Accords, and the two-state solution), it is highly unlikely that Israel will comply.

Over two decades, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has never been more than equivocal about a two-state solution. Since 2015, he has rejected the idea and since 2023 has outright rejected any possibility of Palestinian statehood at all. By June 2024, despite Israel’s best efforts to deny Palestinians any claim to statehood, 146 out of the 193 nations of the UN had recognized Palestine as an independent state.

Intermittent Israeli military attacks and temporary occupation of large parts of Lebanon have also occurred on numerous occasions over decades. Many feared that the latest, from October 1 to November 26, 2024, ostensibly to eradicate Hezbollah rocket attacks on Israel, was also a “dry run” for an indefinite annexation of the southern half, if not the whole, of Lebanon.

Israel’s response to Hamas terror attack of October 7, 2023

Hamas’s savage cross-border terror attack from inside Gaza on Israeli settlements on October 7, 2023 inevitably provoked a justifiable Israeli military response. Israel sought to capture or kill the perpetrators, and then to eliminate the terrorist organization. Varying official estimates from different sources agree that at least 1,139 were killed by the October 7 attack, plus some 3,400 wounded and 251 (75% Israelis) captured and taken into Gaza. Of those captured and held as hostages, many have been confirmed dead, 105 were released by negotiation, and 2 were released by Israeli special forces, leaving 97 plus 4 others from earlier Hamas abductions currently still in captivity. 

Israel’s steadfast rejection over decades of a two-state solution, coupled with its demonstrable disregard for mass civilian casualties in its war on Gaza since October 7, 2023, has perplexed and infuriated long-standing allies of Israel. The gross disproportionality of the Gazan casualty numbers and the fanatical destruction of almost all infrastructure belie Israel’s stated objectives and strongly suggest a deliberate mass punishment of the population, contrary to the laws of war. Israel rejects this evaluation.

However, the initial “search and destroy” Israeli mission to eradicate an estimated 30,000 armed Hamas operatives quickly turned into what looked like an indiscriminate assault against the entire population, using sophisticated weaponry and brutal tactics to destroy entire neighborhoods and life sustainability. That relentless daily assault has gone on for over a year, with no sign that the Israelis intend to stop. By mid-November 2024, over 43,000 Gazans (including some 11,500 women and 16,800 children) had been killed, according to their identity and death certificates held by the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry, plus at least 10,000 missing, presumed dead under rubble, and over 103,000 wounded. The UN Human Rights report of November 2024 confirms that 70% of deaths have been women and children.

Over the past 12 months, the Israelis have been accused of systematically blocking food, medical and other humanitarian supplies, carrying out targeted daily bombardment of hospitals, schools, residential areas, food depots and refugee camps (including so-called “safe places” designated by the Israelis themselves), and conducting repetitive enforced mass displacements of the population throughout Gaza. By the end of May 2024, the UN officially estimated that 1.7 million (or 75%) of the Gazan population had been internally displaced. That estimate had increased to 1.9 million (or 90% of the population) by early September 2024. 

In late October 2024, UN and WHO chiefs declared that “the entire population of north Gaza” was now at serious risk of death from starvation, privation and lack of health care, and castigated Israel’s “blatant disregard for basic humanity and the laws of war.” In May 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that Israel’s recent conduct in Gaza was not genocidal (proto rather than actually achieved so far), but did state, quoting the Genocide Convention, that Israel “must immediately halt its military offensive” and warned against harming civilians. The International Criminal Court (ICC) followed this by seeking arrest warrants for Netanyahu and then-Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for crimes against humanity. These cast Israel’s political leaders and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) as culpable villains. The arrest warrants were issued on November 21, 2024.

The Nation-State Law and land grabs

There are multiple well-documented reports of violent attacks and land grabs against Palestinians and other minorities (for example, Armenians) in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem by so-called “Israeli settlers.” These reflect the apparent determination of Netanyahu’s government and the judiciary to sanctify de facto ethnic cleansing and accelerate the practical implications of Israel’s 2018 Nation-State Law. The latter stipulates that Israel is a Jewish state in which only Jews have full rights. Article 7 specifically prioritizes Jewish settlements as “a national value” and for which the state will “act to encourage and promote its establishment and consolidation,” i.e. ethno-religious segregation and usurpation of non-Jewish land as the desirable norm.

By mid-2024, some 380,000 Israeli settlers had already occupied Palestinian land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, with a further 500,000 planned for the short term by Israel’s Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who denies that Palestinians are a nation or have ever had land rights. Former Israeli generals are advancing a similar plan for a settler takeover of Gaza after the Palestinian population has finally been removed.

More recently, Article 7 intent has been pursued through a new Israeli law banning the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) from operating inside Israel, including Gaza and the occupied Palestinian territories. Israel accused UNRWA of being infested with Hamas agents. Apart from removing the majority of international aid that would normally barely keep the Palestinian population fed, medicated and educated, the new law also has the effect of falsely declassifying Palestinians as UN refugees and removing any Israeli judicial recognition of their prior title rights to land the Israelis confiscated. 

Self-defense or neo-imperialism?

There is no question that Israel is surrounded by states that, to varying degrees, are hostile. Some of them also harbor anti-Israeli extremists who have engaged in terrorist attacks, both cross-border and inside Israel. The Hamas attack of October 7, 2023, and the ongoing rocket barrages from Hezbollah fighters in southern Lebanon into Israel are high-profile examples. Some of these extremists call for the total annihilation of Israel and all Jews. The majority of neighboring Arab and Muslim states have, however, opted for a more “tolerated difference” approach whereby a modus vivendi has emerged, such as Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, UAE, Dubai, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and even Lebanon. Others, such as Syria, Iraq, Iran and Yemen, have not.

In such a historically hostile and turbulent context, Israel has created an extensive, sophisticated and multi-faceted defense “fortress” to prevent, deter or neutralize any kind or scale of attack from any source, external or internal. Israel’s population is minuscule compared to hostile states in total and, even if including its full citizen reservist capacity, its numbers of military personnel are dwarfed by theirs. Nevertheless, it is generally accepted that Israel’s weapon systems, firepower, electronic warfare capacity, sophisticated electronic surveillance and intelligence systems, espionage agencies, motivation and training are vastly superior.

With Israel’s small population and modest GDP, all this has only been possible as a result of decades of financial, political and defense systems support from the United States. According to Reuters (September 26, 2024), scheduled US military aid over the next 10 years to Israel comprises $35 billion for essential wartime defense plus a further $52 billion for air defense systems, At an annual average of $8.7 billion, the US aid to Palestinians pales in comparison, at a mere $300 million.

Many independent observers have become increasingly reluctant to accept Israel’s stated justifications for its relentless response to the October 7 massacre. Their Gaza campaign, Lebanon campaign and violent land grabs from non-Jews in the West Bank no longer appear to be just about Israel’s “right to exist,” “right to self-defense,” and “right to pursue implacable and murderous enemies.” The daily video footage of mass civilian carnage in the immediate aftermath of Israeli bombardments of all kinds in Gaza contradicts Israeli official denials.

Beyond Israel’s stated military objectives, the elephant in the room now exposed is that the Gaza campaign also appears to be part of an aggressive nationalist territorial expansion project (or land grab), involving cleansing the ground of all opposition (actual and potential), as well as Palestinian population masses and infrastructure. Israel’s apparent ulterior motives in Gaza surface in the following examples:

Extra land and commercial development

Groups of settlers have been setting up temporary camps along the Israeli side of the Gaza border, waiting for the IDF to confirm that it is safe for them to cross over and mark out their desired settlements. These settlers firmly believe that God, through a proclamation of Abraham, granted all Jews the unchallengeable jus divinum right to exclusively occupy the “whole land” of Israel. They assert that it stretches from the west bank of the River Nile in Egypt to the Euphrates in Iraq, as implied in the Bible (as in Genesis 15:18-21) and other ancient tracts.

A separate style of land grab in Gaza involves Israeli property developers, some of whom appear to have already moved in. Such developers are offering Israelis beachfront, new-build properties on Palestinian land, which employees wearing IDF military reservist apparel are now clearing of war-damaged, abandoned homes. According to one developer’s own promotional video, its employees are already erecting these new buildings.

Lawyers point out that all such land grabs are in breach of international law and may also constitute a war crime. In all such citizen actions, the Israeli perpetrators believe that, in addition to the claim of jus divinum, they can also now rely on Article 7 of the Nation-State Law 2018 to legitimize their conduct.

The Ben Gurion Canal Project

Originating in the 1960s, the Ben Gurion Canal Project centered on a plan to cut a deep-water canal from the Mediterranean, from Ashkelon near Gaza, into and across Israel and down to the port of Eilat and access to the Red Sea. This canal would thus bypass the Suez Canal and greatly reduce international shipping’s reliance on it. The plan’s bold vision might well have transformed Israel’s economy, but for some 50 years, it remained dormant, primarily because its unilateral implementation and annexation of Palestinian land would doubtless have inflamed the Arab world, rendered the canal vulnerable to Hamas attacks and sabotage, and probably provoked war again.

Over the past 20 years however, with the inexorable rise of militant ultra-Zionist groups in Israel and their increasing influence on government, serious discussion of the Canal Project has restarted. Some right-wing interests in Israel are now advocating that the route of the canal should go directly through central Gaza. The suspicion is that under the current wartime regime of Netanyahu, with several aggressive ultra-Zionists in his Cabinet, the Gaza campaign provides an ideal opportunity to clear central Gaza of all Palestinians under the guise of military necessity. This may partly explain the IDF’s extensive scorched earth actions in Gaza.

The “whole land” justification and its scope

Both the Ben Gurion Canal project and the annexation of Gaza for Israel’s economic growth are consistent with the Greater Israel concept and its operationalization as it has evolved over a century or more. Numerous papers and articles on the subject of annexation of Palestinian land, Greater Israel and “the whole land” have appeared over the past twenty years, for example: The Guardian (2009), the Rossing Center, Migration Policy (2023), The Week (2024).

Recent independent research (MEPEI 2024) notes that the acknowledged founder of Zionism in the 19th century, Theodor Herzl, recorded in his own diaries that Eretz Yisrael included not only the traditional Jewish areas within Palestine but also the Sinai, Egyptian Palestine, and Cyprus, with the totality stretching from “the brook of Egypt to the Euphrates”.

This view is rooted in a dogmatic belief that around 2000 BC, Abraham declared that God had revealed to him that he had granted him and all his descendants the exclusive right to the “whole land” of Israel, as later loosely defined in various verses of the Book of Genesis in the Bible, the Judaic Torah and other related ancient tracts. Maps of the claimed Greater Israel show it encompassing not only the territories cited above, but also approximately 30% of Egypt, most of Iraq, a large area of Saudi Arabia, the whole of Kuwait (1,300 kilometers from Tel Aviv), Syria, Jordan and Lebanon, and parts of southern Turkey.

As noted above, Herzl clearly favored an extended geographical scope for the “whole land,” once a national Jewish homeland had been secured in Palestine. However, in his overtures to and negotiations with European leaders to seek support, such a subsequent “ultimate phase” appears to have gone unmentioned. The proposed homeland was presented as a benign, multi-ethnic, multi-religious polity with equal rights for all and in which none of the rights of the pre-existing Palestinians would be jeopardized.

Herzl’s colleague Chaim Weizmann very effectively championed the Zionist movement, before and after Herzl’s death in 1904. He successfully persuaded Arthur Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary during the onset of the British Mandate, to support the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. The short Balfour Declaration crucially stated: “It being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.” Clearly, a coach-and-horses have been driven through that “understanding” long ago.

The erudite paper by Professor Chaim Gans in 2007 on historical rights to the “Land of Israel” distinguishes between historical rights and sovereignty, rights and “taking account of,” and between the concept and geography of the “whole land.” Others have argued that the “whole land” was always a spiritual concept that was never meant to be interpreted literally in objective, geographical terms.

Gans further notes the self-defining and self-serving nature of ultra-Zionists’ arguments, which are “valid only for those who believe them” and observes that “…they do not make the slightest attempt to provide moral or universally valid arguments, only reinforcing the prejudices of the already persuaded.” He continues that one nation’s extreme quest for self-determination may expunge another’s legitimate quest and may involve a criminal land grab. The jus divinum justification for wholesale repression, land grabs, massacres and expulsions presents as being holy, righteous and praiseworthy. However, many regard it as a primitive expression of assumed a priori ethno-religious superiority and selfish entitlement at the expense of “the others.”

Neo-imperialist motives?

Why is Israel’s Gaza campaign against an enemy that is vastly inferior in all respects (now extended to its Lebanon campaign) so relentless and ruthless over such a long period and over so much foreign territory? Why is their firepower targeted so heavily on the civilian population and civilian infrastructure, such as hospitals, schools, food supplies and utilities? 

The official Israeli justification is military necessity in the face of terror attacks. Yet, far-right Israeli cabinet ministers, such as Bezalel Smotrich, Itamar Ben-Gvir, Avigdor Lieberman and Amihai Eliyahu, have been pushing extreme nationalist Zionist justifications and policies way beyond national defense. On January 3, 2023, Ben-Gvir and Smotrich publicly expressed their desire to expel Palestinians from Gaza. The Times of Israel described the policies and stance of the ultra-Zionist Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Power) party, to which Ben-Gvir and Eliyahu belong, as “neo-fascist.” 

Cabinet Minister Ben-Gvir, leader of the Otzma Yehudit Party, joined other senior far-right politicians from the Religious Zionism Party and the Likud Party at a Preparing to Settle Gaza Conference on October 21, 2024. While there, he restated that the Palestinian population of Gaza should be “encouraged” to leave Gaza forever. Likud MP May Golan opined that “taking territory” and re-establishing Jewish settlements in Gaza would be a lesson that “the Arabs” would never forget. The conference organizer Daniella Weiss advocated an ethnic cleansing of Gaza since the Palestinians had “lost their right to live” there. Weiss’s Nachala organization claimed so far to have already marshaled 700 settler families prepared to move into Gaza once the Palestinians had been removed.

Eliyahu said in an interview on November 5, 2023, that Israel should take back control of Gaza and move in Israeli settlers, a position he has since repeated, and said that the Palestinian population “can go to Ireland or deserts…the monsters in Gaza should find a solution themselves.” Asked if Israel should drop a nuclear bomb on Gaza to flatten it and kill all the inhabitants, he replied, “That is one of the options.” He further stated in January 2024 that the entire Palestinian population of Gaza (not just the Hamas militants) should be subject to painful retribution as a means to break their morale and destroy any thoughts of independence.

Nations threatened by the Greater Israel plan

Few citizens of the nine sovereign nations (excluding Palestine) are aware of the predatory threat of Israeli annexation. These nations include:

Syria

Although a frontline Arab state that fought Israel in the 1948, 1967 and 1973 wars, Syria has tried to avoid any major confrontation with Israel for some years. Since 2011, the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad had been largely preoccupied with a bloody civil war against pro-democracy groups, as well as an Islamic State (ISIS) insurgency from 2013 to 2017. Israel captured two-thirds of the Golan Heights from Syria in the 1967 war and it remains an occupied territory that is a de facto annexation by Israel. Since October 2024, Israel has launched a series of air strikes on Syria and reports surfaced of the IDF creating a fortified buffer zone within the separation corridor between the Israeli and Syrian-held areas of the Golan Heights. 

The sudden overthrow of the Assad regime in early December 2024 by a variety of Syrian opposition forces, led by the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham group, introduces great uncertainty over Syria’s future governance and national security. The interim government has made clear that foreign military forces and their proxies in Syria must leave. 

Russia, Iran and Hezbollah appear to be complying, but the US and Israeli compliance intentions are unclear. Israel has, however, taken the opportunity to pre-emptively destroy much of Syria’s naval fleet and air force assets, and bomb military targets in and around the capital Damascus. IDF forces have also crossed the Golan Heights buffer zone and reached some 25 kilometers from Damascus to create a “sterile defense zone.” How temporary or limited this incursion will be remains to be seen.

The whole of Syria is marked on the Greater Israel map as being part of Eretz Yisrael.

Lebanon

In addition to its ongoing Gaza campaign, Israel opened up a new war front in Lebanon in October 2024 against Hezbollah. The military tactics employed by Israel during this invasion of Lebanon, including seemingly indiscriminate bombardment of Beirut and other population centers and short notice mass evacuation orders to hundreds of thousands of civilians, had all the hallmarks of their Gaza campaign. Despite a ceasefire agreed on November 26, 2024, is the Israeli seek-and-destroy self-defense operation against terror groups masking a much bigger long-term objective of depopulating much, if not all, of Lebanon so as to facilitate its annexation into Greater Israel? The whole of Lebanon is also marked on the Greater Israel map as being part of Eretz Yisrael.

Cyprus

Since the Republic of Cyprus was formed in 1960, it has had a cordial relationship with Israel. The two countries share common interests in many matters. Israeli tourists and wedding parties are common sights in the southern Greek Cypriot-controlled area where I lived for many years. Greek Cypriot police officers often receive training in Israel. Israeli gamblers frequent the numerous casinos in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC).

In the past few years, both the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot areas have also enjoyed an influx of investment by mainland Turks, Russians, Lebanese, Iranians, Gulf Arabs and Israelis. In the Turkish Cypriot northern third of the island, Israeli investors have become predominant, especially large property developers and entrepreneurs attracted by the real estate boom. The TRNC has welcomed foreign direct investment with few restrictions and relaxed anti-money laundering controls. However, such investment has caused property price inflation to such an extent that ordinary Turkish Cypriots can no longer afford to buy even a modest home. Such economic distortion has resulted in the TRNC administration effecting legislation in September 2024 to restrict residential property purchases to TRNC and Turkish citizens only and to one per person.

Turkish Cypriots are also concerned that Israeli investors and landowners are becoming so embedded in the TRNC economy that there is a risk that some of them are, or could become, fifth-columnist agents for the Israeli government against Turkish Cypriot interests. Such concern received added piquancy when, in October 2024, President Erdogan of Turkey (TRNC’s political and financial guarantor) issued a stark warning about Israel’s alleged Greater Israel territorial ambitions against Turkey.

Israeli investment in the Greek Cypriot controlled southern Cyprus has seen involvement of fewer large Israeli property developers and entrepreneurs than in the TRNC area. This may reflect the much tighter EU regulation and anti-money laundering controls in the south. Smaller Israeli operators are in evidence in the south, plus a large number of individuals buying a property for their own use (such as a holiday home). Since the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack in Israel, the number of individual Israelis and families buying or long-term renting properties in the south has rocketed, presumably as an “insurance” bolt-hole in case things go badly in Israel. Affluent Lebanese have also flooded the Greek Cypriot property market to escape the Israeli military onslaught.

As in the TRNC area, the rapid influx of large numbers of Israelis in 2024 has distorted the property market in the Greek Cypriot south to the extent that ordinary citizens can no longer afford to buy and traditional tourists from northern Europe can no longer easily find holiday properties to rent. However, unlike the TRNC administration, the Republic government in the south has yet to take any action on this.

Although Herzl included Cyprus as a potential Jewish homeland in his original scope of Greater Israel, he later dropped it in favor of Palestine. However, some ultra-Zionists today still regard Cyprus as being part of Eretz Yisrael.

Turkey

Turkey has had good relations with Israel since 1948. However, in recent years, Turkey’s President Erdogan has been increasingly critical of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians and his anti-Israel rhetoric has become increasingly harsh. In early October 2024, Erdogan bluntly warned of Israel’s alleged long-term plan to annex parts of Anatolia into Eretz Yisrael. He also threatened to defend Lebanon militarily should Israel try to annex it. Certainly, any move by Israel to annex or even temporarily occupy north Lebanon or Syria would threaten Turkey’s national security.

It should be noted that Turkey has large and well-equipped armed forces, ranking 8th out of 145 countries in the Global Firepower review, and is the second largest military force in NATO after the US. Erdogan’s anti-Israel rhetoric and accusations have caused much discussion and debate.

Parts of Anatolia in south-eastern Turkey are marked on the Greater Israel map as being part of Eretz Yisrael.

Likely success of Israel’s expansionist plan

In a limited sense, some of the Greater Israel Plan’s objectives have already been achieved. Some territorial gains were made in previous wars, and subsequent imposition of Israeli laws, decrees and policies in the occupied Palestinian territories have dispossessed large numbers of remaining Palestinians. Israel’s military, administrative and armed settler actions against the Palestinian populations of Gaza and the occupied West Bank before and since October 7, 2023, and repeated statements by its government ministers about permanently removing all Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank, are consistent with the Plan and Article 7 of the Nation State Law.

There is, however, a need to consider:

1. The apparent existence of a Greater Israel Plan, which in its various elements is being openly promoted by ultra-Zionist Israeli government ministers and extremists.
2. The practical viability of executing the Plan beyond annexation of currently occupied territories, given Israel’s very small population and therefore inability to field long-term occupation personnel in other territories.
3. The current high level of support (risen from 39% in May 2024 to an estimated 45-60%) among the Israeli population for Netanyahu’s ruthless Gaza and Lebanon campaigns and his hard-line rejection of any ceasefire, two-state solution or other peace deal brokered by the international community, but which may collapse if the government fails to produce its promised concrete, permanent safety results for citizens.
4. Netanyahu’s steadfast and dismissive refusal to listen to US and other allies’ entreaties to agree to a two-state solution for Palestine.
5. Israel’s growing international isolation resulting from its intolerable treatment of the Palestinians and a determination even by friendly nations to make Israel accountable to international laws and standards.
6. Uncertainty over whether the US will continue its unswerving and undiluted financial and military support for Israel.
7. The Netanyahu regime increasingly imposing sanctions against “ordinary” Israeli Jews and news media who dare to challenge its apparent proto-genocide campaign in Gaza, or who call for a two-state solution and peace accord with the Palestinians, such as the attacks on Haaretz.

It is clear that the current Israeli regime ideologically supports the Greater Israel Plan, and several Cabinet Ministers are actively promoting its execution as far as the occupied Palestinian territories are concerned. Less clear is how Israel views Lebanon and whether its recent bombardment and invasion was limited to a short-term “search and destroy” mission against Hezbollah, or whether it will be later resurrected by more gung-ho IDF and ultra-Zionist leaders as an opportunity for a partial or total permanent annexation of Lebanon into Eretz Yisrael. Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail.

Israel may be assumed to conduct desktop “war gaming” exercises covering all its known and likely enemies and even others within the 1,300-kilometer reach from Tel Aviv on the Greater Israel map and beyond, but actual military invasion of the vast majority is highly unlikely. Vast numbers of trained military personnel are required for “boots on the ground” invasions and then occupation, often against much resistance, and Israel’s tiny forces make most invasions not viable. Then there is the problem of supply lines, communications and control over great distances, the environment, and the weather. Napoleon learned the hard way, as did Hitler, in their respective invasions of Russia and retreats from Moscow.

Given Donald Trump’s unconditional support for Israel and his rhetoric encouraging their uninhibited military aggression against all enemies, his second US presidency heralds an even less restrained Israel. Territorial expansion à la Greater Israel is now more likely. Even the threat of a regime-change war with Iran (beyond the Greater Israel map), led by Israel as Washington’s “local Rottweilers,” may convert to action.

However, it is not feasible for Israel (or any country with only 3 million combatants) to subdue — much less conquer, annex and control — surrounding territories whose antagonistic populations far exceed 150 million (and that’s excluding Iran’s 90 million). Nor can they rely on superior technology and weaponry to close the “strategic gap.” The US has still failed to grasp the latter weakness despite effectively losing in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan to low-tech peasantry. Even if achieved, subjugation of the region, including regime change in Iran, would not and could not impose a Pax Americana/Pax Judaica on the region. It would simply alter the systemic topography of endless power struggles and conflict.

Finally, beware hubris. Most “grand plan” empires emanating from megalomaniacs and extremist zealots fail because these involve narcissistic delusions of grandeur, supreme power, invincibility, glory, and of righteousness, which do not recognize their own limitations and feet of clay.

[Will Sherriff edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post The “Greater Israel” Plan Has a Colossal Reach appeared first on Fair Observer.

The US emerged as the global superpower thanks to World War II. In 1945, Europe was in ruins. The war caused widespread destruction in Europe because of the bombing of cities and factories. European powers lost millions of people in the war. Being far from Europe and Japan, the US incurred a very low rate of civilian casualties. There was almost no destruction of US infrastructure, with the Japanese attack on the American naval base at Pearl Harbor in Honolulu, Hawaii, as a notable exception. Naturally, the US emerged as the leader of the West. Although the Soviet Union was a US ally during the war, it competed with the US for global hegemony following the Allied victory, a period referred to as the Cold War.

During the Cold War, the US and its Western allies engaged in a brutal global competition with the Soviets and other communist states. Notable confrontations between these two power centers included the Korean War (1950–1953), the Vietnam War (1955–1975) and the Soviet–Afghan War (1979–1989). Using Soviet influence as an excuse, the US intervened in many countries, including Iran. At the behest of the UK, the US overthrew the first democratically elected government of Iran. Only 26 years after the infamous 1953 coup, the Iranian Revolution deposed the Shah and established Iran’s independence from both the US and the UK.

The US tacitly supported European imperial and colonial powers when they committed some of the worst genocides in human history. The most notable include the horrendous atrocities committed in Congo, Kenya and Algeria.

After the fall of the Soviet Union in December 1991, the world looked forward to years of peace and prosperity. Although the US proclaimed that this new era was one of peace, it began with the Rwandan Genocide (1994), the Bosnian Genocide (1995), to the present day with the US-backed Israeli genocide against Palestinians and the takeover of Syria by al-Qaeda’s affiliates.

The fall of the Soviet Union did not make the world more peaceful; it worsened it under unilateral US leadership. The fall produced a power vacuum that has yet to be filled. In particular, it released nationalistic, ethical, cultural and self-determination movements in the former Soviet states. It led to social unrest, organized crime, terrorism and corruption. The ripple effects of the fall will “continue to be felt for some time yet.”

After the Soviets were gone, the US no longer faced any serious challenges to its global hegemony. However, the US considered Iran’s independence from US influence a challenge to its global domination and has supported efforts to undermine the Islamic Republic of Iran. Presently, the US efforts that have unseated Assad of Syria were meant to undermine Iran’s dominance in the region. 

Recently, reporters saw US President Joe Biden leaving a bookstore with a copy of The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine by Rashid Khalidi in his hand. The book describes the Palestinian struggle for their homeland. “Settler-colonial confrontations with indigenous peoples have only ended in one of three ways: with the elimination or full subjugation of the native population, as in North America; with the defeat and expulsion of the colonizer, as in Algeria, which is extremely rare; or with the abandonment of colonial supremacy, in the context of compromise and reconciliation, as in South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Ireland,” Khalidi writes. 

Hopefully, Biden will read this book and realize that instigating the war in Ukraine, enabling Israel’s genocide against Palestinians and aiding al-Qaeda affiliates are immoral.

The US’s prestige is falling worldwide, all it can do is slow the fall

The world is waking up thanks to Iran. The US’s decision to back Ukraine in the war and enable Israel’s genocide against the Palestinians has placed global attention on Iran. In particular, Iran’s support of the oppressed Palestinians has been a popular move. In the US, like around the world, young people stand with the oppressed Palestinians.

Iran has become so notable for its global standing as a supporter of the oppressed that its archenemy, Israel, admits it. On July 25, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, against whom the International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, addressed the US Congress.

Hearing the loud protest outside, he felt frustrated with the protesters, crying in his speech that “Iran is funding the anti-Israel protests that are going on right now outside this building.”

Led by Iran, worldwide, people realize the US is not what it claims to be. The US is not a promoter of democracy or peace but a brutal warmonger with no regard for human rights and international law. Internationally, it has used its veto power 49 times since 1970 against UN resolutions concerning Israel, with four in the last year. In November, it vetoed the latest UN resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. Recently, it blundered by indirectly supporting the rise to power in Syria of Hayʼat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) formerly part of al-Qaeda.

To stop the US’ destructive behaviors globally, China, Russia, Iran and some other countries have moved away from the US and formed the BRICS+ alliance. More countries are planning to do the same. Within the new alliance, China pushes for more collaboration between countries rather than subjugating them, as the US does.

No supporter of democracy, not even much of a democracy

Globally, people are becoming more aware that the US does not support democracy. Its ventures into other countries in the name of democracy are a ploy to access their resources and wealth. In pursuit of power and wealth, the US has destroyed lives. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen are just a few known examples where millions of innocent people were killed and billions of dollars of infrastructure were destroyed by US-led aggression.

The US is also a very flawed democracy itself. According to a poll from the Harris Poll and the Quincy Institute, around 70% of Americans want the US to pursue peace with Russia. Yet, the US continues arming Ukraine against Russia. Likewise, 57% of Americans disapprove of Biden’s handling of the “Israel–Palestine conflict,” but Biden continues arming Israel. Biden is acting as a dictator, ignoring the will of the people. This is not unique to Biden. US presidents have been getting the US in wars since its inception. Despite its global proclamation as a beacon of democracy, the US has never been a true democracy.

The US presidential system is flawed. The winner of the majority of Electoral College votes wins. In 2000 and 2016, George W. Bush and Donald Trump lost the popular vote but still became presidents because they commanded a majority of Electoral College votes. Furthermore, the US is dominated by two main parties. Third parties are not even on the ballot in many states. Big money in politics also strengthens the hand of the two main political parties.

This means that American politics makes for the strangest of bedfellows. Christian evangelicals voted for Trump despite his chauvinism, infidelity, nepotism, racism and corruption. So did many working-class Americans as well as a majority of white women and Latino men voted for this celebrity billionaire who has given and plans to give tax cuts to the rich. On the other hand, Ivy League elites largely voted for Democrats even if they had misgivings about Kamala Harris.

Giving the rich tax breaks and spending too much on the military-industrial complex has led to the US suffering the highest poverty rate among industrial countries. The US ranks last in healthcare outcomes among the ten major developed countries despite spending nearly twice as much — about 18% of gross domestic product — on healthcare than the others. The suicide crisis is also worse than in other Western countries and the country has the highest homicide rate among high-income countries.

As is well known, American interventions in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen and other countries led to the expansion of the military-industrial complex. Today, the US sends its poor to war who come back with post-traumatic stress disorder if not wounds or in body bags.

The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 killed thousands of innocents. Its intervention in Libya caused a civil war that continues to this day. Today, the US is inflicting similar misery on Syria. Together with Turkey and Israel, the US is supporting HTS. Note that HTS is an affiliate of al-Qaeda. The HTS fighters are nothing but terrorists who have beheaded innocents, including 12-year-olds and Americans. That is the reason why the US put a $10 million bounty on HTS leader Abu Mohammed al-Golani. Yet today the US has supported HTS to get rid of the Assad family, legitimizing the very fighters it has designated as terrorists.

Instead of continuing to support death and destruction, the US should support peace and harmony. First, Washington must stop threatening, invading and harming other countries. This includes stopping support for terrorists like al-Golani as well as dropping sanctions that hurt millions of innocents. Second, the US must stop its proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. A peace deal is in the interest of the entire world. Third, the US must support a free Palestine where Christians, Jews and Muslims can live together in peace.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Facilitating the Rise of HTS Is the Latest US Blunder appeared first on Fair Observer.

Why is this moment significant? The downfall of the brutal dictatorship that has held Syria in an iron grip since 1971 — first under Hafez al-Assad, and later under his son, Bashar al-Assad — is a moment of triumph for millions of Syrians who have suffered under its rule. Over the past decade, more than 13 million Syrians, or roughly 60% of the population, have been displaced by the brutal repression and the civil war that ensued. Of these, 7 million have fled to neighboring countries or further abroad as refugees. With the Assad regime now toppled, these refugees may now dare to dream of returning to their homeland.

This turn of events also signals a strategic defeat for the “axis of resistance” led by Iran. The axis, which includes Hezbollah (a Shiite militant group based in Lebanon), has relied on a land bridge through Iraq and Syria to maintain its influence in the region. With the fall of Assad, this land corridor is severed, isolating Hezbollah from its Iranian backers and cutting off vital supply lines. This is a significant blow to Iranian and Hezbollah ambitions in the region.

Russia, too, finds itself on the losing side. Despite its military intervention in support of Bashar al-Assad in 2015, Russia has been unable to protect its ally. The fall of Assad puts Russia’s strategic interests at risk, including its naval bases on the Mediterranean coast of Syria, which have served as key outposts for Russian influence in the region.

In contrast, Turkey stands to emerge as the new central player in the region. Turkey has long opposed Assad and has supported various factions in the Syrian conflict, particularly in northern Syria. With the Assad regime weakened, Turkey’s role in shaping Syria’s future becomes all the more crucial. Israel, too, stands to gain from the fall of Assad, as it weakens two of its most formidable regional enemies — Syria and Hezbollah — while simultaneously diminishing Iran’s influence in the region.

Who are these people?

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) is a movement that emerged from the remnants of al-Qaeda in Syria. It controls the northwestern region of Syria, along the Turkish border. Over the past few years, with significant assistance from Turkey and Western countries, HTS has made efforts to rebrand itself, trying to present a more palatable face to the international community. Despite these efforts, many Syrians, especially the country’s Christian minority (which makes up around 5-10% of the population), are deeply apprehensive about the possibility of HTS establishing a vengeful Islamist regime. These groups fear that under HTS’s control, they would be subjected to harsh treatment and persecution, given the group’s hardline interpretation of Islam.

However, HTS does not control all of Syria. There are at least three other major militias that hold significant territory. The Kurds of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), particularly the YPG (People’s Defense Units), are one of the most prominent. The YPG is closely linked to the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party), a Kurdish militant group that has been involved in an ongoing insurgency against Turkey. The United States has supported the YPG and its allies in the fight against ISIS, and the group controls northeastern Syria, including areas rich in oil resources.

Meanwhile, ISIS (Islamic State) continues to have a presence in central and eastern Syria, particularly in tribal areas. Despite being defeated as a territorial entity, ISIS remains active as a guerilla force, capable of launching insurgent attacks and destabilizing the region. This ongoing conflict between various militias complicates the situation in Syria, as different factions, often backed by external powers, vie for control of the country’s future.

To be continued…

The future of Syria remains uncertain: will it progress toward an orderly transition, or will it descend further into civil war? One of the key players in this evolving situation is Turkey, which has set its sights on creating a 30-kilometer buffer zone along its border with Syria. This zone would be cleared of Kurdish militias, particularly the YPG, which Turkey views as an extension of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party), a group it considers a terrorist organization. Turkey’s objective of establishing this buffer zone is difficult to imagine being realized without significant military action and possible conflict with the Kurdish forces.

The role of the United States in the future of Syria is also a pressing question, especially with the potential return of Donald Trump to the presidency. During his first term, Trump advocated for the withdrawal of the small contingent of U.S. troops stationed in Syria alongside Kurdish forces, a position he reiterated recently. If Trump follows through on his desire for disengagement, the U.S. might reduce its involvement, which could shift the balance of power in Syria, leaving Kurdish groups more vulnerable to Turkish aggression and potentially influencing the broader regional dynamics.

Israel’s role in Syria is also evolving, with its military forces advancing into key areas of the country. Israeli forces have deployed to the east and north of the Golan Heights, a strategically important region, particularly around Mount Hermon, which is often referred to as the “water tower” of the region due to its significance in controlling water resources. Israeli forces are now positioned just about 20 kilometers from Damascus, Syria’s capital, raising the stakes and complicating the security situation in the area. Israel’s continued military presence in Syria suggests that it has strategic objectives in play, particularly concerning Iranian influence in the region and the threat posed by Hezbollah and other hostile groups.

Syria’s roadmap for a peaceful transition, which was agreed upon by the permanent members of the UN Security Council and Syria’s neighboring states, dates back to June 30, 2012. At the time, the international community seemed committed to finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict, with Didier Burkhalter, the Swiss Foreign Minister at the time, playing a key role in the conference. Yet, over a decade later, this plan seems increasingly distant, as the situation in Syria has devolved into an ongoing war with no clear path toward peace.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Uncertain Transition in Syria After the Surprise End of Assad appeared first on Fair Observer.

The Economist’s choice of this year’s word of the year tells us what its editors see as the biggest challenge our civilization is facing. It isn’t the disastrous wars in Ukraine and the Middle East in which the Atlantic alliance is fully implicated. It isn’t even the destabilization of the global financial order so long organized around the unassailable status of the United States dollar. It isn’t rising temperatures causing climate havoc or the towering levels of debt that threaten, at a moment’s notice, to unravel the global financial system. No, for The Economist, dedicated to the ideal of “liberal rationality,” the real threat worth focusing on can only be… Donald Trump.

The “word of the year” article bears the subtitle: “The Greeks knew how to talk about politics and power.” Classical references always help buttress one’s case. The article cites Plato and Aristotle’s “political thinking,” which may be a subtle hint that there has been much of it in recent years. After seven paragraphs — punctuated by various interesting but not always very accurate details concerning history, philosophy and language — the article finally reveals, in three sentences, the identity of the mysterious word it has selected.

“So the word everyone was Googling was kakistocracy: the rule of the worst. The first root, kakos, is found in few others in English. ‘Kakistocracy’ is not found in ancient sources; it seems to have been coined in English as an intentional antonym to aristocracy, originally ‘rule by the best.’”

Today’s Weekly Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Kakistocracy:

The natural form any democracy will take when its political system is made subservient to the principles that undergird liberal, free market capitalism, in which the overriding authority of an anonymous class of wealthy individuals is rendered invisible thanks to the ruse of allowing unwealthy people to cast a vote in elections engineered by the same invisible wealthy class for one or another of their preselected representatives.

Contextual note

Our Devil’s Dictionary gloss obviously differs from — and directly contradicts — The Economist’s far more succinct definition. Let’s explore the reasons.

Our first objection to the content of the article may seem trivial, but is significant in that it points to something that strongly resembles “disinformation.” The article tells us that the root “kakos” in Greek means “worst.” In fact, it means “bad, inferior, worthless or poor.” Κάκιστος (kakistos), however, is the superlative of kakos and does mean “excessively bad” and in some contexts “worst.” The article also misleadingly informs us that kakos is “found in few other” words in English, but a notable example is “cacophony,” which obviously does not mean the “worst sound,” but simply bad, incoherent, unharmonic or disagreeable sound.

But let’s drop the niggling while trying to be charitable and forgiving in this season of good cheer. Apart from the venial sin of offering an inaccurate explanation of a Greek word, we should acknowledge that the magazine’s “word of the year” ritual is little more than an innocent exercise of holiday season levity. The article is essentially entertainment. It makes no pretension to be taken as serious scholarship… other than its annoying invocation of Plato and Aristotle, which actually does come across as pretentious.

Nevertheless, it’s there for another reason: to make a polemical political point. The Economist clearly sees Trump as a difficult morsel to digest. When the article informs us that kakistocracy is the inversion of aristocracy, we sense an undeclared nostalgia for an epoch in which the nation’s values reflected the refined culture of its nobility. The power wielded by the aristocratic caste disappeared with the empire, but not without regret. The free market’s new ruling class successfully promoted the culture of meritocracy to replace aristocracy. The author nevertheless reminds us that aristocracy is literally “the rule of the best,” just in case we allow ourselves to become too enamored of meritocratic upstarts. Still, The Economist’s readers will have no trouble empathizing with the idea of rule by the meritorious. This idea pretty much defines the social status of the majority of the magazine’s readership.

The choice of kakistocracy expresses the magazine’s pessimism, not about the state of the world — which is quite naturally becoming increasingly kakistocratic — but about the situation in the “indispensable nation,” the US. Its critique focuses on that particular embodiment of evil known as Trump. But in doing so, this liberal-minded British publication at least avoids the kind of alarmism that infects US media when it lays into Trump. Relying on irony rather than invective, The Economist bravely attempts to make an erudite joke. But, in this particular instance, it largely fails to where so many of its literary predecessors have succeeded, from Chaucer and Shakespeare to Jonathan Swift, Laurence Sterne, Lewis Carroll, Monty Python and beyond.

Here is one example: “Kakistocracy has the crisp, hard sounds of glass breaking. Whether that is a good or bad thing depends on whether you think the glass had it coming.” The synesthetic metaphor of breaking glass is intriguing. But the attempt at wit goes nowhere. It fails because there is no reasonable hypothetical case in which the reader might think that glass has “something coming.” Breaking glass, for almost everyone, including Greeks, is “kakos.”

Even worse is this attempt at an amusing analogy: “Last time round he [Trump] seemed to fire more officials than most presidents have trips on Air Force One.” What could possibly justify the comparison of fired officials to presidential trips on Air Force One? Talk about apples and oranges!

Historical note

The Economist is known for its ability to avoid alarmism, keep a stiff upper lip and confidently roll with the crises and disappointments that sometimes rock a world order the journal prefers to defend. Since 1843, it has promoted the central themes of a worldview characterized at the time as laissez-faire and today as economic liberalism, including its scion neoliberalism.

For the past century and more particularly throughout the “unipolar moment” in which the US, having assimilated the “political thinking” (ideology) of the Plato and Aristotle of our age — Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher — we have been living confidently in an economic utopia characterized by democracy and a “rules-based international order.” Enforcing the rules consisted in maintaining the belief that actions undertaken by the governments in our democracy were made in the name of the people and with their consent.

The double tsunami of 2016 — first Brexit in the UK, then Trump’s election in the US — began to sow a few doubts about the future of democracy. The voters could easily be persuaded to make the wrong decisions. In so doing, they were breaking down the force of the rules that had been put in place by the wise leaders elected in the past (especially Reagan and Thatcher). Their wisdom suddenly appeared to be called into question.

The door to kakistocracy was now wide open. It took a second Trump election, in which he won even the popular vote, to make it official. For The Economist, kakistos, the worst, is yet to come… and it will be installed on January 20, 2025.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of Fair Observer Devil’s Dictionary.]

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post The Economist Blames the Greeks for Trump’s Election appeared first on Fair Observer.

Laid on the ocean floor, fiber optic subsea cables are the arteries of international communication. They carry roughly 95% of the world’s internet, data and voice transfers, and are considered to be the fastest and most reliable route of data transfer. They have been critical to the process of globalization and are essential to the modern global economy, with a daily transactional value of over $10 trillion.

Today, only an estimated 600 subsea cables span 1.4 million kilometers of the ocean floor. But with these few cables accounting for most of the world’s internet, it is no surprise that there is a fight for dominance over them.

Due to the high risks and costs associated with laying new undersea ecosystems, these cables are usually owned by a consortium of parties.

Nations and companies investing in these cables not only face the risk of being damaged by tsunami-like natural disasters, fishing nets, ship anchors and marine life, but also face sabotage, spying and data theft.

That these pipes have little protection, are no thicker than a garden pipe, and yet power financial, government and military communications has become a cause of concern for governments across the world.

Historic coalition vs. Chinese player emergence

Three companies — America’s SubCom, Japan’s NEC Corporation and France’s Alcatel Submarine Networks — have historically dominated the construction and laying of the fiber-optic subsea cables. But in 2008, a seismic shift took place when HMN Technologies (then Huawei Marine Networks) entered the market. It is one of the world’s fastest-growing companies and has increasingly occupied the market. By 2020, HMN had built or repaired almost 25% of the world’s cables and supplied 18% of them between 2019 and 2023.

Wary of losing their underwater ascendancy, the three companies began to pool efforts to oust HMN Tech and other Chinese firms to retain influence over the subsea cables. 

At the core of this competition for subsea dominance is America’s fear of conceding a critical component of the digital economy to China. US President Joe Biden’s push to bolster cooperation in the region on cybersecurity including undersea cables and whisk regional submarine plans away from China are beseeching Beijing to respond. 

America’s “techo-diplomacy,” through which it urges its allies and telecoms from partnering with Chinese companies, could stoke tensions with China. Notable is the involvement of alliances such as the Quad in a bid “to support and strengthen quality undersea cable networks in the Indo-Pacific.” 

According to Reuters, a 2023 campaign by America helped SubCom beat HMN Tech and  flipped a $600-million contract to build South East Asia–Middle East–Western Europe 6 cable (SeaMeWe-6 cable). This was done through incentives and pressure on consortium members, including warnings and threats of sanctions and exports controls. As Reuters points out, “This was one of the six private undersea cable deals in the Asia-Pacific where the US government intervened to prevent HMN from winning the contract, or forced the rerouting or abandonment of the cable deals.”

The US efforts to control the subsea cables have shone, with HMN Tech’s market share expected to contract to a mere 7%. Though SubCom grabbed a mere 12% of the total contracts between 2018 and 2022, it in turn accounted for 40% of the total undersea cable network laid.

Thus, China soon struck back by announcing a $500 million Europe-Middle East-Asia internet cable. Known as PEACE (Pakistan and East Asia Connecting Europe), the project directly rivals the SeaMeWe-6 with 15000+ km in service and a planned length of 25,000+ km, superseding its rival project of 21,700 km and providing even higher bandwidth for the participating countries. This marked an escalation of underwater geopolitical rivalry between the two powers.

The fears that monger this tech-war

Many have dubbed subsea cables as “a surveillance gold mine” for world intelligence agencies.

In 2020, the success of HMN Tech firm pricked up the US Department of Justice (DOJ)’s ears, who then raised national security concerns about China’s “sustained efforts to acquire the sensitive personal data of millions of U.S. persons.” In 2021, Washington added HMN Tech to the list of entities that acted “contrary to the foreign policy or national security interests of the United States.” As recent as March this year, US officials have voiced concern that the Chinese repair ships could be used for spying, though there is no evidence of such an activity either.

In 2018, the US placed sanctions on Russian firms and nationals in suspicion of aiding its domestic security service, the FSB (Federal Security Service), in improving its “underwater capabilities” — specifically in relation to subsea cables. As recently as 2023, NATO countries have observed Russian-registered vessels with equipment capable of undersea damage, as well as vessels carrying “unusual” communications equipment. These have brought forth fears of sabotage, in addition to suspicions that Russia is gaining intelligence through mobile “listening posts.”

The recent cable-cutting incident is the second such incident in the Baltic Sea with Chinese involvement. In October 2023, the anchor of a Hong Kong-flagged, Chinese-registered vessel named Newnew Polar Bear damaged two subsea data cables and a gas pipeline in the Baltic Sea. 

However,  there is no “publicly available” evidence that subsea cables are being or have been actively tapped or sabotaged by any country — be it China or Russia. Some recent speculations have seen such threats as overblown. 

Labeling concerns vis-à-vis “tapping into cables to derive, copy or obfuscate data” as “highly unlikely,” a European Union report in 2022 found “no publicly available and verified reports” indicating deliberate attacks, including from China. “The large-scale scenarios of a complete loss of connectivity … seem to be built not on prior incidents but on overall assessments of the geopolitical and threat landscape,” it said. It also added that the threat scenarios “could be exaggerated and suggest a substantial risk of threat inflation and fearmongering.”

Ironically in 2013, the Guardian’s investigations revealed that the UK’s spy agency, Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), had tapped into more than 200 fiber-optic cables to access a huge volume of communications including between entirely innocent people, and shared sensitive personal information with its American partner, the NSA. These investigations were into documents disclosed to them by the US National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden. The documents also showed that the US was eavesdropping on its own allies in the so-called intelligence alliance named Five-Eyes: Australia and New Zealand.

The need for international cooperation

Most analysts believe that the biggest risk isn’t espionage, sabotage or even rogue anchors rather an uneven spread to the cable infrastructure that threatens the very promise of digital equity. 

This leaves a need for interstate cooperation to protect the flow of information they electronify.

But the US is stonewalling cooperation in an area that delivers international bandwidth and is necessary for global digital transition. It has clearly proclaimed its intentions, such as the comments made in the ‘Joint Statement on the Security and Resilience of Undersea Cables in a Globally Digitalized World’ released on the sidelines of the 79th session of the United Nations General Assembly.

It aspires to advance cooperation between the joint statement endorsers to “promote the selection of secure and verifiable subsea cable providers for new cable projects” as well as “protect cables and anticipate risks of intentional or unintentional damage as well as risks of communications and data being compromised.”

Cooperation between multinational companies has been the catalyst of submarine expansion and is crucial for the development of the digital economy especially in the Global South. 

But the kiasu approach of asserting a closed-group dominance over the underwater ecosystem is threatening to black out cooperation and divide the world in two geopolitical blocs — with each country forcing other states to choose its digital infrastructure. 

This simmering struggle for subsea supremacy must be lulled before it boils up and compounds global challenges.

[Yaamini Gupta edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post The Geopolitics of Cables: US and China’s Subsea War appeared first on Fair Observer.

Antoine van Agtmael is one of the most astute observers of trends in politics, society and economics. This Dutchman-turned-American coined the term “emerging markets” in 1981 and still retains a sharp radar. This time, he anticipated a Trump victory. Two weeks ago, he sat down with FO° Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh to record an episode of FO° Podcasts and share his thoughts on why Trump won and what happens now.

Agtmael did a probability analysis every month this year. In February, Agtmael thought Trump had an 80% chance of victory. After the Trump–Biden debate, he upped the figure to 90% and, once Trump survived the assassination attempt, Agtmael gave him a 95% chance of victory. A good convention and a decent performance at the debate helped Kamala Harris to make it a 50-50 contest, but Trump pulled away and won.

Agtmael thinks Trump won because he connected with the voters while Harris did not. In part, Trump connected because he used social media well, but he was also able to tap into voter sentiment. As a result, he broadened the Republican base, perhaps for decades to come. Trump also bet on men whose condition is best captured brilliantly in the book Of Boys and Men by Richard Reeves, while Harris bet on women. These men turned out to support Trump, while the women did not support Harris in a similar manner, which surprised Agtmael.

Furthermore, Agtmael points out that Democrats were out to lunch and failed to recognize that they were now perceived as elites. The irony, or rather tragedy, is that the demos — the Greek term for the common people — have achieved a Pyrrhic victory. The demos will suffer because a bunch of elite billionaires will get their tax cuts. Another irony is that the man who has promised to make America great again will make America small instead.

Why is populism rising in developed countries?

Trump is a developed-country phenomenon. In European countries too, populists have come to the fore. The working classes in these countries are voting for populists who offer quick fixes to complex problems. A large part of the population has lost faith in democracy. Many people now believe that policymakers do not listen to them or care about them.

In the case of the US, Democrats aided Trump’s victory. There were flaws in the candidate and the campaign. More importantly, the Democrats have lost their way. The woke culture in the party headquarters and the universities is out of sync with the country. The Democrats did not address voter concerns about inflation, food inflation and the cost-of-living crisis.

Food, gas, childcare, healthcare and universities cost a lot of money. Also, the children of elites find it easier to get into top universities than their counterparts with poorer parents. Democrats could justifiably point to statistics and argue that the economy was doing well but, to their misfortune, the people did not feel the benefits of better abstract economic figures. Too many Americans were barely keeping their head above water. Thus, inequality has undermined democracy.

Furthermore, diversity may be good, but it is a political problem. Democrats could not manage to appeal to Arab votes in Detroit and Jewish votes in Philadelphia at the same time. Similarly, conservative Muslim families definitely do not support Democrats’ fixation with trans issues. 

What happens now that Trump is back?

Trump’s picks are a mixed bag. Some, like the incoming Treasury secretary and his chief of staff, are clearly competent. Others might not be so competent. Still others are questionable. What is clear is that Trump 2.0 has been faster out of the starting gate. He has priorities and a plan. Trump will have far fewer brakes this time around in terms of people around him or the Congress or the Supreme Court. More of what he wants will get done.

It is also clear that press freedom will suffer. Some good may come of this. The woke excesses will be undone. Yet the risk of lower freedom is that unchallenged ideas tend to be bad ideas and make for bad policies.

Economically, the Trump phenomenon has happened partly because the American winners of globalization never compensated the losers across their country. That is why Trump opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and abandoned it. Note that Clinton was unclear on the TPP during her campaign and that Biden never resuscitated it. The abandonment of the TPP signals the end of multilateralism.

The end comes as a reaction to the decline in US dominance of the global economy. Innovation is now becoming more widespread. Chinese carmaker BYD Auto makes better cars than Elon Musk’s Tesla. The Chinese have bet on the age of electricity, investing in solar energy, windmills and batteries. Tariffs are a sign of weakness, and Trump’s adoption of protectionism shows that the US lags behind in key industries and key technologies.

Biden instituted policies to make the US catch up. He brought back new types of jobs and revived manufacturing. Taiwanese company TSMC has started fabricating semiconductor chips in the US. In fact, the yield of its factory in Phoenix is higher than that of its factories in Taiwan. Biden has addressed the stupidity of past policy in allowing chips, the strategic technology of our time, to be fabricated next to China and in an earthquake zone even when margins were as high as 50%. 

This policy was beyond idiotic, but now TSMC makes chips in Germany and Japan in addition to the US. Dutch company ASML makes the machines that fabricate chips. German companies Trumpf and Zeiss make the lasers and lenses, respectively, that fabricate chips. While these are monopolies, the semiconductor supply chain is much more secure with TSMC operating in the US and Europe. Trump will take credit for the success of many of Biden’s policies and trends that were bringing smart manufacturing back to the US before he burst on the political scene.

Related Reading

Smart Brainbelts, Not Donald Trump, Are Making America Great Again

The end of an era but reason for hope

Mercantilism is back. Geopolitics is determining economics once again. Yet Agtmael cautions not only against protectionism but also against industrial policy. It has its place. John F. Kennedy triggered innovation in the American economy by deciding to put a man on the moon. At the country’s inception, the US employed protectionism to boost infant industries and ensure that it did not end up as a supplier of raw materials to Europe like Latin America. Yet such policies must be like a small garden with a high gate. In general, reliance on markets works better than reliance on the government.

Finally, Agtmael cautions against pessimism. We may not be better off compared to 10 years ago, but we are certainly much better off than a hundred years ago. Yes, there has been a populist backlash and democratic backsliding, but we do not have Joseph Stalin killing millions and Mao Zedong launching a Great Leap Forward today. 

Agtmael has benefited from globalization in terms of prosperity, contacts and democracy. Now, the first, second and third worlds are returning. The US and its allies are the first world. China and Russia form the second. Other countries form the third world. Two risks confront the world. First, the race to develop AI, the winner of which is not certain. Second, rising geopolitical tensions, which increase the possibility of miscalculations.

For all the risks, the world is still a lot better than the time when women did not have the vote and when third-world countries were colonies of European powers. So, there is good reason to be optimistic and retain hope.

[Peter Choi edited this podcast and wrote the first draft of this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/podcast are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Donald Trump Is Back. Why, and What Happens Now? appeared first on Fair Observer.

But you want to know a dirty, little secret? In back alleys, encrypted group chats and off-the-record conversations, liberals will still support Trump on a case-by-case basis. Of course, they’d never vote for the guy, but they’ll give two cheers for some of his policies.

I discovered this ugly truth during Trump’s last term while writing an article on the shift in US policy toward China from lukewarm engagement to hostile decoupling. The general consensus among the foreign policy elite was that, at least in terms of relations with Beijing, Trump was a useful idiot for slowing China’s roll with harsh rhetoric and tariffs.

“Trump is a madman, but I want to give him and his administration their due,” one prominent liberal intellectual told me. “We can’t keep playing on an unlevel playing field and take promises that are never delivered on. It’s really China’s turn to respond, and it’s long overdue.”

It wasn’t just China. For years, liberals and conservatives alike were, for instance, pushing the concept of burden-sharing: getting US allies to cover more of the bill for their security needs. But it was only Trump who really made it happen by blackmailing NATO members and other US partners into doing so.

Sure, few warmed to the idea of the US actually pulling out of NATO, but even many of our European allies, though they publicly grumbled, were secretly happy about The Donald’s gaiatsu. That’s the Japanese word for outside pressure that enables a leader to force through unpopular changes by blaming it all on foreigners. The self-described liberal leader of NATO, Dutch politician Mark Rutte, even came out in the open after Trump’s re-election to praise the US president for making European countries more militarily self-sufficient.

It wasn’t just liberals who were thrilled about Trump’s unorthodox foreign policy during his first term, either. Some of those further to the left also embraced Trump the engager (with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un), Trump the isolationist (and his threats to close US military bases globally) and Trump the putative peacemaker (for concluding a deal with the Taliban to end the US military presence in Afghanistan).

Trump, in other words, was not just an unanticipated crisis; he was also an opportunity. Deep in their hearts, anyone unhappy with the status quo will support a disrupter. Quite a few Democrats disgusted with this country’s border policies, inflation and its coastal elites even crossed over to vote for Trump in November because they wanted change, regardless of the consequences.

Trump 2.0 is going to be the same but worse, like a strong cheese voted out of the refrigerator only to grow ever more pungent as it molded in a dark corner of Florida. The latest version of Trump has promised more violence and destruction the second time around, from mass deportations to mass tariffs. And he’s planning to avoid appointing anyone to his administration who might have a contrary thought, a backbone to resist him or the least qualification to enact sensible policy.

In the face of such a vengeful and truculent force returning to the White House, surely, you might think, it will be impossible to find any liberals embracing such anarchy the second time around.

Think again. This is how US politics works, if only for liberals. The modern Republican Party routinely boycotts Democratic administrations: blocking Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court nomination, working overtime to shut down the federal government, voting en masse against legislation it would have supported if introduced by a Republican administration. The MAGA crowd has, in fact, turned noncooperation into something of an art form.

Liberals, on the other hand, pride themselves on bipartisanship, on getting things done no matter who’s in power. So, inevitably, there will be cooperation with the Trump team as it sets about the “deconstruction of the administrative state” (as Trump cheerleader Steve Bannon once put it). Worse, there will even be some silver-lining liberals (and a few leftists) who pull up a seat to applaud the wrecking ball — not perhaps for its wholesale destruction of neighborhoods, but at least for its demolition of a select number of buildings that they deem irreparable.

Each time such destruction takes place, the self-exculpatory comment from such silver-liners will be: “Well, somebody had to come along and do something!” If Trump is the only tool in the governing toolbox, some liberals will indeed try to use him to pound in a few nails they think need hammering.

Burning bridges with China

In his 2024 State of the Union address, President Joe Biden argued that he did a better job than Trump of standing up to China. He certainly devoted more Pentagon dollars to containing China. And not only did he not roll back Trump’s tariffs on Chinese products, but he added some of his own, including a 100% tax on Chinese electric vehicles. Biden also made concrete moves to decouple the US economy from China’s, especially when it came to the supply chains for critical raw materials that Beijing has sought to control. “I’ve made sure that the most advanced American technologies can’t be used in China,” he insisted, adding, “Frankly for all his tough talk on China, it never occurred to my predecessor to do any of that.”

Biden’s moves on China, from export controls and subsidies for chip manufacturers to closer military relationships with Pacific partners like Australia and India, received the enthusiastic support of his party. No surprise there: It’s hard to find anyone in Washington these days who has a good word to say about engaging more with China.

So when Trump takes office in January, he won’t actually be reversing course. He’ll simply be taking the baton-like stick from Biden while leaving all the carrots in the ground.

That said, Trump’s proposed further spike in tariffs against China (and Canada and Mexico and potentially the rest of the world) does give many liberals pause. It threatens to unleash an economically devastating global trade war while boosting prices radically at home. But trade unions backed by such liberals support such measures as a way to protect jobs, while the European Union only recently imposed stiff tariffs of their own on Chinese electrical vehicles.

So, yes, neoliberals who embrace free trade are going to push back against Trump’s economic policies, but more traditional liberals who backed protectionist measures in the past will secretly (or not so secretly) applaud Trump’s moves.

Back to the wall

On taking office, Biden rolled back his predecessor’s harsh immigration policies. The rate of border-crossings then spiked for a variety of reasons — not just the repeal of those Trump-era laws — from an average of half a million to about two million annually. However, in 2024, those numbers plummeted despite Trump’s campaign claims — but no matter. By then, many Democrats had already been reborn as border hawks.

That new, tougher attitude was on display in executive actions Biden took in 2024 as well as the border security bill that Democrats tried to push through Congress earlier this year. Forget about finding a path to citizenship for the millions of undocumented immigrants who keep the US economy humming, Biden’s immigration policy focused on limiting asylum petitions, increasing detention facilities and even allocating more money to build Trump’s infamous wall.

As Elora Mukherjee, director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School, pointed out on the eve of the November election, “What we are seeing is that the center of the Democratic Party is now adopting the same policies, the same postures, that MAGA Republicans were fighting for about six years ago.”

And yet such punitive policies still weren’t harsh enough for MAGA Republicans and their America First followers. The bottom line was that immigration-averse voters didn’t want to support Democrats pretending to be MAGA Republicans. When it came to the White House, they wanted the real thing.

As politics change hands in Washington next January, it’s going to be difficult to find any Democrats who will support the mass detentions and deportations Trump is promising. Yet many liberals, like the unprecedented number of Latinos who pulled the lever for Trump in 2024, do want major changes at the border with Mexico. In Arizona, Democrat Ruben Gallego won a squeaker of a Senate election by emphasizing border security and even backing a border wall in certain areas. Such liberal border hawks will be happy when the Republican president does the dirty work so that Democrats don’t suffer the political fallout that is sure to follow.

Remapping the Middle East

On the face of it, the Abrahamic Accords were a liberal nightmare. The brainchild of Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, they promised to repair relations between Israel and the major authoritarian regimes in the region: Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Morocco and Sudan. The deal was a reward for illiberal leaders, particularly Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu. The primary losers would, of course, be the Palestinians, who would have to give up their hopes for a separate state in exchange for some Saudi handouts and the Sahrawi people who lost their claim to the Western Sahara when the US and Israel recognized Moroccan sovereignty over the entire region.

Instead of shelving the Accords, however, the Biden administration pushed ahead with them. After roundly criticizing Saudi autocrat Mohammed bin Salman for, among other things, ordering the murder of a US-based Saudi journalist, Biden mended ties, fist-bumping that rogue leader and continuing to discuss how and when the Kingdom would normalize relations with Israel. Nor did his administration restrict Washington’s staggering weapons deliveries to Israel after its invasion and utter devastation of Gaza. Yes, Biden and crew made some statements about Palestinian suffering and tried to push more humanitarian aid into the conflict zone, but they did next to nothing to pressure Israel to stop its killing machine, nor would they reverse the Trump administration’s decision on the Western Sahara.

The liberals who support Israel (come what may) like Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman, New York Congressman Ritchie Torres and the New Democrat Coalition in the House of Representatives are, of course, going to be enthusiastic about Trump’s ever tighter embrace of Netanyahu next year. But there are also likely to be quiet cheers from other corners of the liberal-left about the harder line Trump is likely to take against Tehran. (Remember Kamala Harris’s assertion during her presidential run that Iran was the main adversary of the US?)

The Arab Spring is long gone and a strong man in the White House needs to both schmooze with and go toe to toe with the strong men of the Middle East — or so many liberals will believe, even as they rationalize away their relief over Trump’s handling of a thoroughly illiberal region.

Looking ahead (or do I mean behind?)

Anyone to the left of Tucker Carlson will certainly think twice about showing public enthusiasm for whatever Trump does. Indeed, most liberals will be appalled by the new administration’s likely suspension of aid to Ukraine and withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, not to mention other possible hare-brained maneuvers like sending US troops to battle narcotraffickers in Mexico.

Trump will attract liberal support, however quietly or even secretively, not because of his bridge-building genius — in reality, he couldn’t even get a bridge-building infrastructure bill through Congress in his first term — but because all too many liberals have already moved inexorably rightward on issues ranging from China and the Middle East to immigration. The MAGA minority has seized the machinery of power by weaponizing mendacity and ruthlessly breaking rules, in the process transforming politics much the way the Bolshevik minority did in Russia more than a century ago. In the pot that those Republicans put on the stove, the water has been boiling for more than a decade and yet the left-of-center frogs barely seem to recognize just how altered our circumstances have become.

In normal times, finding overlapping interests with your political adversaries makes sense. Such bedrock bipartisanship stabilizes fractious countries that swing politically from center left to center right every few years.

These are, however, anything but normal times and the second-term Trump team is anything but center-rightists. They are extremists bent on dismantling the federal government, unstitching the fabric of international law and turning up the heat drastically on an already dangerously overcooking planet.

In 2020, I raised the possibility of a boycott, divestment and sanction (BDS) movement against the US if Trump won the elections that year. “People of the world, you’d better build your BDS box, paint ‘Break Glass in Case of Emergency’ on the front, and stand next to it on November 3,” I wrote then. “If Trump wins on Election Day, it will be mourning in America. But let’s hope that the world doesn’t mourn: it organizes.”

Four years later, Trump has won again. Do I hear the sound of breaking glass?

Here in the US, a stance of strict non-engagement with Trump 2.0, even where interests overlap, would not only be a good moral policy but even make political sense. When things go disastrously south, laws are broken and the government begins to truly come apart at the seams, it’s vitally important that no left-of-center fingerprints be found at the crime scene.

Let’s be clear: The Trump administration will not be playing by the rules of normal politics. So forget about bipartisanship. Forget about preserving access to power by visiting Mar-a-Lago, hat in hand, like Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg or the hosts of MSNBC’s Morning Joe show. “Fascism can be defeated,” historian Timothy Snyder wrote immediately after the November elections, “but not when we are on its side.”

So, my dear liberal-left, which side are you on?

[TomDispatch first published this piece.]

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Everyone (Sort of) Loves a Disrupter appeared first on Fair Observer.

The direction of these policies largely depends on the incoming administration’s appointees, particularly within the Treasury and Commerce departments. However, President Trump’s unpredictable nature adds another layer of uncertainty. How these priorities will play out remains open to speculation.

Some administration advisors support tariffs as a negotiating strategy, while others prefer a more aggressive approach. These tariffs could greatly impact American consumers and businesses, raising inflationary pressures, disrupting supply chains, and increasing costs for goods. Proponents believe such measures could help revitalize American manufacturing and create blue-collar jobs. The administration’s stance on this issue will be crucial as it formulates its trade policy.

The Impact of Trumponomics 2.0 on Growth and Global Relations

The second Trump administration faces numerous challenges, including a divided House of Representatives, existing bureaucratic resistance, and pressing concerns like inflation and immigration. The effectiveness of Trumponomics 2.0 will depend on the administration’s ability to harmonize differing interests and deliver results. While deregulation and tax cuts have the potential to stimulate growth, the threat of trade wars and tariffs could pose significant risks to businesses and consumers. Businesses and individuals must adapt and plan strategically to navigate this volatile economic environment. As such, understanding the political landscape will be crucial to seizing opportunities that arise.

As the United States enters this uncertain economic chapter, domestic and international consequences are at stake. The global community will closely monitor how Trumponomics 2.0 will affect international relations, trade agreements, and geopolitical dynamics. The administration must carefully balance ambitious goals and the complexities of a highly interconnected world. The impact of its economic policies will resonate beyond U.S. borders, influencing global markets. Ultimately, the long-term effects of Trumponomics 2.0, whether they promote prosperity or amplify challenges, remain to be seen.

[Peter Choi edited this podcast and wrote the first draft of this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/podcast are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Making Sense of the New Trumponomics Starting in 2025 appeared first on Fair Observer.

In the early hours of October 17, news started to filter in that Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar had been killed by a small group of IDF soldiers in Tal as-Sultan, Rafah. Hunted by a drone, Sinwar displayed courage until his last moments.In the early hours of October 17, news started to filter in that Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar had been killed by a small group of IDF soldiers in Tal as-Sultan, Rafah. Hunted by a drone, Sinwar displayed courage until his last moments.

For many, Sinwar will be remembered as just another assassinated terrorist. His entire life’s work and the complexities of his humanity will collapse into a neat box, easily dismissed. But there is something about Sinwar that speaks to the undying battle for liberation. Despite being the leader of Hamas, Sinwar fought alongside the same men he was appointed to lead. He possessed qualities that one of the authors recently noticed in the documentary Dope is Death, a remarkable story about tenacious resistance in the face of insurmountable odds. Echoing the legacy of resistance groups like the Black Panther Party and the Young Lords, Sinwar stands as a symbol of hope and reminds us of the power of community-born resistance.

Resistance in the time of the Young Lords and Black Panthers

In Dope is Death, the Black Panthers and Young Lords join together to establish holistic support for addicts during the heroin epidemic in New York City. One moment in particular struck us in how it captured what resistance could actually feel like going up against insurmountable odds — and how that feeling persists throughout time and space. It was the recounting of the historic events of July 14, 1970 at Lincoln Hospital in the South Bronx. 

After hospital administration refused to address mounting complaints about poor care conditions, members of the community decided to take matters into their own hands. The New York chapter of the Young Lords stormed the hospital and seized control of the facility while ensuring there were no disruptions to medical treatment for patients. Using the hospital occupation and the attention it garnered as leverage, the Young Lords and members of the Black Panther Party were able to negotiate resolutions to the people’s demands, including the creation of a detox center within the hospital. 

The opening of Lincoln Detox laid the groundwork for a community-led effort to get to the root of addiction. The center was no longer just a detox center — it evolved into a conscious effort to invest in one another. Those coming in to deal with their afflictions were treated by members of their own community, receiving care that went beyond just treating symptoms. The center and the resources it provided became the seeds that were planted to imagine a different life. This was a truly visionary project, well ahead of its time, and it demonstrated to people in black and brown communities the possibilities of what their neighborhoods could look like. 

The Black Panthers’ early successes can be seen in the initiatives they enacted locally. Their revolutionary roots were deeply ingrained in the neighborhoods that molded their minds. As a result, the group’s message and mission were a source of empowerment and security for the people, providing for their necessities and giving them the tools to engineer their own liberation. 

Although the Black Panther Party disbanded in 1982, this didn’t dissolve their impressive influence on future visionaries who can quote Stokely Carmichael, Angela Davis and Fred Hampton at will. Their impact has endured through the years despite attempts by the US government to stifle the movement. Their vision and actions were built upon their communities, becoming an eternal reminder of where true power lies. Decades later, the legacy of strength in community and undying commitment to a cause has once again been evoked through Sinwar’s death for the Palestinian resistance movement. 

The Palestinian fight for freedom

For many Palestinians, Hamas’s October 7, 2023, incursion into Israel wasn’t a random act of aggression. It was a response to an ever-escalating threat to their collective future in Gaza. They ask: Who can justify trapping two million people in an open-air concentration camp without any resistance? 

The world isn’t just watching the extermination of Palestinians. The world bears witness to the desecration of the land they so cherish and the cruelty of illegal settlers tearing them away from their ancestral homes. Their lives have been toyed with and trivialized at the hands of soldiers who do not hesitate to shoot, be it a Palestinian man, woman or child.

In the darkest hour, no country sent its military to aid the two million Palestinians who have been repeatedly victimized by a genocidal regime every day since October 2023. The only group standing up for the Palestinian people and facing the enemy is Hamas. The men who choose to fight have had their entire lives shaped by this unconscionable occupation. 

Sinwar’s novel The Thorn and the Carnation echoes the sentiments of many resistance fighters. He wrote, “A minute of living with dignity and pride is better than a thousand years of a miserable life under the boots of the occupation.” When much of the world was against Palestinians and did everything to normalize their displacement, the people’s will to resist stood as a constant reminder that Palestinians would not go gently into the night.  

The nature of resistance

Many Palestinians do not see their resistance as terrorism. In its early days, Hamas provided varied social services to Palestinians in Gaza, building medical centers, food banks and schools. The group took on the role of a community organizer that advocates for its people’s needs. Similar to the services the Black Panthers and the Young Lords provided in their own communities, Hamas works to establish protection and security for its people. 

The parallels between these groups are most evident in the communities that sparked their ascent to power. When facing systemic and exploitative oppression, fighting back is the only option for survival. For Palestinians, Hamas represents the only entity standing between them and total annihilation. So when Sinwar’s death was announced, the motivations behind divergent narratives coming from US media and social media were as clear as day.

News outlets and media agencies rushed to announce that the terrorist leader of Hamas and conspirator of the October 7 attacks was killed by the heroic IDF. Meanwhile, social media communities paid tribute to what his life’s work meant for the Palestinian people, and how the future of the resistance would be shaped by his legacy. Whether it be the Black Panthers and Young Lords or Hamas, every resistance movement essentially boils down to the one incontrovertible truth that the real power lies with the people.

Israel publishing the drone footage of Sinwar’s last moments further cemented his status as a fierce fighter who refused to back down. He was fearless even as he was faced with advanced IDF weaponry. A quiet but strong display of heroism, his death conveys a raw truth that transcends any attempted manipulation of who the man was and what his legacy will be. 

Years from now, people will learn about the Palestinian resistance and remember it for its tenacity in standing up to an unrelenting oppressor. Yahya Sinwar’s legacy is not just one of personal martyrdom, but a tribute to every Palestinian who dreams of freedom and will hold fast to a collective vision to the very end.

[Emma Johnson edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post A Tribute to the Life and Death of Yahya Sinwar appeared first on Fair Observer.

The book’s purpose is to see what elements of these revolutions align. What kind of similarities can be teased out between these huge, important historical events? In the end, Brinton summarizes five symptoms of revolution.

Before providing this list, Brinton is quick to mention, “We must be very tentative about the prodromal symptoms of revolution.” He writes that this is a highly complicated subject and that because there are so many different variables at play, it is perhaps impossible to diagnose any incipient revolutions that might be happening in the present day with certainty (wink). “But,” he says, “some uniformities do emerge from a study of the old regimes in England, America, France, and Russia.”

Intolerable gap and class antagonism

Brinton’s first symptom of revolution is “an intolerable gap between what [members of the working class] have come to want—their ‘needs’—and what they actually get.” As Brinton notes, revolutions frequently show up following periods where the standard of living was going up and then abruptly stopped. Much as we have seen in the past 40+ years since American President Ronald Reagan and the double-barreled acceptance of neoliberalism by both major political parties, productivity has gone way up while wages are frozen in place.

In comparing the four major revolutions, Brinton writes: “these were all societies on the whole on the upgrade economically before the revolution came, and the revolutionary movements seem to originate in the discontents of not unprosperous people who feel restraint, cramp, annoyance, rather than downright crushing oppression. … These revolutionists are not worms turning, not children of despair. These revolutions are born of hope, and their philosophies are formally

optimistic.” This is because people grew up thinking, much like in our society, that they would someday end up better off. When that doesn’t happen, it creates a widespread feeling of discontent. That’s highly relatable.

The second symptom is how pre-revolutionary societies are marked by “very bitter class antagonisms.” I don’t think I need to spell this one out for you. Modern American society has done its share of wealth and celebrity worship. But the resentment is there.

There is growing awareness amongst the mass population that the wealth at the top of the capitalist pyramid scheme comes from us, the working class. It is our hard work that makes the super rich so fabulously wealthy. Class is short for classification. If we classify ourselves by wealth or income, the difference between the rich owning class and the working class is at an all-time high. A classic hallmark of a pre-revolutionary society is when these differences become obvious — and people start getting really pissed off about it.

Intellectual allegiance, inefficiency and a changing ruling class

The third symptom of revolution is what Brinton calls the “transfer of allegiance of the intellectuals.” This is where the educated turn against supporting the status quo and instead support the oppressed. Brinton doesn’t linger on this point other than to say it is present in all four cases. What happens is that reality can no longer be denied, so smart people stop trying to deny it. Check out TikTok or Substack any day of the week to see this playing out in real time.

The fourth symptom is that governmental machinery becomes “clearly inefficient.” This comes from a combination of factors: neglect, the government’s inability to allow old institutions to keep up with the times and new conditions that place “an intolerable strain on governmental machinery adapted to simpler, more primitive, conditions.” It so happens that America’s governmental machinery hasn’t been updated much in the last 237 years. Just saying…

Finally, the fifth symptom is that “many individuals of the old ruling class—come to distrust themselves, or lose faith in the traditions and habits of their class, grow intellectual, humanitarian, or go over to the attacking groups.” You can recognize what Brinton calls the “disintegration of the ruling class” when elites start getting scared and supporting the cause of the oppressed classes, or what he pithily calls the upperdogs deciding to side with the underdogs. Writes Brinton, “It is not altogether cynical to hazard the guess that this is sometimes an indication that there is about to be a reversal in the position of the dogs.”

This is one that I don’t believe I have witnessed happening a whole lot… yet. We are currently in the waning glory days of a modern Gilded Age. It won’t last forever. Keep this in mind when the billionaire class suddenly starts sounding a whole lot more sympathetic toward the working class. They may even propose some desperate reforms to keep the existing system a while longer. Don’t fall for it; it is a sure sign that the end is nigh.

So there you have the five symptoms of a pre-revolutionary society according to Brinton. It depends on who you’re asking, of course, but it sure looks to me like modern Western society and America in particular check most of those boxes. Don’t you agree? Let me know in the comments.

[Let’s Make Them Pay first published this piece.]

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post A Friendly Reminder of the Five Symptoms of Revolution appeared first on Fair Observer.

“I was angry. I told him it had to stop, or our entire future relationship was endangered. I used the word holocaust deliberately & said the symbol of his war was becoming a picture of a 7-month-old baby with its arms blown off,” Reagan noted in his diary.

The August 1982 phone call between Reagan and Begin provides a template for the US’s ability to twist Israel’s arm and the limits of the Western giant’s influence.

Begin wasted no time in halting his saturation bombing of the Lebanese capital in response to Reagan’s threat. Yet, he rejected the president’s demand that he allow an international force to enter Beirut to protect the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees in the Israeli-besieged city. His refusal had dire consequences.

A month later, at least 800 Palestinians, many of them women and children, were massacred in their homes in Sabra and Shatila in West Beirut by Lebanese Christian gunmen under the watchful eyes of the Israeli military. Public outrage in Israel forced Begin to resign, ending his career.

Biden failed where Reagan succeeded

More than four decades later, US President Joe Biden understood the stakes when Israel went to war in response to Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack on Israel. He also knew the levers of power at his disposal after test-driving Reagan’s approach in 2021.

At the time, Biden, like his predecessor, picked up the phone to read Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the riot act. As a new book on Biden, The Last Politician, describes, it was his fourth phone call to the Israeli leader in ten days in which behind-the-scenes diplomacy and cajoling failed to end fighting between Israel and Hamas. The president advised him that he “expected a significant de-escalation today on the path to a ceasefire.” When Netanyahu sought to buy time, Biden replied: “Hey man, we’re out of runway here. It’s over.”

Netanyahu and Hamas agreed to a ceasefire a day later. Even so, he knew then and now that he had less to worry about than Begin did with the Reagan presidency.

In contrast to Reagan’s administration, which allowed the United Nations Security Council to pass 21 resolutions criticizing, if not condemning, Israel’s policies, Biden gave Israel blanket diplomatic cover and provided it with arms. With these, it could prosecute wars that make 1982 pale in comparison.

Biden’s test-driving of Reagan’s template, familiarity with the Israeli interventions in Lebanon and annexationist policies in the 1980s and beyond, coupled with his predecessor’s willingness to confront Begin in the 1982 war leave the president with little excuse for refusing to rein Israel in over the past year.

Biden’s failure has tangibly devastating consequences for the Palestinians and yet to materialize fallouts for Israelis and the rest of the Middle East. These will haunt the region for a generation, if not more.

Like Begin, Biden will likely see his legacy sullied by Israeli conduct on the Middle East’s battlefields.

Historic destruction may only increase

A heated encounter with Begin during the 1982 war, which involved finger jabbing and fists pounding on a table, spotlights Biden’s lack of an excuse. Echoing Reagan, Biden warned Begin that Israeli settlement policy could cost it US support. In response, Begin snapped, “I am not a Jew with trembling knees.”

Forty-two years later, Biden studiously ignores the fact that Israel’s latest Gaza and Lebanon wars are a repeat of the early 1980s on steroids.

Begin created the template for Israel’s systematic targeting of militants irrespective of the risk to civilians with the 1981 bombing of Fakhani. This densely populated Beirut neighborhood was home to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and its affiliates. The bombing destroyed a seven-story building and damaged four nearby structures, killing some 90 people and wounding hundreds of others.

In a letter to Reagan, written during Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon, Begin compared the carpet bombing of Beirut to the Allied destruction of Berlin during World War II.

“I feel as a prime minister empowered to instruct a valiant army facing ‘Berlin’ where, amongst innocent civilians, Hitler and his henchmen hide in a bunker deep beneath the surface,” Begin said.

Begin’s equation of PLO chairman Yasser Arafat and his organization with Adolf Hitler and his associates, like Netanyahu equating Hamas with the Nazis, served to justify civilian casualties in operations that were as much about targeting fighters as they were designed to incite the local population against the militants.

“In certain cases, the Israeli shelling and bombing were carefully targeted, sometimes on the basis of good intelligence. All too often, however, that was not the case. Scores of eight-to twelve-story apartment buildings were destroyed… Many of the buildings that were levelled…had no plausible military utility,” recalled historian Rashid Khalidi, who lived in Beirut at the time of the 1982 bombings.

The strategy produced mixed results but, on balance, hardened rather than weakened popular resistance to Israeli policies.

There is little reason to believe that the impact of Israel’s current wars will be any different. Israel has already prepared the ground by turning Gaza into what onetime Australian human rights commissioner and United Nations rapporteur Chris Sidoti calls a “terrorism creation factory.”

[The Turbulent World first published this piece.]

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Israel’s Wars Repeat the 1980s on Steroids appeared first on Fair Observer.

The obvious answer is the media. But few people in the United States trust the media these days. Surely, in a democracy “of the people, by the people and for the people,” there will be a few scoundrels who make their way into government, but we can assume that the majority merits our confidence. Well, according to a Pew survey titled, “Public Trust in Government: 1958-2024,” the current level of trust has fallen to 22%.

December 2024 offers us a vision of exacerbated tensions in various parts of the globe. At such moments, we expect our leaders to speak with some degree of honesty. Especially when the stakes are high and decisions become a matter of life or death. We accept that some things must remain secret. But the democratic principle implies an effort on the part of our governments to offer a minimum of clarity concerning the facts and their intentions.

Alas, the duty of obscurity seems to have replaced the ideal of clarity as the norm. Clever government officials have good reasons to justify their brazen stonewalling. First, national security requires concealing one’s true intentions. After all, if revealed, the enemy will profit. Then there is the fact that in any situation of conflict, we should accept the reality of the “fog of war,” a concept erroneously but persistently attributed to Prussian general and military theorist Carl von Clausewitz by commentators, some of whose brains may be subjected to a permanent fog.

What are US presidents for if not guiding the nation towards an understanding of the truth? In August 2023, US President Joe Biden informed us that “Putin has already lost the war” in Ukraine. An obvious fact. The truth teller now describes the recent history of US policy towards Syria. “Over the past four years, my administration pursued a clear and principled policy toward Syria. First, we made clear from the start sanctions on Assad would remain in place unless he engaged seriously in a political process to end the civil war.”

Today’s Fair Observer Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Principled policy:

A course of action relentlessly pursued thanks to the capacity of some people in a position of authority to persistently ignore surrounding reality.

Contextual note

Biden uses two epithets, “clear” and “principled,” to describe his policy. The word “clear” is certainly the most overused word by any spokesperson for the White House or State Department. At briefing sessions with personalities such as the White House’s Karine Jean-Pierre and the State Department’s Matthew Miller, whenever a journalist poses embarrassing questions that highlight potential ambiguity or equivocation with regard to the “noble” principles that guide US actions, they respond with the formula, “We have been very clear about…” In one random example, the press briefing session of March 27, 2024, Max Miller crafted this litany of explanations:

• So we have been very clear about this matter.
• So we have made that quite clear to them.
• So I will say that we have a fundamental disagreement with the Israeli Government over this issue, and we have made that quite clear.
• … we will continue to be clear about what we think about these actions.
• …we have made clear that we believe that allegations of genocide are unfounded.
• …we have made clear that the United States is not going to send any troops to Ukraine.
• And I think it’s clear that these claims are categorically false. (this was a response to the claim that the US created ISIS.)
• …and we’ll make the same thing clear privately.
• …we have made clear since the outset of this administration that the promotion of democracy is one of the top priorities for the President.
• So we continue to make clear in our conversations with the Government of Bangladesh… that we wanted to see free and fair elections and we will continue to support free, full, open democracy in Bangladesh.
• So we have been very clear about this matter. We’ve been unequivocal. (This concerned the fact that “Ben-Gvir’s coalition would be annexing additional land in the Jordan Valley.”)
• So we have made that quite clear to them. We’ve been very direct and candid about it in our conversations with them. (On the same topic of land seizures.)

This obsessively repeated verbal tic brings home the point that “being clear” means quite simply: “Whatever we say must be accepted as truth.” As for the “principled policy” Biden cited, his logic consists of announcing a simple principle — that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad must be removed from office — and never deviating from it. Even if circumstances change, and even if hundreds of thousands of people may die or be displaced as a result of clinging to that principle.

Biden has already vowed to support the new Syrian government. Some may find this a bit strange. At this point, nobody has even a vague idea about what the new government will look like. On principle, can the US support it? What if it turns out to be a Wahhabi terrorist government, fulfilling its leader’s initial allegiance? Moreover, Syrian Head of State Abu Mohammed al-Joulani still has a $10 million bounty on his head because the US branded him a terrorist. Does Joulani’s success in overthrowing a dictator, Assad, automatically mean that democracy is on its way? Biden might profitably consult the the poem, “The Great Day” by the Irish poet, William Butler Yeats::

“Hurrah for revolution and more cannon-shot!
A beggar upon horseback lashes a beggar on foot.
Hurrah for revolution and cannon come again!
The beggars have changed places, but the lash goes on.”

Substitute “regime change” for “revolution” and Yeats has defined the principle that defines at least 50% of US foreign policy. In the meantime, Biden and his good friend, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are providing “more cannon-shot.” Within a day of the announced liberation of Syria, the US and Israel conducted multiple bombing raids on the military infrastructure and other threatening elements within a country that is rife with threatening elements. Can anyone seriously doubt that the lash will go on?

Anyone struggling with the question of which “clear principles” to apply to a dramatic situation in which multiple interests both converge and diverge would do well to follow Caitlin Johnstone’s advice. “I personally don’t blame people for misunderstanding what’s been happening in Syria all these years. Some of my favorite analysts got Syria wrong in the early years of the war. It’s a complicated issue. It’s hard to sort out the true from the false, and it’s hard to sort through the moral complexities and contradictions of it all as a human being. What matters is that you stay curious and open and sincerely dedicated to learning what’s true instead of bedding down and making an identity out of your current understanding.”

Johnstone’s wisdom tallies with the advice our fictional journalist and his AI assistant are intent on following in the video above.

Historical note

As US President Barack Obama’s vice president and then as president, Joe Biden has been associated with the framing and enforcing of the principles he claims to be at the core of US policy with regard to Syria.

But what are those principles? In 2015, The Guardian revealed that the most obvious one has been to ignore any initiative aiming at peace and mutual security, especially if the initiative comes from Russia.

The Guardian was clear. “Russia proposed more than three years ago that Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, could step down as part of a peace deal, according to a senior negotiator involved in back-channel discussions at the time. Former Finnish president and Nobel peace prize laureate Martti Ahtisaari said western powers failed to seize on the proposal. Since it was made, in 2012, tens of thousands of people have been killed and millions uprooted, causing the world’s gravest refugee crisis since the second world war.”

Biden’s principles are clear. He once again demonstrated that clarity in December 2021 when he refused to consider security arrangements Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed that could have avoided an invasion and a prolonged war in Ukraine, in which an estimated one million people have died. UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson applied the same principle when he instructed the Ukrainians not to sign a peace treaty in April 2022.

During a 2015 television interview, Former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas recounted how his British friends told him they were planning to overthrow Assad because the “Syrian regime said things that were anti-Israeli.” Another case of applying a principle, this time by British allies of the US.

These cases illustrate what has become clear as far as principles are concerned. Negotiation and diplomacy can never replace kinetic action, whatever the eventual cost. The principle of regime change for Syria has already been in place for 12 years. It has finally succeeded. Just as it had in Iraq and Libya and even in Afghanistan in 2001.

One may legitimately ask, is it more about principle or about interest?

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of Fair Observer Devil’s Dictionary.]

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post For the US in Syria, Is It About Principle or Interest? appeared first on Fair Observer.

The Biden years To Trump 2.0: resetting the White House 

A mix of socio-economic failures and the decline in the US’s geopolitical influence created the conditions for a reset in the White House.

Following Trump’s dramatic exit from power in 2021, the Joe Biden administration embraced a “measured” and retrained strategic response toward global politics. This put pressure on the US’s position of global influence because of the emerging high-power rivalries the US has with China and Russia. Biden’s foreign policy may have contributed to the emergence of a strong alliance against the US between Pakistan, Russia, Iran, China and North Korea (PRICK).

One of Biden’s greatest international failures was the Build Back Better World (B3W) plan. The 2021 plan was an international economic development initiative by the G7 countries to counter China’s Belt and Road initiative and stabilize regional economies after COVID-19. However, the plan failed to gain traction and was rebranded as the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment with much less ambitious goals.

On the domestic front, the Biden White House made other miscalculations. One of these missteps was the economic failure of Biden’s big policies, such as the American Rescue Plan, which led to massive inflation. Biden’s energy policies were another blunder, experiencing setbacks since the start of the Russia-Ukraine war. Canceling the Keystone XL pipeline put additional pressure on the US energy sector.

Another domestic failure was an increase in the crime rate. According to Fox News, “Violent crimes have dramatically increased during the Biden-Harris administration, according to a recent Department of Justice study that appears to refute consistent claims by the Harris campaign.” Other issues, such as immigration and rejecting identity politics also influenced voters.

The US’s realpolitik

The US’s realpolitik has two key features: influence and competition with emerging powers. During the Cold War, the US deep state used every available strategy to counter the Soviet Union’s increasing influence. However, one major player in the US realpolitik significantly influenced the US’s approach to global events, sometimes even challenging branches of the deep state.

Two significant presidents during the Cold War were John F. Kennedy and Gerald Ford. To some extent, both had a “measured, strategic response” rather than an assertive, strategic response, which came in the 1980s with President Ronald Reagan. Kennedy’s hesitation in using the CIA as a significant tool for US foreign policy goals, instead slashing its budget, created difficulties in steering US foreign policy during the initial phases of the Cold War.

Similarly, the Soviet–US détente supported by President Ford was criticized by analysts and Ford’s Secretary of Defence, James Schlesinger. The Détente was a strategic failure, with the Soviet Union invading Afghanistan in 1979. A major setback came when Ford ordered the immediate evacuation of US personnel from South Vietnam in 1975, causing a crisis similar to the disastrous US withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. The CIA faced embarrassment during Ford’s presidency when an investigative journalist exposed the CIA’s Operation CHAOS, which engaged in domestic surveillance of US citizens, in violation of the National Security Act of 1947.

Following the Cold War, President Bill Clinton attempted to adjust the US’s foreign policy strategy back to a “measured response.” Clinton’s main focus was on domestic policy and trade. His foreign policy has been described by analysts as the Doctrine of Enlargement, which favored the promotion of free markets and democratic principles in other countries. To some extent, this policy was responsible for the failure to restore democracy in Somalia, which resulted in the resignation of Clinton’s Secretary of Defence after the failed Operation Gothic Serpent. The Clinton administration also failed in 1993 when it was unable to oust Haiti’s military dictator, Raoul Cedres, and in 1994 when it did not intervene in Rwanda to prevent genocide.

These failures share many similarities with those of the Biden presidency. Biden re-negotiated the nuclear deal with Iran, withdrew from Afghanistan and made other miscalculations in Europe and the Middle East. Similar to Biden’s predecessors, who embraced a similar foreign policy, these errors caused significant setbacks to the US’s geopolitical position.

Now that Trump will be back in the White House, the US’s foreign policy will be better suited to navigate the ever more complex world order. Trump’s second term promises an assertive response to global and regional crises, making it worth observing how wars in the Middle East and Europe unfold after he assumes office.

Trump’s second term may ease pressure on the trans-Atlantic security architecture and provide more freedom for European countries to make their own security and defense decisions. This new policy contrasts the Biden years, when the US was too involved in European security decisions, leading to friction with European countries, especially France.

Some have argued that US realpolitik is hampered by Ukraine. However, if the US engages in an “assertive, strategic response” to re-building confidence among European nations and shore up European security architecture, the US may be able to check Russian influence.

During Trump’s first term, his “assertive, strategic response” effectively addressed evolving geopolitical dynamics, keeping China under the radar and Russia in check without straining relations with the US. Similar adjustments are expected in Trump’s second administration, but with a key difference in the Middle East. The space for Iran, which expanded under the Biden administration, is likely to shrink rapidly under Trump. This shift will allow the US to adopt a more assertive stance toward Iran while rebuilding strategic relations with Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

It is unlikely that Donald Trump will eliminate the so-called deep state, which consists of officials embedded within the executive branch of the US government who espouse an ideology that may be contrary to the administration’s. Instead of being completely eliminated, the deep state could be reduced in size, as it plays a significant role in the US’s realpolitik, particularly for any incoming Trump administration. During Trump’s first term, the deep state functioned in a limited yet operational manner. For instance, Trump appointed Gina Haspel, the first woman to serve as deputy director of the CIA and later as CIA director in 2018, despite strong reservations from some senators. These examples suggest that the deep state under a Trump administration could continue to function effectively with minor adjustments.

India–US relations: and upward trajectory 

The India–US relationship is currently on an “upward trajectory,” with the Comprehensive Global and Strategic Partnership between the two countries recently reaffirmed. The partnership will receive more traction in the Trump Administration. During Trump’s first term, the US understood India’s interests much better than the Biden administration, with few exceptions. The Trump administration’s superior understanding of India will help build much-needed trust between the two nations, whose relations have been strained by US criticism of India’s internal affairs. However, trade between India and the US will not change much during Trump’s second term, given the implications of his America first policy for trade and high tariffs.

When Trump enters office, he has to re-adjust the US’s realpolitik to revive the US’s declining influence on the global stage. The move from a measured to an assertive approach will only come after the realization that restrained and measured approaches lead to significant policy and strategic failures for the US. Biden’s foreign policy failures are the most recent example of this.

[Joey T. McFadden edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Resetting US Realpolitik In Trump’s Second Term appeared first on Fair Observer.

“Soldiers,” the general insisted, “we must emerge from this fight not only victorious but also beyond reproach. It must be said of you: They fought valiantly when necessary, but they showed themselves everywhere to be humane and generous.” He then detailed the categories of people to be protected: women, children, the elderly, members of the clergy and, even less obviously according to the customs of the time, prisoners and the wounded, who “deserve your consideration and compassion all the more since you often found yourselves with them in the same camps.”

Here, in embryo, we have the international humanitarian law that, following World War II, would be enshrined in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their additional protocols of 1977. This is what is called jus in bello, literally, law in war. Belligerents have the obligation to protect civilians and combatants who are wounded or taken prisoner. These obligations are legally binding on all states and on all armed groups, both state and non-state. For example, the use of force is prohibited if the number of civilian victims is disproportionate to the military objective sought.

Jus in bello and jus ad bellum

The right to war (jus ad bellum), or the right of a state to resort to armed force, is governed by the United Nations Charter. It authorizes the use of force only in two cases: self-defense and express authorization by the United Nations Security Council. The right of a non-state actor such as Hamas to armed resistance is only mentioned in resolutions of the General Assembly, which do not have the same legal value as those decided by the Security Council.

Until the early 1990s, the international system lacked a mechanism to punish violations of the rules governing the use of force. Following the ethnic cleansing of Bosnian Muslims and others in Yugoslavia in and the genocide of the Tutsi by the Hutus in Rwanda, the international community laid the groundwork for an international criminal justice system by establishing the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (1993) and for Rwanda (1994).

The advent of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002 established a general mechanism for repressing violations of international humanitarian law. The ICC statute defines four categories of crimes: war crimes, crimes against humanity, the crime of genocide and the crime of aggression. War crimes are serious violations of the Geneva Conventions. Crimes against humanity are essentially the same, but carried out systematically against the civilian population. The crime of genocide is defined as acts of murder and other acts committed with the intent to destroy in whole or in part a population group. The crime of aggression consists in acts of war carried out by a state without the legal right to do so.

How does this apply to Israel?

A consensus exists within the international community to recognize Israel’s right to defend itself after the deadly attack on its soil by Hamas and other Palestinian groups on October 7, 2023. But Israel is required to respect the jus in bello in the conduct of hostilities. Both sides are accused of crimes punishable by the ICC.

The high number of civilian casualties would indicate that Israel is not seeking to protect civilians or that it is deliberately targeting them. According to the UN, 70% of the approximately 44,000 people who have died in Gaza since October 7, 2023, are women and children. Israel defends itself by saying that it warns the population before strikes and that military objectives justify attacks on civilian facilities because Hamas operates from inside them.

Israel has also been accused of blocking or limiting humanitarian aid to Gaza, which has an impact on the food and health situation of Gazans, and of mistreating prisoners. According to the UN, 53 Palestinian detainees died in prison between October 7, 2023 and July 15, 2024. There are also documented cases of sexual violence.

Accusations against Hamas and other Palestinian factions focus primarily on the October 7 massacres in neighboring Gaza kibbutzim that killed 1,205 Israelis. According to Israeli social security, there were 695 civilians among the victims, including 36 children. In addition, 251 people were kidnapped, though the proportion of civilian to military hostages has not been determined. There are said to be less than a hundred alive today. Palestinian militias have also been accused of sexual violence, including rape, as well as using the civilian population as human shields.

Accusations of genocide are flying in both directions. Hamas is accused of wanting to eliminate any Jewish presence between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River. The 1988 founding charter of the Islamist movement cites a verse from the Koran calling for the murder of Jews. A 2017 document issued by Hamas is much more moderate and can be read as compatible with the two-state solution. However, the original charter has never been denounced by the movement.

On the other hand, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and some of his ministers, in particular Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir, have made potentially incriminating statements. The former referred to a passage from the Bible relating to Amalek, considered the archetypal enemy of Israel. God, according to a passage from the Bible, orders the Israelites to exterminate the Amalekites, including women and children. Other potential evidence of genocidal intent on the part of the Israeli government may include the systematic destruction of infrastructure such as roads, water supply facilities, schools, universities, hospitals, mosques and churches. The scale of civilian casualties, as well as population displacements, completes the picture.

Legal proceedings

Two proceedings are underway, one before the International Court of Justice, the other before the ICC. The first, tasked by the UN Charter with settling disputes between states, established in January 2024 that there was a plausible risk of genocide and ordered measures, including improved humanitarian access to Gaza. On July 19, the same court issued an advisory opinion declaring that Israel’s occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem was illegal. As for the ICC, its prosecutor requested in May 2024 that the Court issue arrest warrants for 3 Palestinian leaders and 2 Israelis accused of crimes against humanity and war crimes. The three Palestinian suspects have since been eliminated by Israel, although doubts remain over the fate of the head of the military branch, Mohammed Deïf.

On November 21, 2024, the ICC, a chamber composed of three judges, one French, one Beninese and one Slovenian, confirmed the indictments proposed by the prosecutor and issued arrest warrants for the accused Netanyahu, Gallant and Deïf. As expected, the reactions were apoplectic in Israel and Washington.

It is necessary to correct two criticisms Netanyahu’s administration has systematically and virulently leveled against the Court by pointing out that:

• The Court says nothing about the legality or otherwise of the military operation in Gaza. It states that there are reasons to believe that crimes were committed during the war. But it does not say that the war is illegal. Israel’s right to self-defense is not called into question.
• The Court has not indicted either the State of Israel or Hamas. Its mandate, which it has respected to the letter, is to prosecute individuals, not institutions. So it is individual citizens Netanyahu, Gallant and Deïf who are now wanted for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The state of Israel has neither been attacked nor prosecuted before the ICC.

Risks for the survival of the system

It is in the interest of Europe and the world that these cases follow their judicial course. After the tragedies of the first half of the twentieth century, the international community sought to create a system of global governance where law prevails over force rather than the other way around. The ICC is the keystone of the system. 125 countries from all continents are parties to the Rome Statute that created it.

Furthermore, only the ICC is capable of establishing the facts and their legal determination in an impartial manner. Thus, as the UN Tribunal in the former Yugoslavia did for the Balkan wars of the 1990s, its judgments, based on what really happened, will discredit the propaganda that today dominates on all sides.

There is a significant risk that the pressure on international judicial personnel will become so great that ongoing cases will be dropped. International prosecutors and judges have reason to fear smear campaigns, visa denials aimed at themselves or their families, as well as financial sanctions intended to prevent them, for example, from carrying out banking transactions. 

Pro-Israel lobbies, supported by the US government, are likely to exert pressure on European governments to refrain from executing ICC arrest warrants in the event that one of the accused shows up on their soil. Washington, Jerusalem and their allies in Europe may well seek to convince national parliaments to cut funding to the ICC. We should recall that, under US President George W. Bush, the US Congress gave the president the authority to use all means to prevent American citizens or those of allied countries — including Israel — from being brought to justice before the ICC. Following the publication of the arrest warrants targeting Israeli leaders, US Senator Tom Cotton penned a tweet reminding the public of this Bush-era law, known informally as the “Hague Invasion Act.”

Yielding to this pressure would be throwing away one of the most useful investments ever made by European countries, which finance the bulk of the ICC’s budget, to put an end to the impunity of the powerful, promoting peace and an international order based on law. It has been a worthwhile and inexpensive investment. Its budget of €200 million ($212 million) is 4,000 times less than the American defense budget. And no one can seriously claim that the American military has contributed much to peace in recent decades.

At the opening of the trial of former Serbian President Slobodan Milošević in 2002, Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte stated the principle in these terms: “No one is above the law, or beyond the reach of international justice.” The ICC has just proven that these strong words can still hold true. Every honest leader should post that quotation on the wall of their office.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Law and War: The Middle East, Laboratory of the Future World Order appeared first on Fair Observer.

The German traffic light coalition government of the Social Democrats, Free Democrats and Greens (respectively red, yellow and green) has fallen. So has the French minority government led by Michel Barnier of Les Republicains. Now, neither France nor Germany has a government or a budget. Note this has not happened before.

Social divisions and political polarization

Germany and France are the two beating hearts of the EU. They created the EU and still drive it. With both in political limbo, the EU is lost.

Internally, both these countries are no longer homogenous or cohesive anymore. They have experienced unprecedented levels of immigration. This has created problems of assimilation since, unlike the US, Europe does not have a tradition of mass immigration. In Germany and France, immigrants form a greater percentage of the population in the US. Furthermore, Muslim immigrants in these countries tend to be more conservative than the local population or even their relatives back home. For example, German Turks voted for Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in much higher percentages than in Turkey. Many Muslim women also tend to wear headscarves in societies where sunbathing nude or topless is no longer a big deal.

Most people find change uncomfortable. Europeans are no exception. People do not like the way their communities are changing so rapidly. They may not be racist, but they want to retain their character. The French want to remain French and the Germans want to preserve their Germanness. Yet the political correctness that blights expression in the US also censors conversations in Europe. If someone is uncomfortable with headscarves or Turks voting for Erdoğan, she or he is denounced as a racist and an Islamophobe. People find such denunciation deeply alienating and often turn to the far right in revolt.

European economies are in big trouble

Economically, European countries are in trouble. They have huge debts, high deficits, slow productivity growth and low birth rates. There is no way Greece or Italy can pay back all their debts. Furthermore, the Russia–Ukraine War has increased energy prices, weakened industry and unleashed inflation in the economy. People are hurting. Naturally, they do not want to keep paying for a war with no end in sight.

In contrast, European elites have committed themselves to Ukraine’s defense. So, they want to keep spending on the war even as they seek budget cuts elsewhere. Naturally, legislators are unable to agree upon the cuts and governments are falling. At the moment, no resolution to the budget crisis in either Berlin and Paris is in sight.

The euro is not the world’s reserve currency. That privilege belongs to the dollar; so, unlike the US, Europe cannot print money to finance its deficits and prosecute endless war. So, Germany, France and the EU find themselves in a bind; their monetary and fiscal options are limited.

Europe has other problems too. Europe needs to increase the flexibility of its labor markets. Given an aging population, this can only happen with immigration and less rigid labor laws. The oppressive regulatory state is throttling growth and needs urgent reform. None other than German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has called for a war on red tape despite his socialist roots. European countries also have to reform and even shrink the welfare state. Only British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher ever really achieved that in the last 50 years in Europe.

European economies have also suffered from external shocks. Chinese demand has declined and the US has taken a protectionist turn under both Republican and Democratic administrations. This protectionism will only increase once Donald Trump takes charge of the White House in January.

At a time of such upheaval, European political culture is in total flux. The traditional left and right are dead in France. They have been replaced by a constellation of pro-business centrists, the far right and a hodgepodge combination of leftist groups. German politics is also fragmenting, and the rise of the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) shows the degree of disaffection with the status quo in a country still haunted by Adolf Hitler. Something was not right in the state of Denmark and some things are certainly not hunky dory in Europe today. A full-blown crisis is now underway.

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post FO° Exclusive: Why is the EU in Crisis? What Lies Ahead? appeared first on Fair Observer.

The West has tried to isolate Russia internationally, defeat it militarily and, through an array of draconian sanctions, cause its economic collapse. It has met none of these objectives.

Russia’s connections with China have deepened strategically. India has preserved its strategic ties with Moscow despite Western pressure. Russian relations with several African countries also have a new momentum. Moscow is strongly present in the West Asia region and has a close relationship with key Arab countries. Its partnership with some Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries is gaining steam, too.

BRICS’s expansion

The expansion of BRICS in 2023 with Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Iran, Ethiopia and Saudi Arabia had already signaled that major countries in the Global South had a very different perspective on Russia than the West did. It sees Russia as a friendly country, not an adversary. That almost 40 countries have shown interest in joining BRICS, a forum in which Moscow plays a key role, signifies that Russia is an attractive partner to them.

The Global South seeks a reformed international system that would reflect the shifts in power equations away from the West, both economic and political, that have occurred over the years. These countries want more attention to be paid to their concerns and priorities.

The West’s hypocritical double standards regarding its “values-based” policies, its military interventions, its use of various means to bring about regime changes, its use of sanctions as a policy tool, its weaponization of the United States dollar and the US’s global financial system have increasingly pushed non-Western countries to hedge themselves against Western pressures by joining forums such as BRICS. If Russia earlier looked westwards, the West has turned its back on Russia. Now Russia is much more focused on its Eurasian identity and is looking eastwards.

Non-Western countries cannot opt out of the existing international system or create one of their own. What they hope to do is to change the balance of power within the existing system and reform it to ensure more equality and equity in its functioning. The Global South countries, which also have close relations with the West, are being attracted to join BRICS or associate with it in order to increase their political, economic and security options.

The fact that 24 world leaders attended the Kazan summit, including those of five founding members and the four new permanent members, show that the West’s already failing efforts to isolate Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin, have been strongly rebuffed.

More members may bring complications

With so much interest in BRICS in the Global South, the question of expanding its membership and the criteria to do that pose difficulties. BRICS is a consensus-based forum. With the expansion, building a consensus on issues would become more difficult. That would affect the operation and credibility of the forum.

The meeting of the BRICS Foreign Ministers in June 2024 at Nizhny Novgorod in Russia, also attended by the four new members, could not issue a joint communiqué because of differences on certain points.

Putin has himself publicly recognized the downside to any further expansion. He noted that the existing members have worked together for years and know how the forum functions. The process of absorbing the new members into the methods and spirit of the forum will be the immediate focus, not its expansion.

The decision, therefore, has been not to broaden the BRICS membership for the moment but to enlarge its base by accepting new countries as partners. Developing a consensus within BRICS on which countries should be admitted as partners was presumably not an easy exercise; all the BRICS members, old and new, had effective veto rights. It had to be ensured that no member country was particularly advantaged by the choice of partners and that the final list reflected a balance between the preferences of the forum’s members.

A wide spread

The Kazan summit saw the acceptance of 13 new BRICS partners: Algeria, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, Uzbekistan and Vietnam. It is significant that four members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) are also among these.

Algeria, much to its disappointment, could not become a member when BRICS expanded last year. It has now obtained partner status. Two key Central Asian countries (Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan) have become partners, too. Other Central Asian countries could obviously not be included as that would have weighed too much in favor of Russia’s interests. Already, the inclusion of Belarus is a clear Russian preference. The geographical spread of the new partner countries is noteworthy.

Russia’s obvious preference for Turkey was also accommodated given the latter’s geopolitical importance for Russia, even though giving partner status to a NATO country might not fit into any normal criteria for deciding BRICS partnerships. Should NATO get a foothold in BRICS? From the Russian point of view, this would be a welcome political development in NATO’s eastern flank. The US, which sees BRICS as an organization created to rival the West in the global system, would be obviously perturbed by Turkey’s decision.

Why Pakistan was kept away

It would seem that China has not exercised its own special geopolitical preferences too visibly. If it were interested in Pakistan’s inclusion, as it could well have been — it had linked India’s Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) membership with that of Pakistan — it would have run into India’s strong opposition. In September 2024, while visiting Pakistan, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexey Overchuk supported its inclusion in BRICS but stated that such a decision would have to be based on a consensus. India clearly scotched any move to reach out to Pakistan, to the point that Pakistan seemingly was not invited to the summit.

India had reservations about Turkey becoming a partner because of its anti-Indian positions on Kashmir in the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) and in the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). Ultimately, India did not stand in the way of Turkey becoming a BRICS partner.

The last BRICS summit approved the membership of Saudi Arabia, but it has not formally conveyed its acceptance. It was represented at the Kazan summit by its foreign minister. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud received US Secretary of State Antony Blinken in Riyadh while the summit was being held in Kazan, which tells its own story.

Do not overestimate BRICS’s pace

The importance of BRICS’s expanded partnerships across Asia, Africa and Latin America should not be underestimated. It shows dissatisfaction with the current international system. Non-western countries want an end to the West’s hegemony. They suffer from the West’s self-centered, arbitrary policies. They see strengthened multilateralism reflected in multipolarity as the key to change.

At the same time, the pace at which BRICS can bring about this change should not be exaggerated. The goals of BRICS in forging alternatives to the dollar-dominated financial system are not easy to achieve. Within the BRICS countries, there are rivalries and divisions. Their political systems differ. Some are deeply anti-West. Others have friendly ties with the West even when they seek more space for themselves in a West-dominated global system. There are large economic disparities within the group. The policies of some both help and hurt the interests of the Global South.

When all is said and done, BRICS’s expansion, with all its challenges, is a vehicle for a much-needed re-balancing within the global system — something India also seeks.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post The West’s Efforts to Isolate Russia Are Failing appeared first on Fair Observer.

Identity politics and culture wars

One important factor in Trump’s success is the growing resentment among many Americans towards “woke” language policing. This refers to the effort to change language to be more inclusive, such as the use of terms like “Latinx,” a gender-neutral alternative to “Latino.” However, Latinos detest the term. Spanish is a gendered language where even tables and chairs are assigned a gender. So, “Latinx” came across as gringo imperialism to many of them and a majority (54%) of Latino men voted for Trump.

Many Americans, including progressives, find this focus on language divisive and unnecessary. For example, in Boston, one can hear complaints that the word “jimmies” (a term for chocolate sprinkles) is racist because it supposedly derives from “Jim Crow,” a discriminatory system of laws from the years of segregation. This kind of language policing is part of the culture wars and has alienated millions of Americans from the Democratic Party. Democrat social justice warriors do not realize the extent of the backlash language policing has caused, especially among socially conservative minorities.

The fixation on trans issues and the insistence that trans women are women is unacceptable to many Americans. Democrats have obsessed over trans issues as part of their social justice agenda. Allowing this tiny group to suck the oxygen in the room has alienated millions struggling to put food on their table.

Economic and social concerns, media and technology

Trump also won because discontent among working-class Americans is running extremely high. Many Americans, including recent immigrants, fear that immigration is driving down wages and increasing competition for jobs. Although inflation has decreased, food prices have continue to rise faster than real wages. This has led to greater economic frustration. High prices for childcare, healthcare, education, housing and housing insurance also weigh heavily on many Americans, creating acute financial insecurity.

This economic anxiety is compounded by a sense that the political system is out of touch with ordinary people. The Democratic Party is run by a managerial elite with few working-class leaders. Furthermore, Democrats have been trying to run with the hares and hunt with the hounds. With war in the Middle East, when Democrats please Arabs in Detroit, they upset Jews in Philadelphia.

Working-class whites, especially in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio, feel alienated. These voters have felt neglected by the Democratic Party’s shift towards identity politics and social justice. The Democrats rarely speak about the bread-and-butter issues faced by the working class. For this reason, they support Trump, who has championed issues like tariffs and border control. Both will put upward pressure on wages even if they cause a rise in prices.

Trump’s victory is also tied to changes in the media landscape. With the rise of 24-hour cable TV, social media and smartphones, Americans have been able to isolate themselves. Thanks to algorithms that create filter bubbles and echo chambers, most voters only consume information that reinforces their beliefs. They rarely engage with diverse viewpoints and have come to distrust mainstream media, which has become increasingly partisan over the years.

Furthermore, Russia’s efforts to spread disinformation, starting from the 2016 election, have succeeded. They have created an environment of distrust in the US. While Russia does not necessarily want Americans to support Trump, it certainly seeks to sow chaos and weaken confidence in American institutions.

America’s individualistic culture also plays a role. In the US, anyone’s opinion can be as valued as that of a leader or expert, making it easier for misinformation to spread unchecked. The combination of social media and distrust in the media has made it easier for Trump to connect with voters who feel left behind by the political establishment.

Globalization and social disruption

Globalization and demographic changes have also fueled divisions in American society. As immigration increases and the country becomes more diverse, new social tensions arise. A family of conservative Muslims probably does not appreciate the emphasis on LGBTQ+ issues, and they may turn away from the Democrats even if they detest Trump. So might many Latinos who are deeply Christian and oppose abortion.

The rise of global powers like China has added to these tensions. Many Americans are worried about the loss of manufacturing jobs to China and other countries. Trump’s promises to bring back jobs through tariffs have resonated with many working-class voters. While many experts argue that tariffs will increase inflation, these voters seem simply not to believe them, or else they feel that is a price worth paying.

Many Americans are also tired of increasing red tape. Under Trump’s leadership, the Republican party has focused on dismantling the so-called “administrative state” — the vast network of government agencies and regulations. Trump’s supporters believe that reducing the size of government will limit the power of elites and unleash a “sonic boom” in the economy. 

Ideologues like Glover Glenn Norquist have long argued that the American state needs to shrink. The Trump team buys into this argument. It also belongs to the isolationist strand of American politics and wants a quid pro quo approach to foreign policy. The new policymakers do not believe in multilateralism, rules that act as fetters on the US, or in the need for allies or institutions such as NATO or even the World Trade Organization. America First is all about championing national interests boldly and unashamedly. This puts into question the rules-based order the US has championed since 1945.

The 2024 election reveals deep divisions in American society. Trump’s new picks reveal a drift to authoritarianism. The US faces choppy waters ahead.

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post FO° Exclusive: Why Donald Trump Won Again and What Happens Now appeared first on Fair Observer.

Macron’s many failures have been a recurring pattern since les gilets jaunes (“yellow vests”) movement erupted in France starting the winter of 2018. Only the pandemic stopped the movement from weakening the president further. Now, all presidential authority has evaporated thanks to a full-blown constitutional crisis.

What is going on?

Many of our readers have been following the US elections and have not paid France as much attention. So, let us lay out the bare bones of France’s crisis.

In June, Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement national (RN) emerged as the largest party in the French elections for the European Parliament. In response, Macron called a snap parliamentary election to break the far-right fever gripping the country. In the first round of parliamentary elections, RN got 33.21% of the votes, beating Nouveau Front populaire (NFP) and Ensemble, which got 28.21% and 21.28%, respectively. In the second round, the left coalition NFP and Macron’s centrist grouping Ensemble combined to push the far-right RN into third place. NFP unexpectedly ended up with 180 out of 577 seats in the National Assembly. Ensemble managed to come in second and retain 159 seats. RN increased its numbers to 142 seats but was no longer the leading party in parliament. In this hung parliament, no one party could form a government and the French hosted the Paris Olympics whilst in political limbo.

After the Olympic summer, Macron appointed Michel Barnier prime minister on September 5. This was a rather surprising choice. Les Républicains (The Republicans), the traditional center-right party, got 5.41% of the votes and won 39 seats. Barnier was not among those elected to the National Assembly. In fact, in the lead-up to the 2022 presidential election, Barnier ran as a primary candidate for his party but was eliminated in the first round, getting only 23.9% of the vote. 

Like almost all French politicians, Barnier graduated from one of France’s elitist grandes écoles, the highly selective institutions that train the crème de la crème of France. Though not a household name, he is a highly competent public servant who held many important positions in Paris and Brussels. Like Macron, he is very much part of the French elite that governs the country and plays a big role in the EU. It is also now a highly discredited and increasingly despised elite.

Barnier tried to pass a long overdue budget but met strong opposition in parliament. Eventually, he used an executive order, Article 49.3, to pass the budget on December 2. Two days later, France’s far-right and left-wing lawmakers joined together to vote a no-confidence motion through. RN required a permanent consultative role in budget planning, increased spending in areas benefiting French citizens directly and opposed Barnie’s tax increases. Both RN and NFP opposed austerity measures, while NFP supported higher taxes on the wealthy. Their contrasting but complementary populist themes made inevitable their convergent choice to vote out Barnier. Now, France is about to enter 2025 with no government and no budget.

Three points are of note after the no-confidence vote:

1. As per the constitution, Barnier now has to resign.

2. Macron cannot call yet another election until June because the constitution sets out a 12-month waiting period after a snap election.

3. Macron is unlikely to find anyone acceptable to a majority of legislators in the National Assembly to succeed Barnier as prime minister.

Barnier was trying to improve France’s fiscal position by cutting the deficit from 6.1% to 5.0% of the GDP. France is growing by barely 1.0% a year and its debt-to-GDP ratio now stands at 110%. Therefore, Barnier proposed €40 billion ($42 billion) in spending cuts and €20 billion ($21 billion) in tax rises. Neither the NFP nor the RN found Barnier’s proposals acceptable. His effort to push through this budget through an executive order, overriding democratic process, led to his fall.

These are interesting times for France. Yesterday, the country experienced its first successful no-confidence vote since Georges Pompidou’s government fell in 1962. At that time, none other than Charles de Gaulle was president. He had inaugurated the Fifth Republic in 1958 and had immense political authority. Macron is literally and metaphorically a midget by comparison and his Sancho Panza Barnier has achieved the dubious distinction of becoming the shortest-serving prime minister in the Fifth Republic.

In the past, French political parties went through protracted bouts of arm-wrestling to agree upon a budget. With the implosion of the traditional center-right and center-left parties and the drift to populist anti-establishment positions, France’s legislators are now unable to arrive at a compromise. Instead, they are engaging in a bruising brawl. Fists are flying and not only has Barnier been knocked down but the French political system is on the floor.

On Sunday, Le Monde published a long, detailed article full of fascinating quotes from diverse members of the political class, both friendly and unfriendly to Macron. It bore the title: “Since the dissolution, the slow twilight of Emmanuel Macron.” Many are wondering whether he intends, in the words of Dylan Thomas, to “go gentle into that good night” or “rage, rage against the dying light.”

This is not the first time in the history of the Fifth Republic that a president has felt endangered. Far more spectacular were the events in 1968 — celebrated in France as mai soixante-huit —  when the world and the French population wondered whether they weren’t witnessing a second revolution à la 1789. Students armed with anti-authoritarian slogans such as “It’s forbidden to forbid” or, more poetically, “Sous les pavés, la plage” (“under the paving-stones the beach”) dug up these very paving-stones and threw them at the riot police. An estimated 500,000 people took to the streets and de Gaulle fled the Élysée Palace. A year later, the grand old general resigned but the Fifth Republic survived.

History is rhyming but not repeating itself

The difference between then and now is twofold. First, de Gaulle had immense stature as the leader of the French Resistance during World War II. Even though the war hero secretly fled to West Germany during the most fraught days of the unrest, he still commanded authority in much of the country. Upon his return to France, de Gaulle gave a resounding speech and called for a snap election. About 800,000 supporters of various ages marched through Paris and Gaullists won 353 of 486 seats while the Socialists and Communists managed only 57 and 34, respectively.

Second, France has now entered the brave new world where traditional politics of the left and right is dead and buried six feet under. In 1968, the Gaullists and the left offered two clear visions for France. Both had seasoned professionals and well-structured political parties. At the same time, there was a solid centrist bloc that could work with both sides of the political divide. Voters had a clear choice between the left and the right and, thanks to de Gaulle’s actions, the disorder of May became the new order of June.

The crusty old general succeeded in saving the constitution because he literally embodied it. In 1958, he had created the Fifth Republic after the collapse of the postwar Fourth Republic. Yet when he called for a constitutional referendum a year later, de Gaulle lost and duly resigned. Pompidou, his Gaullist prime minister, took over and the Fifth Republic endured.

Macron has consistently taken inspiration from de Gaulle. But to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen in his 1988 vice-presidential debate with Dan Quayle, the appropriate response to the current president’s hubris would be: “Manu, you are not le Grand Charles.” The essayist Alain Minc, quoted in the Le Monde article, offered the most credible explanation of Macron’s personality in a discussion he claims to have had with Nicolas Sarkozy. Apparently, Minc told Sarkozy, “You’re egocentric. He [Macron] is a narcissist. Egocentrics need others. Narcissus is alone.” Note that a friend of the two authors who was a classmate of Macron at Sciences Po called Macron a pervers narcissique (pervert narcissist).

Even though Macron managed to cobble together a disparate group of followers and call them a party — initially, La République en Marche and later Renaissance — he has never succeeded. Monsieur Jupiter fails to understand that, by their very nature, political parties include a number of disparate interests who somehow combine to work together on multiple levels of policy and organization. All successful parties have some mechanism to make collective decisions.

In 2018, Fox News reporter Chris Wallace asked Macron what he liked most about being president, Macron replied that he likes making decisions. Note not solving problems, not negotiating complex issues, not even governing. Making decisions. Macron then defended himself against the accusation of being authoritarian, arguing that being “aware of all the consequences of your decisions and thinking that you have to stick to your decisions to deliver when it’s for the good of your country is not the same as being authoritarian or arrogant.”

Some credit Macron for being a political genius but forget that he benefited from spectacular good fortune in 2017. The blocs on the left and the right had lost their sense of direction. They had failed to produce political personalities whom the French saw leaders. Then, Macron was a young unknown. He was a recent addition to then-President François Hollande’s administration. Mostly as a result of Hollande’s political amateurism, he rose from the technocratic ranks to become finance minister. In the past, this important post was usually reserved for political personalities. That honor ennobled Macron in the eyes of the public and at the same time inebriated him. Hollande’s performance as president weakened the Socialist Party and Macron cannily played the card of continuity while betraying the party of his benefactor.

Elected in 2012, Hollande was the first president in the history of the Fifth Republic to visibly lack the force of personality and political muscle the French associate with the office of president. De Gaulle, François Mitterand and Jacques Chirac — each with his contrasting style — successfully embodied the image of Fifth Republic president. Sarkozy, despite his two discrediting epithets “bling-bling” and “Sarko l’Américain” (Sarko the American), thrived, at least for a while. He lived on his previously constructed image as a “tough guy” when he was Chirac’s minister of the interior.

Note that Sarkozy’s American reputation helped him initially. Even though the French constantly criticize Americans, they secretly admire everything American. This includes bling-bling and celebrity culture. Yet this appeal has its limits. Sarkozy ended up as a one-term wonder because they do not appreciate bling-bling in their leaders. Hence, the tough guy lost the 2012 election to Hollande, who had promised to be “normal.” In 2017, Macron promised a chimeric return to a Gaullist past but the callow president lacked judgment, experience and substance.

Macron survived a flurry of punches in the first seven years of his reign as jupitérien president for a very simple reason: His opponent in the final round of the 2017 and 2022 elections was the “unrepublican” Marine Le Pen. The notion of “republican” for the traditional political class has long been applied to anyone who fits into the traditional mold of a politician belonging to a party not too extreme to deserve banishment from polite company. Marine’s father, Jean-Marie, was the portrait of someone who was existentially unacceptable.

It has long been noted that the unifier of the left, François Mitterand, was the first to exploit the idea of using Jean-Marie as the ideal foil to create havoc on the right. It was a successful strategy but it proved risky in the long run. When Jean-Marie became a spent force, his daughter Marine took center stage as a softer and subtler version of her father. It wasn’t exactly King Lear and Cordelia, and there was far less drama to it. But a dose of cultural conflict between the two gave Marine the credibility Jean-Marie never had.

All this drama, from de Gaulle to Macron and Le Pen, has ended up producing the constitutional crisis playing out today. The founders of the Fifth Republic — de Gaulle and his cronies — crafted a document designed to avoid what is now unfolding before our eyes. They created a parliamentary system dominated by the spectre of presidential authority. The French presidency has a monarchic tinge to it because it was designed to prevent the instability that often afflicts parliamentary regimes of which we have seen two examples recently in Europe. Post-Brexit United Kingdom proved so unstable that Conservatives devoured their own prime ministers. In Germany, the traffic light coalition of Socialists, Liberals and Greens has just collapsed. Ironically, the Fifth Republic that set out to avoid parliamentary instability might itself be able to collapse.

In some ways, the current situation is very French and a product of a political culture that developed as a result of the French Revolution in 1789. France has been politically unstable since that fateful day when a group of rebellious citizens stormed the Bastille. Unlike the United States with its quasi-religious faith in its 1787 constitution that many still see as sacred writ, France has been through several successive constitutions. Each time, the French rewrote the basic rules of the state. France has experienced the First Republic, the First Empire, the Restoration, the liberal monarchy, the Second Republic, the Second Empire, the Third Republic, the Vichy regime, the Fourth Republic and then the Fifth Republic. Hence, the French do not see the Fifth Republic as magical, mystical, spiritual or even literary. To their eyes, it does not deserve immortality. The traditional political establishment, and Macron above all, disagree.

The rise and fall of Macron and the Fifth Republic

As noted above, the Fifth Republic was a stable two-bloc system for decades. However, the last 16 years destabilized the reigning equilibrium. Like many other first world countries, France was unable to deal with the 2007–2008 global financial crisis. Sarkozy, “l’Américain,” elected in 2007, as the global crisis was developing, took the right in an Atlanticist direction, alienating the proud nationalists who had inherited de Gaulle’s stubborn embrace of national autonomy and resistance to the US. Hollande, inspired by the examples of US President Bill Clinton and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, succeeded Sarkozy and dreamt — in the age of high tech and Silicon Valley prestige — of running a rational, technocratic regime. He failed to serve the middle or working classes and his party came to be perceived as champagne or caviar socialists.

Clinton and Blair’s Third Way tried to reconcile center-right and center-left politics by synthesizing economically liberal and socially democratic policies but ended up leaving the working class behind. The British Labour Party has only returned to power this year after 14 years of political wilderness. In the US, Democrats under Kamala Harris have just been defeated roundly by Donald Trump. Her defeat is much worse than Hillary Clinton’s who had the consolation of winning the popular vote.

By 2016, Hollande’s champagne socialism had made him unpopular with voters. Unlike Sarkozy, he did not stand for re-election. In the ensuing primary, Benoît Hamon triumphed. He was the most traditionally working class but, by now, Hollande’s Socialist Party was dominated by centrists. They rallied behind Macron who emerged as a third party candidate.

At that time, most people did not give Macron much of a chance. François Fillon, a former prime minister, was the frontrunner who was expected to waltz to victory. He possessed all the traits of a traditional leader. He was the establishment figure of the center-right but an embezzlement scandal involving his wife torpedoed his prospects.

This miraculous break in the clouds allowed Macron to emerge as a fresh young face promising a break from the past. Hamon and Fillon fell by the wayside and Macron and Le Pen squared off for the second round of the 2017 presidential election. Her party’s sulfurous, unrepublican reputation paved the way for Macron’s victory. In 2022, he again won because his opponent was Le Pen and because the Covid-19 pandemic gave him a break from les gilets jaunes. In the snap elections this year, his party only came third. The voters have sent him a clear message: “You may be president for another three years, but we no longer trust you to govern.”

As stated earlier, Macron managed to win two elections but he has failed to create a real political party. It has no truly political or even ideological identity. Ensemble is little more than a coterie of lukewarm loyalists bound for the advancement of their political careers to a talented but narcissistic leader. This leader has chosen technocrats with no political stature as his prime ministers. Édouard Philippe, Jean Castex, Élisabeth Borne, Gabriel Attal and now Barnier are not exactly household names in France. Macron clings to the fantasy that the weaker his prime ministers are, the stronger he will be. This has clearly backfired and led to an eminently avoidable crisis.

The constitution obliges Macron to find a new prime minister. The next elections cannot be held until July. Yet there is no personality on the left or in the center with enough authority to who can win the confidence even of a ragtag majority in a fragmented parliament. 

The urgent issue today, a day after the vote of no confidence, is to confirm a budget for 2025. But with no government to push a budget through, uncertainty reigns. With Trump waiting in the wings to take charge of the West Wing, uncertainty will only amplify. He is threatening 10–20% tariffs on European imports. So, France faces a risk of lower export earnings from the US market. It along with other European countries also faces the added risk of Chinese dumping because the Trump administration is planning to hit China with massive tariffs.

The war in Ukraine and the Middle East also cast a dark shadow on France. With no budget yet in either France or Germany, Europe can no longer back Ukraine. In any case, Trump has clearly signaled that he will be following a very different policy to US President Joe Biden in Ukraine. After tying himself closely to Biden, Macron will have to sing a different tune. Lebanon and Syria are former French colonies. They are in trouble and could end up in bigger trouble soon. This will cause Macron headaches.

In a nutshell though, the lack of a government and a budget poses grave risks for the economy. Fair Observer’s Editor-at-Large Alex Gloy points out that yields on French ten-year bonds have surpassed those on their Greek counterparts and the country’s credit rating could be downgraded soon. Bankruptcies have been soaring and the French stock market performance has severely lagged those of other countries. Since the peak in 2007, the French stock market index CAC-40 is up a mere 18% while the German Dax has increased by 148% and the US S&P 500 by 286%. 

Furthermore, like Germany, France has been hit hard by soaring energy prices, high inflation and rising interest rates after the war in Ukraine started in February 2022. There is no political consensus as to how to pay for current and future spending. Like many times in the past, France is now in a full-blown political and economic crisis. Macron’s jupitérien reign is ending in an unmitigated disaster and the Fifth Republic might not survive for too long.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Emmanuel Macron’s Embarrassing Hour of Reckoning appeared first on Fair Observer.

“Why our policy makers cannot for one moment think from the perspective of the other side is some kind of amazing incapacity, some fundamental dishonesty or some fundamental incapacity of these people that is so shocking it puts us all at risk. The first point of diplomacy at least is to understand the position of the other side. And we refuse to acknowledge that position. Yet that position makes a lot of sense when you listen to it and hear it because these are real concerns by a country that feels that it is directly under threat by us, a nuclear superpower.”

Today’s Weekly Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Incapacity:

A basic career skill required for today’s politicians that enables them to appear strong and decisive, qualities that would be seriously compromised if they were to be tempted by the dubious qualities and attitudes known as curiosity, empirical wisdom, historical memory and empathy.

Contextual note

The incapacity to see events from two points of view and the consequent absence of empathy now appear as supreme virtues in the world of Western diplomacy. The surest way of manifesting that required incapacity is to avoid any situation in which dialogue might lead to an appreciation of complexity.

Since the beginning of organized human societies, when local tribes quarreled over territory or other possible motives of envy, diplomacy offered the possibility of seeking to understand the requirements, desires or ambitions of the opposing party. The knowledge gained through dialogue would serve either to confirm the incompatibility of the contrasting positions or define possible avenues of compromise.

Diplomacy guarantees nothing. It doesn’t prevent wars from occurring. But it can provide an idea of what a solution might look like, whether it’s the victory of one side or the other or the terms of a settlement acceptable to both sides. In pre-industrial days, it was rare for one party to think it had the technology and sheer material force to impose what it considered an “unbending” or “ironclad” principle that excluded at the very least an initial discussion. But we have entered the era of ironclad ideas. Formerly, soldiers or vehicles might have been literally ironclad. Today it’s the principles and beliefs about the world that have earned that epithet.

Some will say nothing has changed. Throughout history, diplomacy would begin with the formulation of one’s group or nation’s “interest.” If those interests were not respected, there would be consequences. So what has changed? Perhaps the modern conviction that “time is money,” “delay is costly” and “talk is cheap” has convinced a generation of political figures to adhere to a new principle of efficiency. By failing to put a plan into action immediately, one risks losing one’s resolve.

One thing is true of all situations of budding conflict. Whatever is decided, with or without negotiation, there will always be consequences. The boring business of discussing and thrashing out the details happens to be the likely negative consequence of diplomacy, certainly less exciting than war. And though it may be painful to think that the “great principle” driving our behavior and giving us a sense of identity has not been fully realized after a successful negotiation takes place, most people still believe that living to regret is preferable to mutual annihilation.

The real difference today is the factor mentioned above: the sense of identity. It’s only recently that humanity has accepted the principle that the Earth’s surface must be divided into nation states. This has spawned the phenomenon of a population’s identification with the nation state. As a feature of international relations, this appears as the question of territorial sovereignty. In many people’s minds it has evolved into what is felt to be an ironclad principle. Until just a few days ago, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy consistently used this as the reason for refusing to consider ceding a square inch of terrain. That ironclad position miraculously lost its tensile strength when he realized that Trump’s concept of territorial sovereignty may be looser than his own.

But the territory of a nation state is not the only factor of identity. In the case of the US, it is the belief in American exceptionalism, the conviction that the nation has a mission to impose order wherever disorder appears in the world. This particular sense of identity requires its citizens to believe that imposing order is not an act of pure self-interest, but that it corresponds to the nation’s “manifest destiny.” This sense of a divine calling was confirmed in 1954 when President Dwight D. Eisenhower added “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance all schoolchildren are required to recite.

Then there’s the even more extreme example of Israel. It may seem to many people normal that when the US emerged as the pre-eminent victor of World War II, endowed with an economy and technology that dwarfed that of every other nation, it should think itself exceptional to the point of believing itself tasked with the mission of regulating all the world’s problems. The doctor doesn’t negotiate with the disease, but instead applies the treatment. How else can anyone explain the fact that in December 2021, the US could simply refuse to sit down and discuss with Russia the question of “indivisible security,” a notion that had served to formulate a key factor of inter-bloc behavior during the Cold War?

Israel may dominate its region in numerous ways — militarily, economically and technologically — but, unlike the US, it cannot claim to have the mission of solving other people’s problems. Instead, it founds its refusal to dialogue coupled with its incapacity to empathize on a principle derived from its reading of its version of holy scripture: the laws, principles and ambitions listed in the books of the Torah. The only thing mysterious about the current situation in the Middle East is the literally ironclad identification of the US government and many of its people with what is essentially a political position formulated by unidentified scribes some 3,000 years ago. That propensity of Americans to identify with it literally defies understanding.

Historical note

In the interview cited above, Sachs reminds us of a famous quote from 1963 by US President John Fitzgerald Kennedy:

“Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy–or of a collective death-wish for the world.”

Kennedy admitted that international relations began with the idea of “defending… vital interests.” But he appears to be suggesting a condition today’s virtuously “incapacitated” political strategists no longer acknowledge: that averting confrontation is itself a shared “vital interest” of all parties.

Sachs notes that all the rhetoric over the past three years has pointed towards the very thing Kennedy believed was unthinkable: making a choice between humiliation — certainly unacceptable to anyone who believes in their own power — and a nuclear confrontation. If a nation that believes itself exceptional — or a nation such as Ukraine that believes it is backed by an exceptional nation — sees this as the choice, the danger is real that nuclear war will at some point become inevitable.

Is Sachs wrong to call this an “incapacity” of the politicians concerned? Or should we think of it merely as a temporary preference? There is little question that for the moment the US and Israel, but also the United Kingdom, have displayed behavior consistent with Sachs’s observation. We need only remind ourselves that it was Boris Johnson, the UK’s prime minister at the time, who in late March 2022 stepped in to convince Zelenskyy that there was nothing to negotiate, opening the door to two and a half years of prolonged, unnegotiated conflict in which hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Russian bodies would be literally and absolutely “incapacitated.”

Sachs made Judge Napolitano laugh at one point, when he summed up his appreciation of the politicians with this remark:

“They are individually and collectively strategic ignoramuses. I mean, one can only wonder what they’re thinking, right? When you look at Western leaders, you just shake your head and say, ‘Did these people ever take Strategy 101?’ And then you say to yourself, ‘If they did take Strategy 101, it must be the case that they failed the course — because the way they approach these different foreign policy problems facing them, it’s really quite remarkable in how ignorantly they behave.’”

The world is now awaiting to understand how much incapacity Trump’s new administration will wield.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of Fair Observer Devil’s Dictionary.]

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post The Capacious Incapacity of a New Generation of Diplomats appeared first on Fair Observer.

However, this is not the first time that a lethal terror group has faced such a threat. The present situation recalls the history of the Black September Organization (BSO), a Palestinian militant organization that caused chaos in Jordan in the 1970s. With Israel’s recent assassinations, history may well repeat itself.

The formation and function of the Black September Organization

A little history is needed to understand where the BSO came from. The Third Arab-Israeli War in 1967 saw hundreds of thousands of people displaced from their homes, fleeing the fighting. Many Palestinians living in the West Bank region fled to Jordan. Israel continued to occupy the West Bank afterwards, leading to Palestinian fedayeen (guerilla fighters; a more literal meaning being “those willing to sacrifice themselves”) setting up a new base in Jordan and launching attacks against Israel from there.

The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) gained further Arab support when Israel retaliated against the fedayeen strikes. Groups within the organization began calling for the toppling of the Jordanian monarchy. Eventually, after further disagreements and violent confrontations, King Hussein of Jordan decided to go on the offensive. This led to Black September, where the Jordanian Armed Forces (JAF) surrounded cities with significant PLO presence and attacked them. The latter half of September 1970, had the most concentration of fighting in the entire conflict.

In the end, leaders on both sides signed many ceasefires and agreements, but none were upheld in their entirety. The PLO and Palestinian people moved to Syria in droves. However, some fedayeen remained, angered by Jordan’s actions. They continued to fight back, but the JAF eventually drove the last of them out by July, 1971. A small group of men from Fatah, the biggest faction of the PLO at the time, formed the BSO in September, 1970. They rallied around Abu Ali Iyad, a commander who had remained in Jordan after the PLO withdrew. There was only one goal in mind: revenge against King Hussein and the JAF.

The BSO operated very differently to typical militant terrorist organizations of the time. John K. Cooley was a notable journalist of the period, specializing in Islamist terrorism. In his book, Green March, Black September, he stated that, “Black September represented a total break with the old operational and organizational methods of the fedayeen. Its members operated in ‘air-tight’ cells of four or more men and women. Each cell’s members were kept ignorant of other cells. Leadership was exercised from outside by intermediaries and ‘cut-offs’.”

By operating in this manner, every detail of their movements and the members of the organization itself could be kept secret. This drastic change in structure and operation showed a strong intent to succeed in their goals. Everything was on a need-to-know basis, with their leaders hidden. The BSO could easily cut off any cell that failed a mission and disassociate from any actions carried out, as could Fatah. One cell’s failure did not affect the rest. 

The Black September Organization’s attacks

The BSO managed to carry out multiple, successful terrorist attacks across the globe. The most tragic was the 1972 Munich massacre, where the BSO murdered 11 Israeli Olympic athletes and one German police officer. The BSO planned and carried out assassinations, hijackings and bombings over the course of four years, from 1970 to 1973. Apart from the Munich massacre, these operations were covert, like the 1973 letter bombing incident. The BSO sent dozens of letter bombs from Amsterdam to various Israeli diplomatic places around the world. Many were intercepted on the way, but one managed to make its way to Ami Shachori, the agricultural counselor at the Israeli Embassy to the UK. He mistakenly believed it contained seeds he had ordered and the resulting blast fatally wounded him.

The BSO even managed to somewhat fulfill their original goal of revenge. They assassinated Wasfi Tal, the Jordanian prime minister at the time, for his role in the events of Black September. Aside from Jordan, Arab nations widely denounced Tal, as they had supported the Palestinian fedayeen. However, his loyalty to his king and country was rewarded with his popularity among the people. He was elected prime minister three times: in 1962, in 1965 and again in 1970.

Israel’s wrath and the fall of the Black September Organization

After the Munich massacre, Israel’s Mossad launched a long, covert operation to assassinate key members of the BSO, known as “Wrath of God.” Mossad got to work quickly, taking out various senior BSO members and those involved in the Munich massacre specifically. Many of these operations happened between the events of Munich and September 1973. Mossad’s success and ruthlessness likely played a major factor in the PLO decision to shut down the BSO. The exact date is contested, with Israeli historian Benny Morris saying September 1973, and other sources claiming that it was December 1974. Either way, there was only one more attack BSO claimed to have carried out after 1973, which was the Antwerp synagogue bombing in 1981.

Mossad’s actions led to an existential crisis for the BSO. With senior members and leaders out of commission, being either dead or constantly in hiding, running the organization became exceedingly difficult. There were also disagreements internally on how to continue operations and what direction the BSO should go in. Furthermore, Fatah had begun to engage Israel in diplomacy, shifting away from the use of violence to further the Palestinian cause.

The dissolution of the BSO potentially occurred for three reasons. Firstly, the ideological fervor that drove the BSO, and possibly even Fatah, forward in the first place was running out. Secondly, anti-Zionist sentiment was weakening. Thirdly, Fatah and the BSO did not have the necessary resources to maintain an armed struggle.

While the existence of Israel was a thorn in the side of the Arab Middle East, it was clear that Israel would not fall easily. They survived attack after attack, held their ground and even claimed other countries’s territories at times. Israel was there to stay. The Middle Eastern countries were not united in their desires either. They often fought with each other as well, like how the PLO fought with Jordan and how the Lebanese civil war broke out. Terrorist attacks outside of the region surely didn’t please other countries as well, whose opinions may have changed from such events, leading to less interest in the Arab struggle.

Within the PLO, there were, and still are, many factions and opinions. General sentiment leaned away from continuing the armed struggle. It ate up their funds and only had limited success. It was not achieving what they had hoped. Given that the Palestinian people had no guaranteed home and no land to call their own anymore, resources were always limited. Mossad’s offensive operations against the BSO were also burning through Fatah’s and the BSO’s resources, as well as personnel. The BSO was practically backed into a corner.

Israel’s actions weren’t without its dissenters and mistakes however. While ruthless, the operations were more about revenge than trying to stop terrorism. Israeli author and journalist Aaron J. Klein quoted a Mossad senior intelligence source, saying, “Our blood was boiling. When there was information implicating someone, we didn’t inspect it with a magnifying glass.” Given that the BSO was shut down within a year or two of the Munich massacre, it shows Mossad’s effectiveness. But in terms of stopping terrorism entirely, it was a complete failure.

As Fatah falls, Hamas rises

In December 1974, PLO chairman and Fatah leader Yasser Arafat called for his followers to cease violence outside of Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The UN Security Council adopted Resolution 242 and 338 in 1967 and 1973 respectively, which shows that the PLO had managed to bring the Palestinian plight to the attention of the West. Attacks continued through the 1970s, but once the Lebanese Civil War began in 1975, the PLO’s attention shifted. Given that they mostly operated out of southern Lebanon at the time, it’s no wonder. 

In time, those Resolutions led to the Oslo Accords, a pair of agreements signed by Israel and the PLO, in an attempt to bring about a long-lasting peace. One of the most important outcomes of the Accords was the creation of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), which is an elected body of representatives for the Palestinian people, allowing them some level of self-governance.

Unfortunately, this did not create the desired effect. A large number of Palestinian people and organizations vehemently opposed the Accords, with various terrorist attacks occurring afterwards in retaliation. Even some Israelis weren’t happy about it. A far-right Israeli extremist carried out an assassination on the Israeli prime minister at the time, Yitzhak Rabin, who was the one to sign the Accords.

In 1996, Palestine held its first general elections. Fatah dominated these elections, with their leader Arafat becoming President with 89.82% of the vote. He was incredibly popular at the time and the Palestinian people believed he would lead them to peace. However, the negotiations between Palestine and Israel never led to a true peace agreement. As the years went on, the Palestinian people grew weary. Their struggle was never ending and unchanging.

During this time, Hamas, the only other potential rival to Fatah, began to grow in popularity. Hamas had never agreed to the Oslo Accords and still continued to bombard Israel with attacks in any way they could. Disagreements between Fatah and Hamas caused continuous postponements of the elections. The passing of Arafat in 2004 left Fatah without its charismatic leader. Finally, in January 2006, Palestinian elections were held. Hamas won a majority of the seats, to the shock of the world. Most Western countries expected a re-election of Fatah. Hamas now controlled 74 of the 132 seats in the PNA. The two factions’s disagreements escalated, and they were unable to form a government that held together for the sake of the Palestinian people.

It only took until June 2007 for the tensions to come to a head. In the Gaza Strip, Hamas-affiliated and Fatah-affiliated forces came to blows. After a series of violent clashes, Hamas took full control of the Gaza Strip and that has been the situation up until now. Hamas controlled Gaza and the PNA controlled the West Bank.

On October 7, 2023, Hamas launched their largest attack ever against Israel, killing around 1,200 people and taking around 250 as hostages. Israeli forces mounted an aggressive counter-attack, announcing their intent to eradicate Hamas entirely. Since then, it’s been a war between the two. Allegedly, over 40,000 Palestinians have been killed in the fighting. Israel has also assassinated many Hamas leaders across the world, including the aforementioned Ismail Haniyeh and Yahya Sinwar.

Is this a dead end for terror proxies?

Hamas had clearly been preparing for the October 7 attacks for a long time. They built up their forces, their funds and their ammunition. What they didn’t seem prepared for though was the Israeli retaliation. While the war is still ongoing at the time of writing, Hamas is certainly not in a winning position. Their people are suffering and their leaders are dead. If Hamas even survives as an organization once Israel is done, it will be a miracle. But will the idea of armed struggle live on?

There are many parallels between Hamas and the BSO. Both were born of strong ideals and strong condemnation of their enemies. Their enemies retaliated ruthlessly as well. The BSO was shut down and Hamas looks to be on the same path. Hamas is not the only terror proxy fighting against Israel. Hezbollah, from their territories in southern Lebanon, have been firing missiles into Israel. The Houthis in Yemen have been attacking sea routes in the waters around their territory, ones that would reach the south Israeli port of Eilat, in an attempt to curb their supplies. Whether their Iranian backers incited them or if they all did this of their own accord is up for debate, but the results are the same. Israel brought their might down upon their adversaries.

As an outsider looking in, it may seem futile to repeat the same actions as those who came before, when the results are always the same. Maybe they believe it will be different with them or maybe they simply have no choice. There is a constant struggle between the Israeli people and the Palestinian people. However, there is no change without action. The Palestinian people believe that they cannot continue without doing something. The deadlock must be broken.

Despite this drive, armed struggle has only proven, time and again, to be ineffective. The only area which it succeeds is bringing their cause to the attention of the globe. This never lasts in the long run though. In the end, nothing changes. There are only two options left: to drop the idea of armed struggle, perhaps taking the diplomatic route as Fatah has, or find a solution with Israel to put an end to things once and for all. Hamas has already shown signs of changing course. They have held talks periodically with Fatah since July, with the latest being in Cairo in October 2024, hoping to resolve their differences. When the US general election results announced Donald Trump as the victor, Hamas quickly sent out a statement saying that they were “ready for a ceasefire.”

Proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah are in a standoff with Israel over the Palestinian issue, but it’s clear that their current methods are unsuccessful. Like the BSO and other proxies before them, Israel is pushing these organizations into existential crises. History may repeat itself and we will see this endless cycle repeat once more.

[Will Sherriff edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Hamas Leaders Assassinated: Terror Proxies’ Destiny To Fall? appeared first on Fair Observer.

The UN has been a nightmare. It is as dysfunctional as the League of Nations. The world has not seen peace even for a day since the UN’s inception in 1945. Delegates should have foreseen the UN’s failure in 1945. The organization came into existence for the UK, the US and the Soviets to expand their hegemony across the world. They projected peace for themselves, and not necessarily for the rest of the world.

How the Allies became the United Nations

On September 1, 1939, World War II started with Germany invading Poland. The United Kingdom (UK) and France declared war on Germany as allies. The Soviet Union (Soviets) invaded eastern Poland on September 17. In June 1941, the Soviets joined the Allies. The Big Three (the UK, the US and the Soviets) formed a united organization of nations to maintain their global peace and security. The Allied powers met and signed the Declaration of St. James Palace, pledging collaboration in fighting aggression. It proclaimed that “the only true basis of enduring peace is the willing cooperation of free peoples in a world in which, relieved of the menace of aggression, all may enjoy economic and social security.”

The US Constitution strictly limits the president’s power and rests the war declaration with Congress. However, President Franklin D. Roosevelt short-circuited the Constitution, by authorizing the US to finance and arm the UK and France. In March 1941, Congress put this policy into law in the form of the Lend-Lease Act without the constitutional process of declaring war. Germany and its allies, Italy and Japan (the Axis Powers), of course, considered the US to be aiding the enemy in war. 

The US later entered the war formally. In December 1941, Japan’s air force attacked the American naval base at Pearl Harbor in Honolulu, Hawaii, catching the US by surprise. Within days, that attack triggered the US to declare war on Germany. Within hours, Germany also declared war on the US. That month, China joined the Allies while resisting Japan’s expansion in China since 1937.

In August 1941, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill signed the Atlantic Charter pledging to stop territorial expansion, engage in free trade, collaborate with other nations, have access to “high seas and oceans”, stop the use of force, and work for a world peace free of “fear and want”, where all individuals are free to choose their form of government and enjoy economic advancement and social security. In January 1942, about four weeks after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the Big Three (the UK, the US, and the Soviet Union) and China, along with 22 other countries, signed a document pledging to accept the Atlantic Charter, which is referred to as the Declaration by the United Nations.

During World War II, the devastating effect of that war encouraged the the Big Four, to put aside their differences and collaborate in the war. To avoid such a war in the future, they began planning for the world. As the discussion progressed, the idea of a united world organization emerged. In October 1943, the Big Four signed the Moscow Declaration, recognizing “the necessity of establishing at the earliest practicable date a general international organization, based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all peace-loving States, and open to membership by all such States, large and small, for the maintenance of international peace and security.”

In November- December 1943, Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin met for the first time in Tehran, Iran. They discussed the post-war arrangement and partitions. Roosevelt and Churchill assured Stalin that he could expand Soviet territory into Poland and Germany. President Roosevelt was so infatuated with Stalin that he called him Uncle Joe. “I began to tease Churchill,” the American President boasted, “… Winston got red and scowled and finally Stalin broke into a deep, hearty guffaw. It was then that I called him Uncle Joe.” This cavalier attitude of President Roosevelt regarding Eastern Europe is a typical example of a public servant intoxicated with power, and turning into a despot. Such a cavalier is responsible for the US presidents’ empowering the Zionist genocide against Palestinians and the takeover of Palestine. At the end of the Tehran meeting, they agreed on the Tehran Conference. They said: “We are sure that our concord will win an enduring peace. We recognize fully the supreme responsibility resting upon us and all the United Nations to make a peace which will command the goodwill of the overwhelming mass of the world’s peoples and banish the scourge and terror of war for many generations.”

The victorious Allies founded the UN

In October 1944, the Big Four met at Dumbarton Oaks, in Washington, DC. They proposed a United Nations consisting of the following:

• A General Assembly, composed of all the member nations oversees an Economic and Social Council. Nowadays, it oversees other councils, too.
• A Security Council is composed of eleven members, five permanent and six chosen by the GA for two-year terms.
• An International Court of Justice.
• A United Nations Secretariat.

After the war, they all wanted to be in control of the global issues. The US had risen to the most powerful one among the Big Three but felt needed Soviet cooperation to finish the war. The Soviets did not trust the UK or the US. They insisted on restoring the old Russian Empire and succeeded. 

In April 1945, delegates from 46 nations attended the San Francisco Conference and discussed and approved the UN. They set up the UN objectives to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war…to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights…to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.” 

On June 25, 1945, the delegates met in San Francisco. After days of meetings, they unanimously passed the UN Charter. The major debacle was the veto power of the Big Five (the UK, the US, France, the Soviets, and China). Less powerful nations feared that if a veto power threatened peace, the Security Council would lose its significance. They wanted more power distribution. Finally, they went along in the interest of global peace. 

On September 2, 1945, the war ended. The Big Three decided to expand the United Nations by inviting other nations to join it. 

The shortcomings of the victors’ peace

To ensure their global hegemony, they planned the UN Security Council (UNSC) in the UN. The UK insisted on limiting the UNSC to the UK, the US and the Soviets. The US wanted China to be included because of its strong resistance against Japan, which freed the US to support Europe. To ensure Western control, the UK insisted on adding France to the Council. That is how the Big Five surfaced. The Soviets felt outnumbered by the West and asked for veto power, which was granted to all permanent members. 

The UN General Assembly (UNGA) is the only organ in the UN in which all member nations vote. Regardless of size or population, each member nation has only one vote. A simple majority decides procedural questions while a simple majority or a two-thirds vote decides substantive ones, depending on importance. It is mainly a deliberative body empowered to make recommendations to the UN Security Council (UNSC) regarding international issues. 

In contrast, the UNSC is primarily responsible for maintaining international peace and security. It is an exclusive club. Nowadays, it has 15 members, 5 of whom are permanent members and endowed with veto power on every issue. The permanent members are the US, the UK, China, France, and Russia, also known as the Big Five. The GA chooses the other ten for two-year terms.

Like the League, the UN’s primary purpose has been to preserve peace and security. The UN members have promised not to use force except in self-defense and to use force collectively to preserve peace. In apparent violation of the UN Charter, the veto powers granted to certain member states have led to conflicts and wars, rather than preventing them. Until the fall of the Soviets in December 1991, the world faced two superpowers, the US and the Soviets, competing for global influence, a period known as the Cold War. They incited proxy wars nearly everywhere. 

Following the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the US emerged as the world’s sole superpower. This shift in global dynamics has led to military interventions and interference in various countries, resulting in significant human suffering and destruction. Presently, the US is responsible for much of the global deaths and destruction, particularly in Iraq, Palestine, Sudan, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen. The US complicity in the genocide against Palestinians is the talk of the world these days.

Given these ongoing challenges, it is clear that the current state of the UN is not conducive to achieving lasting global peace. Meaningful reform or even the dismantling of the organization may be necessary. Adding Brazil, Germany, India, Japan or another country is unlikely to address the fundamental issues.

[Tara Yarwais and Cheyenne Torres edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Can You See Why the UN Is Bad at Peace? appeared first on Fair Observer.

Both Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia often find themselves at the periphery of global decision-making, despite playing key roles in global events. For instance, while fighting fiercely for sovereignty, Ukraine has faced challenges in influencing broader political dynamics. Limited resources, military constraints and insufficient global representation contribute to this difficulty, a struggle also familiar to many Southeast Asian countries.

Strengthening ties between Eastern European countries such as Poland, the Baltics and Slovakia, and Southeast Asian nations like Japan, South Korea and the Philippines, could provide an avenue for mutual self-determination. This partnership would help smaller states align their interests in ways that larger powers often overlook. Global events like US presidential elections, the war in Ukraine and China’s aggressive economic policies have far-reaching effects on these regions, introducing risks that may not be the primary concern of dominant powers.

Pursuit of partnerships

While existing initiatives within NATO and the EU have laid the groundwork for some cooperation, they still operate under the influence of a few powerful states. To maximize their potential on the global stage, Eastern European and Southeast Asian nations must explore partnerships that emphasize greater independence and equal decision-making.

The EU has already fostered economic cooperation with Southeast Asia through agreements like the European Union–Vietnam Free Trade Agreement (EVFTA) and the European Union–Singapore Free Trade Agreement (EUSFTA). These agreements open up new markets and strengthen trade ties, providing a platform for Eastern European countries, such as Poland, to expand exports, especially in sectors like renewable energy technologies, machinery and chemicals.

In terms of security, NATO’s operations in the Asia-Pacific — primarily focused on counter-piracy and anti-terrorism have indirectly benefited Eastern European nations like Estonia and Latvia, which rely on secure international trade routes. Although NATO’s formal role does not extend deeply into Southeast Asia, there is growing collaboration in counter-terrorism and cybersecurity, which further strengthens the security frameworks of Eastern Europe.

Benefits of Eastern European–Southeast Asian cooperation

The economic benefits of cooperation between these regions are undeniable. Southeast Asia’s rapidly-expanding markets present a prime opportunity for Eastern European nations like Poland, Ukraine and the Baltic States to diversify their economies beyond their traditional reliance on Western Europe. Eastern European countries have strong industrial sectors, especially in manufacturing and energy, which align with Southeast Asia’s need for infrastructure, energy solutions and high-tech products. In turn, Southeast Asia offers an expanding consumer base and growing sectors in biotechnology, Information and Communication Technology and manufacturing — areas in which Eastern Europe can make inroads.

Both regions also share common security concerns. Eastern Europe faces direct threats from Russia while Southeast Asia grapples with challenges posed by China’s regional ambitions. Despite these differences, lessons learned from Ukraine’s resilience in the face of Russian aggression could offer valuable insights for Southeast Asian nations aiming to safeguard their sovereignty. Joint defense exercises, intelligence sharing and enhanced military cooperation could further improve security for both regions.

As Eastern Europe’s digital sector continues to grow, particularly in countries like Estonia, Southeast Asia stands to benefit from expertise in areas like e-government, cybersecurity and smart cities. Conversely, Eastern Europe can learn from Southeast Asia’s rapid advancements in mobile technology and e-commerce platforms, where Southeast Asia has outpaced many other regions.

Challenges and solutions

Despite these opportunities, several challenges remain. Eastern European countries often find themselves constrained within broader EU or NATO frameworks, with their foreign policy decisions heavily influenced by larger EU members like Germany or France. Similarly, NATO’s priorities are often shaped by the US, limiting the ability of Eastern European nations to fully engage in independent partnerships with Southeast Asia.

Moreover, Southeast Asia’s dependence on China complicates the situation. Many Southeast Asian nations are cautious about antagonizing China, which could limit their willingness to deepen ties with Eastern Europe, particularly given Russia’s ongoing role as an ally to several Southeast Asian countries.

To navigate these challenges, both regions should take gradual, incremental steps. They can begin by focusing on non-contentious areas like trade, technology and cultural exchange. Multilateral organizations such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Regional Forum (ARF) and the EU–ASEAN dialogue provide platforms for both regions to build consensus on broader security concerns without escalating geopolitical tensions.

While the road to deeper cooperation between Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia is not without its obstacles, the potential for mutually beneficial partnerships remains strong. By focusing on economic, technological and security cooperation, Eastern European countries like Poland, Ukraine and the Baltic States can reduce their dependence on traditional allies and assert greater autonomy on the global stage. Leveraging existing frameworks like the EU and NATO while navigating the complex geopolitical landscape will be crucial in fostering ties that give both regions a stronger voice in global affairs.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia Need New Alliances appeared first on Fair Observer.

President-Elect Donald Trump’s cabinet and staff picks have been grenades, each tailor-made to signal that they will be tasked with administering their departments and, even better, burning them to the ground. Good, they deserve it. If you’ve read a smidge of my writing here you know what I think of the administrative state, that den of vipers that truly runs the federal bureaucracy and actually purports to rule the country through rules of procedure and forms.

Making Robert F. Kennedy Jr. the secretary of Health and Human Services and Tulsi Gabbard the head of the “Intelligence Community” is a gauntlet thrown down. RFK is openly skeptical of much of the vaccine schedule and fluoridated water. And Tulsi was put on a domestic terrorism watchlist the moment she endorsed Donald. The current administration’s decision to make enemies of the people who will be in charge of them in two months is so boneheaded, you must conclude that they never meaningfully considered they’d ever be out of power again. What dumbos.

And their lack of “credentials” and “experience” is more than half the point. Neither television presenter Pete Hegseth nor attorney Lee Zeldin (nor any of the previous three, either) have gone through the cursus honorum — “course of honors” — the government built to properly neuter any Mr. Smiths on their way to Washington and mold them into effective regime toadies, regardless of party. Their youth and inexperience is the point. Get out the way, Grandpa.

Matt Gaetz’s own withdrawal of his nomination may seem one fly in the ointment, but it just might have been part of a plan all along, given that he tweeted recently about how Special Counsels don’t need Senate confirmation. Time will tell if the pitbull will be released.

Trump and Musk’s plans for an out-of-this-world national birthday blowout

Trump’s picks are meant to convey one thing, and one thing only: The status quo is on its way to the gallows. And we see the beasts in Washington already beginning to bay, with people like Senator Lisa Murkowski stating unequivocally she won’t fall in line with Trump’s agenda. But it likely won’t be up to them for two reasons. First, we already know that billionaire Elon Musk has made very real threats to punish anyone who stands in the way of the trifecta government coalescing; this is not to be taken lightly. I believe that naysayers will be whipped into shape.

Second, the looming specter of recess appointments is always present. Of course, the houses of Congress can always hold pro forma sessions — sessions held regularly — to avoid a recess, but there appear to be enough Trump loyalists in one or the other house to force a disagreement on a recess. Trump can simply recess them himself (allowed by Article II, Section 3 of the US Constitution; click the link, Humperdinck) for as long as he deems necessary. Then he can just recess appoint whoever he wants, or even use the Federal Vacancies Act too. There are options here folks. Yes, their terms will expire at the end of 2026, but so what? Who cares, the plan will be enacted by then.

What plan, you ask? If you’ve watched any of the recent policy videos Trump has put out, you’ve noticed that every one of his sweeping plans to reform the government has a date of completion of July 2026. There are two reasons for this that are readily apparent, one Trump’s and one Elon’s.

Trump’s reason is that the US’s 250th birthday is in July 2026, and he has made it clear he wants to throw a nationwide party for a very long time. Nobody will want to hear about budget line items and this or that deputy accessory vice-under-secretary for whatever-the-hell losing their sinecure job when they’re listening to “The Star-Spangled Banner” played from a gold plated Apache helicopter. Get that crap done now, and everyone will be too busy with how much fun they’re having to care later. Trump can work hard, hard, hard the first half of his term, then take it easy and bask in triumph the second.

Elon’s reason is that the next Mars transit window is in October 2026. Musk wants free, unfettered capacity to take the infrastructure to Mars now so that the human colony can actually be built in the early 2030s. That won’t happen if everyone is still disputing regulations past summer 2026. Musk will get the job done, so he can go back to playing with his toys — that’s the only reason he really supported Trump in the first place. The Human Resources ladies and Bolsheviks-by-any-other-name in Barack Obama and Joe Biden’s governments were going to stop him from getting us to Mars. SpaceX is a defense contractor and cannot hire noncitizens, this didn’t stop the Feds from suing SpaceX for not hiring noncitizens. There’s no good reason for this kind of lawfare other than petty resentment at Musk’s aims and success, a desire to hobble him, and he couldn’t stand that. Good for him — a guy has to have hobbies (other than playing the video game, Diablo IV).

You can’t stop the Trump Train

Why do I think it will happen? I mean, history is littered with things that could have happened easily but didn’t. A good friend pointed out to me that the only reason France isn’t a monarchy right now is that no one could agree on a flag in 1871. There’s always the precedent that everything could fall perfectly into place… and then nothing really comes of it. But I think it will happen, more or less as planned. My rationale is twofold, one part coldly Machiavellian and the other whimsical and mythological — the stuff of nascent, gestalt legend even now.

For one thing, the law has no independent existence from men and willpower. No statute, rule or constitution is a self-executing magic spell; they each and all require men to believe in them and carry them out. My tribe has taken control of the arms of government that write, interpret and execute the laws. That is men and that is willpower. The goals are attainable, and the men who want to meet them have the willpower and support to do it. That alone would be enough. 

But I don’t even think it’s everything, I am not as cynical as Yarvin. I genuinely, truly believe that there is something special, something magical, about Trump: Everything he touches turns to gold and everyone who stands against him confounds themself. You did not watch God personally intervene in the circles of the world on July 13 to save his life, only for things to fizzle out and die in the gutter a couple feet from the finish line. No, we are on the precipice of a US Renaissance. I believe that, and I am here to make it happen, too.

In 2018, I saved a meme of a skeleton with Trump’s iconic blonde hairdo, captioned, “The ride hasn’t even begun,” and it hadn’t. It’s still not over. There are no breaks on the Trump Train, choo-choo!

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Trump’s Appointments Are Fantastic for Making the US Awesome appeared first on Fair Observer.

This confrontation transcends conventional political rivalry; it is a battle over the nation’s direction and identity, with implications for stability, governance and democracy. Pakistan’s choices today will echo for decades to come.

The military and the populist

Pakistan’s military is not merely an institution, but a foundational pillar of the state. Since its birth in 1947, the military has been a guarantor of national security and unity, navigating the country through wars, internal conflicts, and natural calamities. However, this role has often extended into political governance, with the military exerting substantial influence over the state.

Of course, military intervention receives a great deal of criticism. Its defenders argue that the military has stepped in to stabilize a nation plagued by political infighting, corruption and weak governance.

This dual role — protector and power broker — has created a complex dynamic, one that often overshadows Pakistan’s democratic aspirations. This dynamic continued until the Khan’s emergence in 2018 marked a seismic shift.

A cricketing legend turned political reformer, Khan rode a wave of popular discontent to power in 2018. His Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party promised a break from the past: economic reform, accountability and an end to elite-driven politics.

However, Khan’s tenure as prime minister was polarizing. While his supporters lauded his vision for a Naya Pakistan (“New Pakistan”), critics pointed to economic mismanagement and policy inconsistencies. By 2022, Khan’s relationship with the military — once seen as a source of strength — had deteriorated, culminating in his removal through a parliamentary no-confidence vote alleged by the PTI to have been engineered by the Pakistan military.

Instead of retreating, Khan reinvented himself as an opposition leader, channeling public frustration into a potent political force. His narrative of resistance against entrenched elites resonated deeply, particularly among younger voters and the middle class.

Since August 2023, Khan has been incarcerated under a cloud of legal proceedings his party deems politically motivated. He faces over 150 legal cases.

Khan’s imprisonment has become a flashpoint for political unrest. For his supporters, these charges symbolize a broader attempt to stifle dissent and eliminate a genuine challenger to the status quo.

Despite his incarceration, Khan’s influence endures. His calls for judicial reform and fresh elections have kept his movement alive, with rallies, protests and sit-ins challenging the government’s authority. His wife, Bushra Bibi, has stepped into an uncharacteristic public leadership role, rallying PTI supporters and intensifying the push for his release.

Khan’s supporters hit the streets in huge numbers

The latest escalation came on November 24 when, upon Khan’s “final call,” hundreds of thousands of PTI supporters defied government-imposed lockdowns to march toward Islamabad from the four corners of Pakistan, demanding Khan’s release from prison, among other demands.

On Sunday, thousands of supporters launched a march from Peshawar, led by Bushra Bibi, Khan’s wife, and Ali Amin Gandapur, a prominent ally and chief minister of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Demonstrators removed barricades and shipping containers set up by authorities. The government has justified its actions as necessary to maintain order, accusing the PTI of inciting chaos. The Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi has openly threatened to fire upon pro-Khan protestors if the capital lockdown is breached. 

The clashes have turned violent, resulting in casualties on both sides. Authorities have responded with mass arrests, internet shutdowns, barricades and shoot-on-sight orders to prevent protesters from reaching D-Chowk, a symbolic venue for political demonstrations. 

The PTI, in turn, argues that these measures reflect a broader erosion of democratic freedoms. The result is a nation on edge, with Islamabad resembling a city under siege. Undeterred by governmental threats, Khan’s supporters have vowed to stage a sit-in in the capital to press for his release. 

At the time of writing, no side seems to be budging from its maximalist position. The PTI has categorically proclaimed that negotiations with the government are conditional on the prisoner’s release. 

The stakes in this political deadlock are extraordinarily high. Political instability could trigger an economic collapse and precipitate a full-blown currency crisis, leading to severe social and economic disruptions. The potential for civil unrest is real, with regions such as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan — long plagued by their own issues — standing on the edge of serious disturbances. The specter of violence and instability looms large, casting a shadow over the nation’s future.

Adding to the urgency is the international community’s lack of appetite for intervention. With global attention consumed by a myriad of conflicts and geopolitical risks, Pakistan’s plight risks being relegated to the periphery. The international community’s reluctance to bail out a nation embroiled in chronic issues — a proverbial “problem child” — only exacerbates Pakistan’s vulnerability. But the world cannot ignore Pakistan’s woes, albeit those are never-ending and perpetual.

As Pakistan faces these unprecedented challenges, the next few days will be crucial. The choices made by the key actors — the military establishment, the current government and Khan — will determine the nation’s trajectory. A failure to address the root causes of the crisis could lead to a situation far worse than that faced by Sri Lanka or Bangladesh, where political and economic turmoil would engulf the country, leading to widespread suffering and instability. The ongoing protests could be the tipping point.

Above all, the military’s entrenched power and the government’s resistance to political reform create a standoff that leaves little room for compromise. Yet, this deadlock cannot continue indefinitely. The political rupture facing Pakistan today demands a collective reckoning — a recognition that the current path is untenable and that a new, inclusive approach to governance is urgently needed.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Pakistan on the Brink as Protestors Descend on Islamabad appeared first on Fair Observer.

The small former Soviet country, sandwiched between the European Union and Russia has to strengthen its state institutions if it is to stand any chance against the hybrid war Putin has been insidiously carrying out throughout Eastern Europe.

After winning reelection in a November 3 runoff vote, President Maia Sandu has now an even harder battle ahead that she cannot lose: renewing and changing a notoriously corrupt system. 

Why a strong justice system is a must

The age of conventional warfare is long gone. Hybrid attacks now represent the norm. Having a strong military is nothing without strong institutions capable of counteracting covert threats. Informational warfare, fake news, manipulation, vote-buying, bribing and acts of corruption are all far more insidious and capable of subduing a state’s defense than foreign garrisons threatening to invade. Here is where a functioning justice system should steps in, properly prosecuting those endangering the country’s security.

Without strong institutions, Moldova will be vulnerable to Russian attacks from within, especially with an unreformed judiciary plagued by corruption and interference.

Furthermore, justice reform has to happen for Moldova to have a clear path for EU integration. The fight against corruption is non-negotiable if the Republic of Moldova wants to join the European Union.

If Moldovans lose trust in the system Putin wins. The justice system needs tough reform, needs skilled and determined leadership that can rebuild trust and show that everyone is equally responsible before the law. Next year in September Moldova will hold Parliamentary elections which will test how much people really trust the country’s leadership. That means Sandu and her administration in Chisinau have less than one year to deliver on the campaign promise of zero corruption and an overhaul of the justice system.

The judicial system – Moldova’s Achilles heel

Ex-communist states have always struggled to reform their justice systems. For Moldova in particular, renewing it is as complex as it necessary. Sandu herself admitted in a televised presidential debate last month that the promised judicial reform had been slow and vowed such measures would be more efficient in the future.

Corruption and uneven judicial practices are hurting the system. One of the most jarring such dysfunctions is the 2014 banking fraud, which saw over a billion dollars disappear from Moldova’s financial system without any top officials being held accountable.

95% of Moldovan citizens backing EU accession consider that justice reform is an absolute must. Institutions tasked with making sure judges and anti-corruption prosecutors do their job are lagging behind.

In the wake of the presidential election last month, Moldova’s chief of Police Viorel Cernăuțeanu said that there’s significant proof Russia is using bribes, hybrid warfare and disinformation, the likes of which Moldova has never seen before, in its push to sway the public opinion. Police investigations have shown how oligarchs had been involved in vote-buying and illegal financing of political parties backed by the Kremlin. 

Failure to act by relevant anti-corruption judicial institutions has given pro-Russian groups leeway to jeopardize the election process. Sandu pointed out after the latest meeting of the Moldovan security council that the justice system needs to be reformed as Moldova continues to be exposed to the Russian hybrid threat. 

What can Moldova’s European allies do to help

Brussels needs to support and encourage strong and tough reforms needed to modernize Moldova’s judiciary.

Last year, the EU Parliament approved a 145 million package for Moldova aimed among other things at justice reform. Member of European Parliament (MEP) Markéta Gregorova from the Greens group said that only by making Moldova’s institutions less vulnerable can we spare the country from becoming the next Ukraine. Additionally, Romanian MEP Rareş Bogdan spearheaded an initiative in the European Parliament to secure €45 million (about $47.5 million) to help combat disinformation in Moldova, disinformation which also might influence judicial proceedings. Backing Moldova’s EU accession, Cristian Terhes, another Romanian MEP, believes that once Russia regains control over the Moldovan administration, it will be difficult to remove. That is why a reform of the justice system in the Republic of Moldova allows for a strengthening of the institutions and a better capacity to face the hybrid war waged by Russia.

Sandu needs all the help she can get to combat corruption. A overarching change within the system is critical with no time to waste. Much hangs on a successful reform of the judicial system, not least the European future of Moldova and the safety of its citizens.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Moldova’s Defense Against Putin: Strong and Reformed State Institutions appeared first on Fair Observer.

This legislation would allow the federal government to revoke tax-exempt status for any non-profit organizations it decides to qualify as “terrorist supporting.” We have recently witnessed numerous examples of politicians and the media figures claiming that individuals suspected of voicing pro-Palestinian sentiments are, by that very act of speech, active supporters of Hamas, an officially designated “terrorist organization.” It isn’t difficult to see how such a law in the hands of any government — Democrat, Republican or simply fascist — can be used to throttle free speech.

The Fair Observer team has good reason to worry about this bill, but for reasons other than those cited by the dozens of Democrats who have suddenly seen the light. Our journal’s vocation is to allow everyone — including ordinary citizens with strong feelings — to publish the widest variety of reasoned readings of the events of contemporary history. We systematically require that the facts be respected. But we know that the interpretation people may have of the same facts will vary according to the elements of context from which they view those facts. Allowing for the expression of contrasting appreciations helps all of us better understand our own perceptions. It also invites us to revise our own partial understanding of the issues.

Many people see the exercise of freedom of thought and speech as the foundation of democracy. Now, whether what we have today is a healthy democracy remains a matter of open debate. For most Americans, freedom of expression stands as the axiom on which the logic of democracy is built.

But what is HR9495? Here is the official summary of the bill’s intent:

“Legislation that would prevent U.S. citizens who have been
taken hostage or wrongfully detained abroad from incurring
penalties for late tax payments while they were held, as well
as terminating tax-exempt status for organizations found to
be supporting terrorism.”

So why would Democrats even be tempted to flip-flop on such a question?

The Minnesota Reformer reports that “Minnesota Rep. Angie Craig voted in favor of the legislation last week, one of 52 House Democrats — and the only Minnesota Democrat — to do so.” She supported the bill because of its provisions granting tax leeway to Americans held hostage overseas. “However, Craig said she will vote against the bill this week.”

Craig claimed that she was initially motivated by her strong opposition to any actions that support foreign terrorist organizations. So, what has changed? “Over the past several days as the president-elect has rolled out his cabinet nominees, I’ve become increasingly concerned that H.R. 9495 would be used inappropriately by the incoming Administration.”

Today’s Weekly Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Inappropriately:

In a way that would be abusive, possibly illegal and directed against a selection of enemies different from my own.

Contextual note

Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat, who clearly understands the danger such legislation represents, tweeted: “A frequent tool of dictators is to label political opposition groups as ‘terrorist groups’ and shut them down.” That has been the case at least since President George W. Bush launched his global war on terror.

We know Murphy believes Donald Trump is a potential dictator. Before the election, he told Fox News that “Donald Trump has made it very clear: if you put him back in power, he’s going to think about only one group of people and that’s his friends at Mar-a-Lago.” That in itself is a recipe for dictatorship.

We also know that Murphy does not believe President Joe Biden is a dictator, even if traditionally Americans tend to believe that only dictators would allow themselves to be complicit in a genocide. That distinction between who is and who isn’t a dictator has offered Murphy some serious clarity in his decision-making.

Another Democratic Congressman, Lloyd Doggett, is among only a minority of Democrats who have shown authentic sympathy for Palestinian suffering. He opposed the bill for the following reason. “This bill is not about terrorism — it’s about giving Donald Trump unlimited authority to label his opponents as terrorists.”

Of course, had the bill passed earlier, it would have given the same unlimited power to Biden, who consistently showed his managerial skill at neutralizing or even cancelling opponents. It isn’t clear whether Doggett would have had similar objections had Democratic candidate Kamala Harris been elected.

This episode raises serious questions about how Americans view the question of authority. The constitution establishes radical principles such as freedom of speech and religion, which should protect the widest range of expression and opinion, so long as it does not translate into illegal acts. Do all Americans share this concern? It’s becoming less and less clear.

Historical note

As some people predicted, November 5 has already proved to be a watershed moment in US political history. The debate about what catastrophes we can expect over the next four years will keep on raging at least until January 20, 2025. From that point on, we will be in a position to assess not only what those events turn out to be, but what long-term transformations they are likely to produce. A return to some imaginary status quo ante Trump 2 seems highly unlikely.

Trump’s unpredictability alone will cause serious havoc in various sectors. One in particular is the immense complex of the national security state, which Trump himself has in the past referred to as the “deep state.” We may see a struggle between the hyperreal personality of Trump — assisted by another hyperreal hero, Elon Musk — and the tentacular military and intelligence complex that has pretty consistently orientated US foreign policy for many decades, despite the alternation of parties and personalities in the White House.

Could it be that Trump won the election not because the population wished to elect an authoritarian leader, but because they were intent on voting out the current Democratic regime that they felt had become deeply authoritarian in its acts? Because of his flamboyant personality, Trump may well prove more explicitly authoritarian in his acts, but — and some find this trait redeeming — he doesn’t disguise his taste for authoritarianism. He puts it on display. He proudly proclaims his most “inappropriate” initiatives.

The Biden administration’s policies concerning freedom of speech, in contrast, have been highly visible examples of public hypocrisy. It has used and abused the bugbear of “disinformation” to accuse everyone who challenges its own arbitrary use of authority — whether concerning Covid-19 or its engagement in wars — as purveyors of misinformation, suppliers of harmful content and even apologists of terrorism. Many of them have joined the popular trend of calling critics of Israel antisemites, a rhetorical ploy that seeks to excuse the administration’s too obvious complicity in an ongoing genocide conducted by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, one of the most authentically authoritarian leaders of our era.

Finally, let me clarify why we at Fair Observer share the worries of those Democrats who have now found the courage to oppose HR9495.

Fair Observer is a US non-profit organization that seeks to allow the expression of the widest range of insights, interpretations, opinions, sentiments and beliefs. The journal’s editorial standards require that the expression of any opinion, however marginal or eccentric, conform to the norms of rational discourse. This includes respect for facts and consistent reasoning. Consistent reasoning does not mean impeccable or complete reasoning. It means constructing a coherent viewpoint based on the facts presented. That alone does not prove whether a point of view is right or wrong. It reveals how that point of view attains some level of credibility.

Consequently, we publish some points of view that some people may consider “supporting terrorism.” The underlying problem is that in a democracy there is, and there should be “some” of everything, simply because every individual’s and every group’s perception of the world is variable, over space and time.

Losing our tax-exempt status would be fatal and not just to our journal, to the idea of democracy itself. We truly are at a historical turning-point.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of Fair Observer Devil’s Dictionary.]

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Fair Observer Too Has Reason to Be Unhappy About HR9495 appeared first on Fair Observer.

Fast forward 75 years. The world has changed dramatically, yet NATO persists as a relic of a bygone era. The Soviet Union is no more, replaced by a Russia with a GDP smaller than Italy’s. The European Union, along with the United Kingdom, boasts a combined economy nearly ten times the size of Russia’s. France and the UK possess their own nuclear deterrents. Yet, inexplicably, US taxpayers continue to foot the bill for Europe’s defense.

With Russia weakened, Europe is getting a free ride

Some argue that Russia’s actions in recent years, particularly its invasion of Ukraine, justify the US’s continued NATO membership. They paint a picture of a resurgent Russian threat, echoing the Cold War narratives of the past. But this comparison falls flat when we examine the facts.

During the Cold War, the US faced off against an empire of comparable might. The Soviet Union’s military and economic power posed a genuine threat to both Western Europe and US interests. Today’s Russia, however, is a shadow of its former self. With a GDP of about $2 trillion, it pales in comparison to the combined economic might of the EU and the UK, which totals more than $22 trillion.

Moreover, the population demographics tell a similar story. Russia’s population is less than 150 million, dwarfed by that of the EU and UK totaling more than 500 million. The combined military spending of the EU and UK stands at $370 billion, far outstripping Russia’s total defense budget of $130 billion. Yet, despite these advantages, Europe continues to rely on the United States for its security.

Ironically, the US’s persistent role in NATO may be making Europe less secure, not more. What matters for European defense isn’t raw might, but speed, agility and political will. NATO’s cumbersome decision-making process, requiring consensus among 32 members, is ill-suited to respond to modern threats. An army of motivated Polish and German fighters willing to fight and die to protect their freedom is a far greater deterrent to Russia than a US military that is truly awesome in its capabilities, but reliant on the whims of a foot-dragging US Congress for that to translate to the battlefield. The current arrangement doesn’t strengthen Europe; it weakens it, leaving the continent less prepared to address threats from Russia and elsewhere.

While US citizens shoulder the burden of NATO’s defense spending, Europeans have grown complacent. They’ve built generous welfare states where they enjoy long vacations, early retirements and universal healthcare. Meanwhile, US workers struggle with rising healthcare costs, minimal paid leave and relentless anxiety about how they will pay the bills.

This disparity is not just a matter of different priorities; it’s a direct result of Europe’s ability to skimp on defense spending, knowing full well that Uncle Sam will always be there to pick up the slack. It’s time to ask: Why should the US taxpayer subsidize Europe’s lavish lifestyle?

A new era demands new priorities

Proponents of NATO often point to the US’s nuclear umbrella as a critical component of European security. But this argument ignores a crucial fact: Both the UK and France possess their own nuclear arsenals, which was not the case when NATO was formed. These two European powers have more than enough nuclear capability to deter any potential aggressor. The idea that US nuclear weapons are necessary for European security is a Cold War anachronism that does not stand up to scrutiny.

As we approach 2025, the world faces challenges that were unimaginable when NATO was founded. Climate change, cyber and biological warfare and the rotting minds of our children addicted to social media platforms like TikTok and video games like Fortnite are the true existential threats of our time. These are the battles that will define the 21st century and beyond, not a rehash of 20th century geopolitics. If there is a new Cold War between rival superpowers, it exists across the North Pacific, not the North Atlantic.

It’s better for the US to leave

Some will argue that leaving NATO is too risky, that it could destabilize Europe and embolden Russia. But this view underestimates Europe’s capabilities and overestimates Russia’s. By continuing its outdated commitment to NATO, the US is fostering dependency and resentment, preventing Europe from developing the military self-reliance it needs.

Proponents of NATO often point to its invocation of Article 5 after the September 11 attacks as proof of the alliance’s value. However, this argument ignores a crucial reality: The response to the attacks would have happened with or without NATO. When faced with acts of aggression that demand a response, the United States has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to rapidly form and provide leadership to coalitions outside of formal alliance structures.

The First Gulf War in 1991 serves as a prime example. In response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, the US quickly assembled a coalition of 42 nations, many of whom were not NATO members. This “coalition of the willing” included fighters from countries as diverse as Japan, New Zealand and Afghanistan. The swift and effective formation of this coalition underscores a fundamental truth: When genuine threats arise, nations band together to address them, which can be easier without the cumbersome framework of an organization like NATO.

Game theory offers another compelling reason for the US to leave: the strategic value of unpredictability. In a world of mass surveillance where concealing actions is increasingly difficult, being predictable can be a significant disadvantage. Consider a poker game where one player always has a pair of kings, while the other has queens or aces with equal probability. Despite each player having the stronger hand half the time, the unpredictable player will on average win more.

This principle applies similarly to military strategy. NATO’s rigid structure and well-defined protocols make its responses predictable. By leaving NATO, the US introduces an element of uncertainty that can serve as a more effective deterrent. Potential adversaries would no longer be able to rely on a known command and control structure or anticipate specific responses. This unpredictability can in turn force adversaries to be more cautious, preventing conflicts before they begin.

Moreover, while it is true that P implies Q does not mean the same as not P implies not Q, there is often an implicit assumption that it does. By the United States declaring “If there is an attack on a NATO country, there will be an overwhelming response from the United States” it suggests to potential enemies that “If there is an attack on a non-NATO country, the United States will not respond with overwhelming force.” This is clearly seen in Ukraine, where Putin is in plain sight employing the principle: “Ukraine not NATO, therefore Ukraine fair game.”

The reality on the ground is that the Iron curtain no longer exists and we live in a world with fuzzy borders and hybrid warfare. The correct response to this is illustrated regarding Taiwan. Will America go to war to defend Taiwan? It might. That should be the answer to every question of that form. Will America go to war over a sabotaged undersea cable or gas pipeline? It might. Will it go to war over an act of terrorism? It might. Will America go to war to defend Europe? It might. America should go to war when the American President and Congress decide that it should, not because of a treaty from three quarters of a century ago born of a different age. By withdrawing from NATO, the United States would put Ukraine on equal footing with not just Poland but also France and Germany, and be a masterstroke of expanding not contracting American influence.

In essence, by stepping away from NATO, the US would paradoxically enhance global security by keeping potential aggressors guessing about the nature and extent of possible responses to their actions.

It’s time to go

The time has come for bold leadership. President-elect Donald Trump’s landslide victory and Republican control of Congress provide a unique opportunity to reshape the US’s foreign policy. The nation must seize this moment to chart a new course. Leaving NATO will not only serve the interests of the US taxpayer, it will also help Europe by teaching it the pride of taking care of its own needs with its own hard work.

The US’s departure from NATO won’t be easy. It will require careful diplomacy, detailed planning and time. But it is a necessary step for both the US and Europe to address the real challenges of the 21st century.

And to those reading this in a nice coffee shop in a town square in Europe, I say this: If you want to continue enjoying your wine and your swimming pools, and your relaxed way of life, it’s time for you to fight for it — and pay for it — yourself.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post It’s Time for the US To Bid Farewell to NATO appeared first on Fair Observer.

That man’s hunger stayed with me, gnawing at my mind like an unwelcome guest. Was he a symbol of the growing chasm between Washington’s polished rhetoric and the raw, unvarnished reality endured by millions? Beneath the lofty ideals of the capital, something vital had been lost. I had walked through the terminals of Dubai and Singapore, temples to modern prosperity, but here, in the seat of American power, lay a quiet tragedy — its citizens scavenging for dignity amidst the remnants of forgotten promises.

This dissonance has followed me through the years I have lived in Washington, Kentucky and Wisconsin. In Washington, policies are crafted, narratives spun, yet the struggles of the everyday American seem distant, almost abstract. In Kentucky, I saw families crushed under the weight of inflation, paychecks stretched to breaking. In Wisconsin, I heard echoes of lost industries, lives upended by decisions made far from their grasp. To them, Washington is a myth — a city of marble halls that speaks in platitudes while crises rage beyond its borders.

It is into this void that former and future President Donald J. Trump has re-emerged, his message of strength and renewal cutting through the polished but hollow discourse of the capital. His November 5 electoral victory was not merely a political event; it was a seismic rejection of the status quo. Against all odds — assassination attempts, endless litigation — Trump stood defiant, embodying the resilience and anger of a nation disillusioned. His landslide win, sweeping seven swing states, sent a clear message: the American people were no longer content with promises; they demanded action, even if it came wrapped in controversy.

The fatigue gripping the nation is deeper than weariness; it is a spiritual exhaustion, a slow erosion of belief. Rising prices, policy paralysis and a fractured foreign policy have left Americans adrift. Inflation haunts them like a specter, while the immigrant crisis stirs frustrations in communities already stretched to their limits.

Abroad, the erosion of American influence is palpable. In South Asia, where I often work, Washington’s focus feels narrow, shaped by a myopic, India-centric lens that overlooks the region’s complexities. The US military’s chaotic retreat from Kabul, captured in the image of a man clinging to an aircraft, epitomized this decline. Meanwhile, China has seized the moment, extending its influence from the Solomon Islands to Sri Lanka, filling the void left by America’s absence.

Today, Sri Lanka is ruled by a Marxist oriented political party National People’s Power for the first time, the legislature and executive branch taken over under the shadows of significant Chinese influence. A US senior academic explained to me that “stacks of money was given during Sri Lankan elections by China to the Marxist.” Meanwhile in the Solomon Islands, Jeremiah Manele, a former foreign minister, was appointed prime minister and pledged to continue the policy of embracing China.

In conversations with foreign diplomats and thinkers, the critique is unrelenting. A Jordanian contact of mine once described America’s alliances as fleeting, its loyalty uncertain. A Cambodian policy director lamented the unpredictability of US sanctions, even after discussing partnership with Austin. These voices echo a growing disillusionment — a realization that the ideals of American leadership often fall short of its actions.

At a recent Indian Army Defense Dialogue, I met Israeli academic Carice Witte from SIGNAL Group, who stated matter-of-factly that “US weakness is projected now which is not good; we must have strong, smart leadership who is not afraid to deal with hard power.” Yet, even as she spoke of strength, I wondered if that was truly what Americans desired. Did they yearn for victory on the world stage, or had the years of conflict and economic decline made them crave something simpler, like peace or stability? Trump positioned himself as the “man for peace,” a perfect fit for the many Americans who do not wish to entangle themselves with endless wars. 

Trump’s triumph taps into this discontent, presenting himself as the answer to America’s unraveling. He promises a golden age. “This will be the golden age of America,” a return to strength and self-reliance. But his rhetoric, though potent, is laced with contradictions. His campaign spoke of peace, even as it celebrated power; of stability, even as it thrived on division. His call for a new era resonated with those weary of endless wars and economic decline, but the challenges he inherits are immense. The fractures in American society and the entanglements abroad will demand more than slogans — they will require a vision that Washington has long struggled to deliver.

As foreign policy expert Walter Russell Mead aptly noted, Trump’s reelection is likely to embolden him, fueling a belief in his infallibility. With renewed vigor, he will seek “trophy achievements” abroad, confronting a world that views his leadership with equal parts fascination and skepticism. Yet the question remains: Can this new era heal America’s divisions, or will it deepen them further? Will Trump’s promised golden age be a time of renewal, or will it add another chapter to the long tale of unfulfilled promises?

Beneath the triumph, a quiet truth lingers: America’s fractures cannot be mended by strength alone. Its renewal will require not just power, but wisdom, humility and a return to the ideals that once made it a beacon for the world. Trump’s America stands at a crossroads, and the path it chooses will determine whether this chapter is one of redemption — or another in a litany of squandered opportunities.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Trump’s Return: Can He Deliver America’s Golden Age? appeared first on Fair Observer.

Let us review the agenda. The number one problem in the world today, and Trump’s greatest threat, is the climate crisis, which is accelerating its destructive consequences. Trump will undoubtedly promote fossil production, but the Environmental Protection Agency will maintain the protective and preventive regulations established over the past few years, 12 states will continue to apply restrictions on emissions, and large cities will continue to spread renewable energy.

Regarding immigration, this time Trump did not insist on the wall (most of which he failed to build while he was last in the White House). In this campaign, he turned to “mass deportations,” which can mean common-sense controls to cross the border, as already agreed with the Mexican government regarding non-Mexicans, or an illusory hunt for individuals without proper documents in neighborhoods, workplaces and family homes, which would not only be savage but logistically unfeasible. In reality, it is to be hoped that Congress will reactivate the bipartisan agreement for immigrants’ legalization and access to citizenship that Trump ordered to be stopped not because of its content but because it would have been approved during the campaign and would have taken away his favorite topic for demagoguery.

As for Israel and Palestine, the biggest problem is that Trump is now prioritizing enmity with Iran, which finances and pushes Hamas and Hezbollah and whose agents tried to assassinate him twice (or perhaps thrice). He will have a hard time resurrecting the Abraham Accords that his Jewish son-in-law negotiated during his first term: exploring again the two-state solution in exchange for diplomatic recognition of Israel by Arab countries. Now, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates will only accept it if Trump diminishes his hostility against Iran, where a “reformist” candidate won the presidential election and seems to have appeased the fury.

Regarding Ukraine, Trump boasted that he would “fix it in 24 hours,” but was not very specific. Two days after the election, at the Valdai Forum, Russian President Vladimir Putin rushed to offer a peace agreement based on the “self-determination” of the people of Donbas in exchange for respecting Ukraine’s borders. Putin also hinted that Russia could restore natural gas supplies through the Baltic to Germany, which Ukrainian agents destroyed. A Trump adviser has outlined a plan to defend Ukraine’s neutrality outside NATO for the next twenty years. All this sounds similar to the Minsk Agreements reached a few years ago by Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron, which US President Barack Obama ignored.

In the face of Trump’s disdain, the European Union may reinforce internal solidity and external autonomy. Many NATO members are already ceasing to be free-riders on the United States and are fulfilling their commitment to invest at least 2% of GDP in defense. Their number has risen from four to 23 in just six years.

The biggest alarm raised by Trump’s election is that the future of democracy and legal security in the United States may be in jeopardy. Will there be “revenge” against “internal enemies,” and will he go after politicians, judges, generals, officials, journalists and other opponents? He may not need to once the pending court cases are canceled and he has satisfied his obsession with returning to power. The Senate Republican group has already rejected Trump’s nominee to lead it, and the Senate can veto some of his announced appointees. It is worth remembering that in his first term, Trump appointed three Chiefs of Staff in four years and changed most members of the Cabinet, including State, Defense, Justice, Interior and Homeland Security, a tenor of personal instability that is likely to continue.

Some of Trump’s boasts may end in a major ridicule, such as ordering Elon Musk to cut a third of the budget. Incompetence could also sink him in the face of some unforeseen catastrophe, as happened to during US President George Bush’s second term with Hurricane Katrina and to himself with the COVID-19 pandemic. Will Trump be able to maintain a regular daily work schedule in his eighties, or will he, like Joe Biden, be busy only from 10 AM to 4 PM? It is not guaranteed that he will complete four years in good shape.

Ultimately, Trump could also become a chaotic parody of the befuddled White House visitor in the film Being There (1979). As Mister Chance says, “I can’t write. I can’t read. But I like to watch television.” Just like Donald the Returned.

[The author’s blog first published this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post To Understand Trump, Take Him Seriously, but Not Literally appeared first on Fair Observer.

To make that forecast, the historian conducted what he called “a more realistic assessment of domestic and global trends.” Starting with the global context, he argued that, “faced with a fading superpower,” China, India, Iran, and Russia would all start to “provocatively challenge U.S. dominion over the oceans, space, and cyberspace.” At home in the US, domestic divisions would “widen into violent clashes and divisive debates… Riding a political tide of disillusionment and despair, a far-right patriot captures the presidency with thundering rhetoric, demanding respect for American authority and threatening military retaliation or economic reprisal.” That historian concluded, “the world pays next to no attention as the American Century ends in silence.”

Now that a “far-right patriot,” one President-elect Donald Trump, has indeed captured (or rather recaptured) the presidency “with thundering rhetoric,” let’s explore the likelihood that a second Trump term in office, starting in the fateful year 2025, might actually bring a hasty end, silent or otherwise, to an “American Century” of global dominion.

Making the original prediction

Let’s begin by examining the reasoning underlying my original prediction. (Yes, I was the historian.) Back in 2010, when I picked a specific date for a rising tide of US decline, this country looked unassailably strong both at home and abroad. President Barack Obama’s administration was producing a “post-racial” society. After recovering from the 2008 financial crisis, the US was on track for a decade of dynamic growth — the auto industry saved, oil and gas production booming, the tech sector thriving, the stock market soaring and employment solid. Internationally, Washington was the world’s preeminent leader, with an unchallenged military, formidable diplomatic clout, unchecked economic globalization and its democratic governance still the global norm.

Looking forward, leading historians of the empire agreed that the US would remain the world’s sole superpower for the foreseeable future. Writing in the Financial Times in 2002, Yale professor Paul Kennedy, author of a widely-read book on imperial decline, argued that “America’s array of force is staggering,” with a mix of economic, diplomatic and technological dominance that made it the globe’s “single superpower” without peer in the entire history of the world. Russia’s defense budget had “collapsed” and its economy was “less than that of the Netherlands.” Should China’s high growth rates continue for another 30 years, it “might be a serious challenger to U.S. predominance” — but that wouldn’t be true until 2032, if then. While the US’s “unipolar moment” would surely not “continue for centuries,” its end, he predicted, “seems a long way off for now.”

Writing in a similar vein in The New York Times in February 2010, Piers Brendon, a historian of Britain’s imperial decline, dismissed the “doom mongers” who “conjure with Roman and British analogies in order to trace the decay of American hegemony.” While Rome was riven by “internecine strife” and Britain ran its empire on a shoestring budget, the US was “constitutionally stable” with “an enormous industrial base.” Taking a few “relatively simple steps,” he concluded, Washington should be able to overcome current budgetary problems and perpetuate its global power indefinitely.

When I made my very different prediction nine months later, I was coordinating a network of 140 historians from universities on three continents who were studying the decline of earlier empires — particularly those of Britain, France and Spain. Beneath the surface of this country’s seeming strength, we could already see the telltale signs of decline that had led to the collapse of those earlier empires.

By 2010, economic globalization was cutting good-paying factory jobs here, income inequality was widening and corporate bailouts were booming — all essential ingredients for rising working-class resentment and deepening domestic divisions. Foolhardy military misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, pushed by Washington elites trying to deny any sense of decline, stoked simmering anger among ordinary US citizens, slowly discrediting the very idea of international commitments. And the erosion of the US’s relative economic strength from half the world’s output in 1950 to a quarter in 2010 meant the wherewithal for its unipolar power was fading fast.

Only a “near-peer” competitor was needed to turn that attenuating US global hegemony into accelerating imperial decline. With rapid economic growth, a vast population and the world’s longest imperial tradition, China seemed primed to become just such a country. But back then, Washington’s foreign policy elites thought not and even admitted China to the World Trade Organization (WTO), confident that “U.S. power and hegemony could readily mold China to the United States’ liking.”

Our group of historians, mindful of the frequent imperial wars fought when near-peer competitors finally confronted the reigning hegemon of their moment — think Germany vs Great Britain in World War I — expected China’s challenge would not be long in coming. Indeed, in 2012, just two years after my prediction, the US National Intelligence Council warned that “China alone will probably have the largest economy, surpassing that of the United States a few years before 2030” and this country would no longer be “a hegemonic power.”

Just a year later, Chinese President Xi Jinping, drawing on a massive $4 trillion in foreign-exchange reserves accumulated in the decade after joining the WTO, announced his bid for global power. This would come in the form of what he called “the Belt and Road Initiative,” history’s largest development program. It was designed to make Beijing the center of the global economy.

In the following decade, the US–China rivalry would become so intense that, last September, Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall warned: “I’ve been closely watching the evolution of [China’s] military for 15 years. China is not a future threat; China is a threat today.”

The global rise of the strongman

Another major setback for Washington’s world order, long legitimated by its promotion of democracy (whatever its own dominating tendencies), came from the rise of populist strongmen worldwide. Consider them part of a nationalist reaction to the West’s aggressive economic globalization.

At the close of the Cold War in 1991, Washington became the planet’s sole superpower, using its hegemony to forcefully promote a wide-open global economy — forming the World Trade Organization in 1995, pressing open-market “reforms” on developing economies and knocking down tariff barriers worldwide. It also built a global communications grid by laying 700,000 miles of fiber-optic submarine cables and then launching 1,300 satellites (now 4,700).

By exploiting that very globalized economy, however, China’s industrial output soared to $3.2 trillion by 2016, surpassing both the US and Japan, while simultaneously eliminating 2.4 million US jobs between 1999 and 2011, ensuring the closure of factories in countless towns across the South and Midwest. By fraying social safety nets while eroding protection for labor unions and local businesses in both the US and Europe, globalization reduced the quality of life for many, while creating inequality on a staggering scale and stoking a working-class reaction that would crest in a global wave of angry populism.

Riding that wave, right-wing populists have been winning a steady succession of elections — in Russia in 2000, Israel in 2009, Hungary in 2010, China in 2012, Turkey in 2014, the Philippines and the US in 2016, Brazil in 2018, Italy in 2022, the Netherlands in 2023, Indonesia and the US again in 2024.

Set aside their incendiary us-vs-them rhetoric, however, and look at their actual achievements and those right-wing demagogues turn out to have a record that can only be described as dismal. In Brazil, President Jair Bolsonaro ravaged the vast Amazon rainforest and left office amid an abortive coup. In Russia, President Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, sacrificing his country’s economy to capture some more land (which it hardly lacked). In Turkey, President Recep Erdoğan caused a crippling debt crisis, while jailing 50,000 suspected opponents. In the Philippines, President Rodrigo Duterte murdered 30,000 suspected drug users and courted China by giving up his country’s claims in the resource-rich South China Sea. In Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has wreaked havoc on Gaza and neighboring lands, in part to stay in office and stay out of prison.

Prospects for Donald Trump’s second term

After the steady erosion of its global power for several decades, the US is no longer the — or perhaps even an — “exceptional” nation floating above the deep global currents that shape the politics of most countries. And as it has become more of an ordinary country, it has also felt the full force of the worldwide move toward strongman rule. Not only does that global trend help explain Trump’s election and his recent re-election, but it provides some clues as to what he’s likely to do with that office the second time around.

In the globalized world the US made, there is now an intimate interaction between domestic and international policy. That will soon be apparent in a second Trump administration whose policies are likely to simultaneously damage the country’s economy and further degrade Washington’s world leadership.

Let’s start with the clearest of his commitments: environmental policy. During the recent election campaign, Trump called climate change “a scam” and his transition team has already drawn up executive orders to exit from the Paris climate accords. By quitting that agreement, the US will abdicate any leadership role when it comes to the most consequential issue facing the international community while reducing pressure on China to curb its greenhouse gas emissions. Since these two countries now account for nearly half (45%) of global carbon emissions, such a move will ensure that the world blows past the target of keeping this planet’s temperature rise to 1.5° C until the end of the century. Instead, on a planet that’s already had 12 recent months of just such a temperature rise, that mark is expected to be permanently reached by perhaps 2029. That is the year Trump finishes his second term.

On the domestic side of climate policy, Trump promised last September that he would “terminate the Green New Deal, which I call the Green New Scam, and rescind all unspent funds under the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act.” On the day after his election, he committed himself to increasing the country’s oil and gas production, telling a celebratory crowd, “We have more liquid gold than any country in the world.” He will undoubtedly also block wind farm leases on Federal lands and cancel the $7,500 tax credit for purchasing an electrical vehicle.

As the world shifts to renewable energy and all-electric vehicles, Trump’s policies will undoubtedly do lasting damage to the US economy. In 2023, the International Renewable Energy Agency reported that, amid continuing price decreases, wind and solar power now generate electricity for less than half the cost of fossil fuels. Any attempt to slow the conversion of this country’s utilities to the most cost-effective form of energy runs a serious risk of ensuring that US-made products will be ever less competitive.

To put it bluntly, he seems to be proposing that electricity users here should pay twice as much for their power as those in other advanced nations. Similarly, as relentless engineering innovation makes electric vehicles cheaper and more reliable than petroleum-powered ones, attempting to slow such an energy transition is likely to make the US automotive industry uncompetitive at home and abroad.

Calling tariffs “the greatest thing ever invented,” Trump has proposed slapping a 20% duty on all foreign goods and 60% on those from China. In another instance of domestic–foreign synergy, such duties will undoubtedly end up crippling US farm exports, thanks to retaliatory overseas tariffs. Simultaneously, it will dramatically raise the cost of consumer goods for US citizens, stoking inflation and slowing consumer spending.

Reflecting his aversion to alliances and military commitments, Trump’s first foreign policy initiative will likely be an attempt to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine. During a CNN town hall meeting in May 2023, he claimed he could stop the fighting “in 24 hours.” Last July, he added: “I would tell [Ukrainian President] Zelenskyy, no more. You got to make a deal.”

Just two days after the November 5 election, Trump reportedly told Putin over a phone call “not to escalate the war in Ukraine and reminded him of Washington’s sizable military presence in Europe.” Drawing on sources inside the Trump transition team, the Wall Street Journal reported that the new administration is considering “cementing Russia’s seizure of 20% of Ukraine” and forcing Kyiv to forego its bid to join NATO, perhaps for as long as 20 years.

With Russia drained of manpower and its economy pummeled by three years of bloody warfare, a competent negotiator — should Trump actually appoint one — might indeed be able to bring a tenuous peace to a ravaged Ukraine. Since it has been Europe’s frontline of defense against a revanchist Russia, the continent’s major powers would be expected to play a significant role. But Germany’s coalition government has just collapsed; French President Emmanuel Macron is crippled by recent electoral reverses and the NATO alliance, after three years of a shared commitment to Ukraine, faces real uncertainty with the advent of a Trump presidency.

US allies

Those impending negotiations over Ukraine highlight the paramount importance of alliances for US global power. For 80 years, from World War II through the Cold War and beyond, Washington relied on bilateral and multilateral alliances as a critical force multiplier. With China and Russia both rearmed and increasingly closely aligned, reliable allies have become even more important to maintaining Washington’s global presence. With 32 member nations representing a billion people and a commitment to mutual defense that has lasted 75 years, NATO is arguably the most powerful military alliance in modern history.

Yet Trump has long been sharply critical of it. As a candidate in 2016, he called the alliance “obsolete.” As president, he mocked the treaty’s mutual-defense clause, claiming even “tiny” Montenegro could drag the US into war. While campaigning last February, he announced that he would tell Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to a NATO ally that didn’t pay what he considered its fair share.

Right after Trump’s election, caught between what one analyst called “an aggressively advancing Russia and an aggressively withdrawing America,” Macron insisted that the continent needed to be a “more united, stronger, more sovereign Europe in this new context.” Even if the new administration doesn’t formally withdraw from NATO, Trump’s repeated hostility, particularly toward its crucial mutual-defense clause, may yet serve to eviscerate the alliance.

In the Asia-Pacific region, the US presence rests on three sets of overlapping alliances: the AUKUS entente with Australia and Britain; the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue with Australia, India and Japan and a chain of bilateral defense pacts stretching along the Pacific littoral from Japan through Taiwan to the Philippines. Via careful diplomacy, the administration US President Joe Biden strengthened those alliances, bringing two wayward allies, Australia and the Philippines that had drifted Beijing-wards, back into the Western fold. Trump’s penchant for abusing allies and, as in his first term, withdrawing from multilateral pacts is likely to weaken such ties and so US power in the region.

Although his first administration famously waged a trade war with Beijing, Trump’s attitude toward the island of Taiwan is bluntly transactional. “I think, Taiwan should pay us for defense,” he said in June, adding: “You know, we’re no different than an insurance company. Taiwan doesn’t give us anything.” In October, he told the Wall Street Journal that he would not have to use military force to defend Taiwan because Xi “respects me and he knows I’m f—— crazy.” Bluster aside, Trump, unlike Biden, has never committed himself to defend Taiwan from a Chinese attack.

Should Beijing indeed attack Taiwan outright or, as appears more likely, impose a crippling economic blockade on the island, Trump seems unlikely to risk a war with China. The loss of Taiwan would break the US position along the Pacific littoral, which for 80 years has been the fulcrum of its global imperial posture. This would push its naval forces back to a “second island chain” running from Japan to Guam. Such a retreat would represent a major blow to the US’s imperial role in the Pacific, potentially making it no longer a significant player in the security of its Asia-Pacific allies.

A silent US recessional

Adding up the likely impact of Trump’s policies in this country, Asia, Europe and the international community generally, his second term will almost certainly be one of imperial decline, increasing internal chaos and a further loss of global leadership. As “respect for American authority” fades, Trump may yet resort to “threatening military retaliation or economic reprisal.” But as I predicted back in 2010, it seems quite likely that “the world pays next to no attention as the American Century ends in silence.”

[TomDispatch first published this piece.]

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Requiem for an Empire: How America’s Strongman Will Hasten the Decline of US Global Power appeared first on Fair Observer.

Singh’s rise to military success

Singh was born in Kusumdesar Village in the Churu region of the Bikaner Kingdom on July 14, 1919, to Brijlal Singh Rathore, a soldier, and his wife Jadao Kanwar. In 1938, after his intermediate exam, Singh was enrolled as a Naik, or corporal, in the Bikaner State Forces. When World War II broke out, he received a commission as a Second Lieutenant from the King. In 1949, he was absorbed into the Indian Army with the Third Gorkha Rifles Regiment. 

In 1961, Singh was promoted to the rank of brigadier and was given the command of India’s paratroopers, the 50th Parachute Brigade. “Operation Vijay,” the plan for the liberation of Goa from the Portuguese, commenced on December 17, 1961. Although the 50th Parachute Brigade was given a secondary role in the original operational plan, their rapid advance and initiative under Singh’s dynamic leadership made them the first to reach Panjim, the capital of Goa. On the morning of December 19, Panjim fell to the brigade. Portuguese Governor General and Commander-in-Chief Major General Vassalo De’ Silva fled to Marmagao but later surrendered. At 11 AM, Singh’s forces hoisted the Indian tricolor on the Secretariat Building at Panjim.

Refusal to retreat led to one of India’s greatest victories

Singh’s success did not stop there. In 1965, China issued an ultimatum to India to vacate the border outposts of Nathu La and Jelep La in Sikkim. Above him in the military hierarchy was Lieutenant General Sam Manekshaw, the Eastern Army Commander, and Lieutenant General Jagjit Singh Aurora, commander of the XXXIII corps, who were responsible for Sikkim. Singh, now a major general, was the General Officer Commanding (GOC) of the 17th Mountain Division, which controlled Nathu La. Orders given to the 17th and 27th Divisions required that they vacate the outposts and fall back to the main defenses in the case of hostilities.

The GOC of the 27th (deployed to the east of the 17th) pulled back from Jelep La. Thus, Jelep La fell to the Chinese. To this day, the vital pass leading to the Chumbi Valley is still with China. Singh, however, refused to pull back. From August to September 1967, the Chinese tried their best to make Indians withdraw from Nathu La, but Singh made his forces hold on even though he could have vacated this outpost. During this engagement, both sides suffered casualties, but Nathu La gave a bloody nose to the Chinese under Singh’s audacious leadership. The victory helped the nation and the army overcome some regrets of the military defeat in the 1962 Sino-Indian War.

Perhaps Singh’s insistence on defending Nathu La led to him being given a non-operational command, the 101st Communications Zone in Shillong. However, this general with “a talent for war” had the uncanny quality of winding up in military operations. By this time, the Mizo separatist rebellion, orchestrated by the Mizo National Front, had begun. Since the area was under his responsibility, Singh set counter-insurgency operations into motion in Mizoram. His quick thinking quelled the rebellion for some time. Mizoram became an Indian state much later, in 1986. Mizoram is the rare example of a successful counter-insurgency operation, all thanks to the initial sagacious operational approach set by Singh.

The liberation of Bangladesh is Singh’s crowning glory

In December 1970, Singh was promoted to lieutenant general and assigned the command of the IV Corps. The hierarchy above Sagat was the same as it was in Nathu La in 1967: Aurora was now the Eastern Army commander and Manekshaw the army chief. 

Initially, the plans for the liberation of Bangladesh did not involve the capture of Dacca (now Dhaka), the capital of Bangladesh. The plan was to liberate areas up to the major rivers surrounding Dacca and thereafter to declare Bangladesh liberated. The army headquarters’ directive to Eastern Command did not envision Dacca as the final objective of the campaign in the east.

Singh was ordered to advance up to River Meghna from Tripura in the East and capture areas up to the river line. He was ordered not to cross the Meghna. However, military genius that he was, Singh clearly identified the two centers of gravity of the campaign: the fall of Dacca and the capitulation of all Pakistani forces in East Pakistan. Undaunted by the massive Meghna, Singh launched the first-ever Indian heliborne operation across the river. His IV Corps raced to Dacca in a blitzkrieg. This led to the fall of the city and the capture of 93,000 Pakistani soldiers. It would perhaps have been appropriate for Singh, seeing as it was he who captured Dacca, rather than Aurora to have accepted the surrender of Pakistani forces from Lieutenant General Amir Abdullah Khan Niazi.

Singh’s legacy lives on

The Param Vishisht Seva Medal and the Padma Bhushan, awarded to Singh for his services in war, fall short of the magnitude of his contribution to the Indian nation. According to an unverifiable rumor, his victory ride through Dacca and his “son-of-the-soil” image may have ruffled his superiors’ feathers, causing them to deny him the awards he deserved. Whatever the case, it would now be appropriate to award him the Bharat Ratna, even posthumously.

Singh eventually settled down in Jaipur after retiring from the army in 1979. His house in Jaipur is called “Meghna,” as is his younger granddaughter. He breathed his last on September 26, 2001, at the age of 82.

On July 14, 2019, and the week after that, I had the unique privilege of organizing celebrations for the 100th anniversary of the birth of this illustrious general. A prominent road in Jaipur has been adorned with a bust of Singh and named after him. The Jaipur Literary Festival in January 2019 witnessed readings from his biography. A seminar was organized in Jaipur, where generals who fought the war with him, as well as his son Lieutenant Colonel Ran Vijay Singh and his relatives, paid tribute in a very publicized event.

Truly, Singh was a general who never lost a battle.

[Cheyenne Torres edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Sagat Singh: The General Who Never Lost a Battle appeared first on Fair Observer.

Bangladesh has a history of poor working conditions including low wages, long hours and rampant sexism in a country where 85% of the garment workers were women. Workers were forced to work 14-16 hour shifts seven days a week all while making 2,000 Bangladesh Taka ($16.73) less than the minimum liveable wage. The work environments were also cramped and hazardous, often resulting in injury and other accidents, such as fires. From 2005-2012, there were several factory accidents that resulted in the death of nearly 250 workers. This does not include the thousands of other workers who were killed or injured in other accidents starting in as early as 1990. 

The turning point for Bangladesh’s RMG sector finally came in 2013 with the tragic Rana Plaza factory building collapse, which claimed the lives of 1,134 people, most of whom were garment workers. The tragedy prompted industry leaders and government officials, with the aid of international initiatives, to reevaluate safety measures and implement comprehensive reforms.

International initiatives 

International initiative has played a pivotal role in reshaping Bangladesh’s RMG industry. The two landmark initiatives formed in the aftermath of the Rana Plaza incident, The Alliance for Bangladesh Worker Safety and the Accord, have played a crucial role in significantly enhancing worker safety in Bangladesh’s RMG sector by conducting rigorous factory inspections, mandating safety upgrades and empowering workers through training and safety committees.

Since 2020, a nationally led RMG Sustainability Council, bringing together industry owners, brands and trade unions, has taken over the building and fire safety responsibility from international initiatives. Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA) says that, under the council, significant improvements have been made in workers’ rights, including safety and transparency. 

Over the past decade, the country has invested in infrastructure by installing state-of-the-art fire and electrical safety equipment. A commitment to green initiatives and compliance measures has also resulted in safer working conditions and positioned Bangladesh as a role model for other nations in the garment manufacturing sector.

The 2013 Labor (Amendment) Act introduced pivotal amendments by creating safety committees in factories with 50 or more workers, appointing safety welfare officers in workplaces with more than 500 employees and establishing Health Centers in workplaces with over 5000 employees.

In 2022, the RMG Sustainability Council, in collaboration with the International Labor Organization (ILO) and the Federation of Bangladesh Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FBCCI), signed an agreement to enhance workplace safety and health in ten priority economic sectors. The initiative aims to establish safety units, develop safety committees and upskill workers on occupational safety and health.

The government has also invested in capacity building and training programs for workers and factory owners to foster a safety culture. These initiatives focus on imparting essential skills, raising awareness about safety protocols and cultivating a sense of responsibility toward the well-being of workers. 

A crucial aspect of Bangladesh’s commitment to safety lies in empowering workers. The Accord and RMG Sustainability Council have facilitated the formation of over 1,200 joint labor-management Safety Committees in Accord-covered factories. These committees are now trained to address and monitor factory safety daily. Moreover, workers have filed over 6,000 complaints through independent mechanisms, leading to improvements in health and safety, disciplinary actions, benefit payments and reduced working hours.

The impact of these efforts includes developing and implementing training programs for over 1.2 million workers, establishing a helpline managing over 30,000 calls annually and impactful worker surveys. The Accord and the RMG Sustainability Council have conducted nearly 56,000 inspections, rectifying 140,000 health and safety issues.

Governmental reforms

In 2023, in response to industrial disasters, the Bangladesh government initiated significant reforms in the Department of Inspections for Factories and Establishments (DIFE) . The department received increased budgetary allocations, enhanced status and additional staff. Efforts have been made to strengthen planning and operational mechanisms, resulting in a more effective, credible and accountable inspection service.

The Alliance conducted thorough inspections of factories associated with its member brands. These inspections assessed structural, electrical and fire safety and the overall working conditions. It identified safety deficiencies — categorized by severity — and factories were given a specific timeline for remediation. The Alliance actively worked with factory owners to ensure the necessary safety measures.

The Accord brought about tangible improvements through rigorous inspections, audits and remediation for 850 factories, benefitting over a million workers. These initiatives have created a ripple effect, fostering a culture of safety and compliance across the sector. Suppliers in Bangladesh have made significant safety improvements at their factories, with support from more than 220 brand signatories who have invested over 70 million USD to finance the Accord programs and operations in Bangladesh.

The commitment to workplace safety is evident in the multitude of workplace safety certifications achieved by Bangladesh’s RMG industry. With certifications from renowned organizations such as BSCI, Accord, WRAP SEDEX and more, around 18,000 workers are currently employed in facilities that adhere to the highest international safety standards. The country boasts 226 LEED-certified green RMG factories, with an additional 500 in the pipeline for certification. These certifications not only validate the industry’s commitment to safety but also provide assurance to international buyers and consumers.

Continuing to stand up for what is right

As of today, Bangladesh still has work to do in order to continue bettering its RMG industry. From January–September 2024, workers in Bangladesh were protesting the working conditions in RMG factories, revealing the persistent nature of the issues plaguing this industry. However, representatives for both the factory owners and workers were able to meet an agreement in late September that shows the continued promise for a better future in the sector. While Bangladesh is not fully reformed, it has managed to pull itself out of the shadows of industrial disasters and is now on its way to becoming a global exemplar for safety and sustainability. The nation’s commitment, backed by investments, collaborations and regulatory reforms, strives to ensure the safety of its RMG workers and positions the country as a torchbearer for other nations in the garment manufacturing sector. As Bangladesh continues to stride towards a future of safe, sustainable and responsible industry practices, the world watches, inspired by a nation that turned tragedy into triumph.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Worker safety in Bangladesh: Tragedy Turned into Triumph appeared first on Fair Observer.

The only area where there might be some hope for ending a war is Ukraine. Rubio has come close to Trump’s position on that matter, praising Ukraine for standing up to Russia, but recognizing that the US is funding a deadly “stalemate war” that needs to be “brought to a conclusion.”

But in all the other hotspots around the world, Rubio is likely to make conflicts even hotter, or start new ones. Here are eight reasons why he would make a dangerous secretary of state:

Rubio’s obsession with Cuban regime change will sink any chance of better relations there

Like other Cuban-American politicians, Rubio has built his career on vilifying the Cuban Revolution and trying to economically strangle and starve the people of his parents’ homeland into submission.

It is ironic, therefore, that his parents left Cuba before the Revolution, during the US-backed dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista. Batista’s executioners, secret police and death squads killed an estimated 20,000 people, leading to a wildly popular revolution in 1959.

When President Barack Obama began to restore relations with Cuba in 2014, Rubio swore to do “everything possible” to obstruct and reverse that policy. In May 2024, Rubio reiterated his zero-tolerance for any kind of social or economic contacts between the US and Cuba, claiming that any easing of the US blockade will only “strengthen the oppressive regime and undermine the opposition… Until there is freedom in Cuba, the United States must maintain a firm stance.” Two months earlier, Rubio introduced legislation to ensure that Cuba would remain on the US “State Sponsor of Terrorism List,” imposing sanctions that cut Cuba off from the US-dominated Western banking system.

These measures to destroy the Cuban economy have led to a massive wave of migration in the past two years. But when the US Coast Guard tried to coordinate with their Cuban counterparts, Rubio introduced legislation to prohibit such interaction. While Trump has vowed to stem immigration, his secretary of state wants to crush Cuba’s economy, forcing people to abandon the island and set sail for the US.

Applying Rubio’s anti-Cuba template to the rest of Latin America will make enemies of more of our neighbors

Rubio’s disdain for his ancestral home has served him so well as a US politician that he has extended it to the rest of Latin America. He has sided with extreme right-wing politicians like Argentinian President Javier Milei and former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro. He rails against progressive ones, from Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to the popular Mexican former President López Obrador, whom he called “an apologist for tyranny” for supporting other leftist governments.

In Venezuela, Rubio has promoted brutal sanctions and regime change plots to topple the government of Nicolas Maduro. In 2019, he was one of the architects of Trump’s failed policy of recognizing opposition figure Juan Guaidó as president. He has also advocated for sanctions and regime change in Nicaragua.

In March 2023, Rubio urged President Joe Biden to impose sanctions on Bolivia for prosecuting  leaders of a 2019 US-backed coup that led to massacres that killed at least 21 people. He also condemned the government of Honduras for withdrawing from an extradition treaty with the US this past August. This was a response to decades of US interference that had turned Honduras into a narco-state riven by poverty, gang violence and mass emigration, until the election of democratic socialist President Xiomara Castro in January 2022.

Rubio’s major concern in this part of the world now seems to be the influence of China, which has become the second-largest trade partner of most Latin American countries. Unlike the US, China focuses on economic benefits and not internal politics. Meanwhile, US politicians like Rubio still see Latin America as the US’s “backyard.”

While Rubio’s virulent anti-leftist stands have served him well in climbing to senior positions in the US government, and now into Trump’s inner circle, his disdain for Latin American sovereignty bodes ill for US relations in the region.

Rubio insists that the US and Israel can do no wrong, and that God has given Palestine to Israel

Despite the massive death toll in Gaza and global condemnation of Israel’s genocide, Rubio still perpetuates the myth that “Israel takes extraordinary steps to avoid civilian losses” and that innocent people die in Gaza because Hamas has deliberately placed them in the way and used them as human shields. The problem, he says, is “an enemy that doesn’t value human life.”

In November 2024, when CODEPINK asked if Rubio would support a ceasefire, he replied, “On the contrary. I want them to destroy every element of Hamas they can get their hands on. These people are vicious animals.”

There are few times in this past year that the Biden administration has tried to restrain Israel, but when Biden begged Israel not to send troops into the southern city of Rafah, Rubio said that was like telling the Allied forces in World War II not to attack Berlin to get Adolf Hitler.

In a letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken in August 2024, Rubio criticized the Biden administration’s decision to sanction Israeli settlers linked to anti-Palestinian violence in the occupied West Bank.

“Israel has consistently sought peace with the Palestinians. It is unfortunate that the Palestinians, whether it be the Palestinian Authority or FTOs [Foreign Terrorist Organisations] such as Hamas, have rejected such overtures,” Rubio wrote. “Israelis rightfully living in their historic homeland are not the impediment to peace; the Palestinians are,” he added.

No country besides Israel subscribes to the idea that its borders should be based on 2,000-year-old religious scriptures, and that it has a God-given right to displace or exterminate people who have lived there since then to reconquer its ancient homeland. The US will find itself extraordinarily isolated from the rest of the world if Rubio tries to assert that as a matter of US policy.

Rubio’s enmity toward Iran will fuel Israel’s war on its neighbors, and may lead the US to war

Rubio is obsessed with Iran. He claims that the central cause of violence and suffering in the Middle East is not Israeli policy but “Iran’s ambition to be a regional hegemonic power.” He says that Iran’s goal in the Middle East is to “seek to drive America out of the region and then destroy Israel.”

He has been a proponent of maximum pressure on Iran, including calls for more and more sanctions. He believes the US should not re-enter the Iran nuclear deal, saying: “We must not trade away U.S. and Israeli security for vague commitments from a terrorist-sponsoring regime that has killed Americans and threatens to annihilate Israel.”

Rubio calls Lebanon’s Hezbollah a “full blown agent of Iran right on Israel’s border” and claims that wiping out Hezbollah’s leadership, along with entire neighborhoods full of civilians, is a “service to humanity.” He alleges that Iran has control over Iraq, Syria and the Houthis in Yemen, and is a threat to Jordan. He claims that “Iran has put a noose around Israel,” and says the goal of US policy should be regime change in Iran. This would set the stage for war.

While there will hopefully be leaders in the Pentagon who will caution Trump about the perils of a war with Iran, Rubio will not be a voice of reason.

Rubio is beholden to big money, from the weapons industry to the Israel lobby

Rubio has reportedly received over $1 million in campaign contributions from pro-Israel groups during his career. The Pro-Israel America PAC was his single largest campaign contributor over the last five years. When he last ran for re-election in 2022, he was the third-largest recipient of funding by pro-Israel groups in the Senate, taking in $367,000 from them for that campaign.

Rubio was also the fourth-largest recipient of funding from the “defense” industry in the Senate for the 2022 cycle, receiving $196,000. Altogether, the weapons industry has invested $663,000 in his Congressional career.

Rubio is clearly beholden to the US arms industry. He’s even more beholden to the Israel lobby, which has been one of his largest sources of campaign funding. This has placed him in the vanguard of Congress’s blind, unconditional support for Israel and subservience to Israeli narratives and propaganda. Therefore, it is unlikely that he will ever challenge the ongoing extermination of the Palestinian people or their expulsion from their homeland.

Rubio is so antagonistic towards China that China has sanctioned him — twice

Speaking at the Heritage Foundation in 2022, Rubio said: “The gravest threat facing America today — it is the challenge that will define not just this century, but my generation and every generation represented here in this room today — that challenge is not climate change, it’s not the pandemic, it’s not the left’s version of social justice. The threat that will define this century is China.”

It will be hard for our nation’s “top diplomat” to ease tensions with a country he has so maligned. He antagonized China by co-sponsoring the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which allows the US to bar Chinese imports over alleged Uyghur rights abuses — abuses that China denies and independent researchers question. In fact, Rubio has gone so far as to accuse China of a “grotesque campaign of genocide” against the Uyghurs.

On Taiwan, he has not only introduced legislation to increase military aid to the island, but actually supports Taiwanese independence — a dangerous deviation from the US government’s long-standing One China approach.

The Chinese responded to Rubio by sanctioning him, not once but twice: once regarding the Uyghurs and once for his support of Hong Kong protests. Unless China lifts the sanctions, he would be the first US secretary of state to be banned from even visiting China.

Analysts expect China to try to sidestep Rubio and engage directly with Trump and other senior officials. Steve Tsang, the director of the China Institute at the United Kingdom’s School of Oriental and African Studies, told Reuters, “If that doesn’t work, then I think we’re going to get into a much more regular escalation of a bad relationship.”

Rubio knows sanctions are a trap, but doesn’t know how to escape them

Rubio is a leading advocate of unilateral economic sanctions, which are illegal under international law, and which the UN and other countries refer to as “unilateral economic coercive measures.”

The US has used these measures so widely and wildly that they now impact a third of the world’s population. Officials from Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen to Rubio himself have warned that using the US financial system and the dollar’s reserve currency status as weapons against other countries is driving the rest of the world to conduct trade in other currencies and develop alternative financial systems.

In March 2023, Rubio complained on Fox News, “We won’t have to talk sanctions in five years, because there will be so many countries transacting in currencies other than the dollar that we won’t have the ability to sanction them.”

And yet Rubio has continued to be a leading sponsor of sanctions bills in the Senate. These include new sanctions on Iran in January 2024 and a bill in July to sanction foreign banks that participate in alternative financial systems.

While other countries develop new financial and trading systems to escape abusive, illegal US sanctions, the nominee for secretary of state remains caught in the same sanctions trap that he complained about on Fox.

Rubio wants to oppress US free speech

Rubio wants to curtail the right to free speech enshrined in the First Amendment of the US Constitution. In May, he described campus protests against Israel as a “complete breakdown of law and order.”

Rubio claimed to be speaking up for other students at US universities. “[They] paid a lot of money to go to these schools, [but are being disrupted by] a few thousand antisemitic zombies who have been brainwashed by two decades of indoctrination in the belief that the world is divided between victimizers and victims, and that the victimizers in this particular case, the ones that are oppressing people, are Jews in Israel,” Rubio said.

The Florida senator has said he supports Trump’s plan to deport foreign students who engage in pro-Palestinian campus protests. In April, he called for punishing supporters of the Israel boycott movement as part of efforts to counter antisemitism, falsely equating any attempt to respond to Israel’s international crimes with antisemitism.

And what about those crimes, which the students are protesting? After visiting Israel in May, Rubio wrote an article for National Review in which he never mentioned the thousands of civilians Israel has killed. He instead blamed Iran, Biden and “morally corrupt international institutions” for the crisis.

Rubio expects US citizens to believe that it is not genocide itself, but protests against genocide, that are a complete breakdown of law and order. He couldn’t be more wrong if he tried.

Students are not Rubio’s only target. In August 2023, he alleged that certain “far-left and antisemitic entities” may have violated the Foreign Assistance Registration Act by their ties to China. He called for a Justice Department investigation into 18 groups, starting with CODEPINK. These unfounded claims of Chinese connections are only meant to intimidate legitimate groups that are exercising their free speech rights.

Conclusion: Rubio is a dangerous choice for secretary of state.

On each of these issues, Rubio has shown no sign of understanding the difference between domestic politics and diplomacy. Whether he’s talking about Cuba, Palestine, Iran or China, or even about CODEPINK, all his supposedly tough positions are based on cynically mischaracterizing the actions and motivations of his enemies and then attacking the straw man he has falsely set up.

Unscrupulous politicians often get away with that, and Rubio is no exception. He has made it his signature tactic because it works so well for him in US politics. But that will not work if and when he sits down to negotiate with other world leaders as secretary of state.

His underlying attitude to foreign relations is, like Trump’s, that the US must get its way or else. Additionally, other countries who won’t submit must be coerced, threatened, couped, bombed or invaded. This makes Rubio just as ill-equipped as Blinken to conduct diplomacy, improve US relations with other countries or resolve disputes and conflicts peacefully, as the United Nations Charter requires.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Eight Reasons Marco Rubio Would Be a Disastrous Secretary of State appeared first on Fair Observer.

Reuters, like the Pentagon itself, sought to reassure the public that, however poor the performance, the DoD’s intentions were good. (Cue the Nina Simone song, “I’m just a soul whose intentions are good; Oh Lord, please don’t let me be misunderstood…”)

For United States citizens, late 2021 was an odd moment in history. It was the first year of Joe Biden’s presidency. Following the withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021 after 20 years of war, the increasingly bloated US defense establishment was, for a few months, no longer visibly involved militarily, diplomatically or logistically in an overseas conflict. Yes, there was some action in Syria and even Iraq. But the public felt this as a moment of peacetime. The perfect opportunity to set one’s house in order.

Reuters cannot be blamed for failing to notice that the State Department was busy at the time setting the scene for a war with Russia as NATO — but not the US on its own — was putting increasing pressure on the Donbas region in Ukraine. No journalist could predict the Russian invasion that would take place three months later. It was indeed a privileged moment for reassessing the entire defense establishment’s capacity to manage and even audit its own accounts.

In the meantime, that war not only began but is still going on, with hundreds of billions of US defense expenses transferred to Ukraine. Even less predictable than Putin’s “unprovoked” invasion of Ukraine, was the equally “unprovoked” Gaza revolt of October 2023 that put the DoD money machine into overdrive as the ironclad commitment to Israel had to be respected, no matter what.

So, with all that unexpected activity and the complex politics that accompanies it, we should not be astonished today to discover that not too much has changed on the audit front.

This time it’s Brad Dress writing for The Hill who offers us what has now become a somewhat predictable and repetitive headline: “Pentagon fails 7th audit in a row but says progress made.”

But the Beatles certainly got it right, since, according to no less an authority than Under Secretary of Defense Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer Michael McCord, the Defense Department “has turned a corner in its understanding of the depth and breadth of its challenges.” He even gave a reading of the dynamics when he added: “Momentum is on our side, and throughout the Department there is strong commitment — and belief in our ability — to achieve an unmodified audit opinion.”

Today’s Weekly Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Strong commitment:

In the language of military officials, vague intention, which is a generous reading for something that more likely means “a weak non-commitment.”

Contextual note

It may sound abusive to claim that a phrase such as “strong commitment” can mean literally its opposite, as we propose in our definition. But meaning comes from context. In baseball, a 7-0 shutout is a weak performance, and this one resembles a “no-hitter.”

But there is another linguistic test we can apply to determine the meaning here. If a Silicon Valley entrepreneur makes a statement such as, “We have a strong commitment to rival the market leader,” no one will doubt that the company’s focus will be squarely on achieving that goal. In contrast, we learn from McCord that “throughout the Department there is strong commitment.” First, we should notice that “there is” signifies a passive assertion, compared to the type of formulation that identifies a determined will. The “we” in “we have a strong commitment” includes the speaker. McCord’s assertion is so vague it would be true even if he himself didn’t for a moment share the commitment.

McCord uses the idea of “throughout the Department” to rhetorically magnify the effect, but instead it dilutes it. “Throughout” suggests a dispersion in space, a diffuse feeling rather than the kind of moral engagement one would expect him to affirm. But it’s his following parenthesis that gives the game away. He speaks of a “belief in our ability.” The idea of “belief” is considerably weaker than, say, “confidence in our ability.” Belief expresses a form of hope that relies on no concrete evidence.

McCord allows the fog of his reasoning to thicken. “I do not say we failed, as I said, we have about half clean opinions. We have half that are not clean opinions. So if someone had a report card that is half good and half not good, I don’t know that you call the student or the report card a failure. We have a lot of work to do, but I think we’re making progress.”

At least the Beatles affirmed that it’s getting better all the time, not that they “think” they’re making progress.

Historical note

In a January 2022 Devil’s Dictionary piece, we cited the reflections of an observer of Beltway politics who provided a clue as to why things need not get better all the time. “None of the ‘centrist’ Democrats or Republicans who complained about the cost of the Build Back Better Act have said a peep about the ever-growing Pentagon budget — and the fact that it is somehow still growing even despite the Afghanistan pullout. It has grown about 25% in size over the past five years, even though the Pentagon just failed its fourth audit last month.”

We cited an earlier article from 2019 that began with this astonishing sentence: “A Michigan State University economics professor discovered $21 trillion unaccounted for in the federal budget starting in 1998 until the end of fiscal year 2015.”

In other words, there is no reason to be surprised today that a “strong commitment” to conduct accurate audits is necessary and will continue to make headlines… probably for decades to come. And the only change will be similar to what we’ve already seen when, three years later, four failed audits turn into seven.

But let’s look more deeply at the historical context. The latest article cites what appears to be a serious deadline, only four years away. “The Pentagon said it is firmly committed to achieving a clean audit by 2028, as mandated by the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act.”

This leaves us wondering. Could this be related to another commitment we’ve been hearing about? Some will call it not so much a commitment, but a belief widely shared in national security circles and that concerns the medium term: that a war with China has been at least “mentally” programmed for 2027. Noah Robertson writing for Defense News this May published a two-part article with the title: “How DC became obsessed with a potential 2027 Chinese invasion of Taiwan.”

This leaves us speculating about why 2028 was chosen as the objective. How convenient a hot war with China would turn out to be for anyone seeking to avoid having to face up to the first “clean audit” the following year. Who would dare to demand accountability in the midst, or even the aftermath of a hot war with China?

So, how much “confidence” should we have in the breakout of a war with China in 2027? Remember, this forecast of a war at a precise date was formulated at a time when no one expected Donald Trump to be elected for a second time. It isn’t Trump’s volatility that explains it, nor his promise to focus his attention on China rather than Russia.

Robertson explained the logic by citing a Joe Biden administration official who paraphrased the remarks of Chinese President Xi Jinping: “Look, I hear all these reports in the United States [of] how we’re planning for military action in 2027 or 2035.” Xi affirms: “There are no such plans.” Which many interpret as the proof that such plans do exist.

“That first year, 2027,” Robertson says, “is a fixation in Washington. It has impacted the debate over China policy — a shift from the long term to the short term. It’s also helped steer billions of dollars toward U.S. forces in the Pacific. And in the last several years, it’s been a question mark hanging over the Biden administration’s approach to the region.”

There’s the answer to the mystery of the failed audits. We know that the military-industrial complex is all about helping to “steer billions of dollars” in any chosen direction. At the same time, one steers one’s regard away from the auditor’s books.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of Fair Observer Devil’s Dictionary.]

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post The Pentagon’s Flawed Account of Its Failure to Keep Accounts appeared first on Fair Observer.

Among the things Trump got right during his first residency in the White House was slapping Congress and the American public upside the head with a two-by-four to finally wake them up and realize that the Communist Party of China (CCP) is not a benign force in the world. This time around, Trump has the advantage of a Congress and an American public nearly unified in their opposition to the CCP, which should make it easier to ramp up the pressure on Beijing, particularly given the Republicans’ clean sweep of the Executive and Legislative branches.

Trump’s “subtlety of a Mack truck”-driven approach to foreign policy stands a good chance of backfiring vis-à-vis American businesses, however, as many of them continue to feed from the Chinese teat. Tens of thousands of American businesses continue to manufacture, import from and/or export to China despite the many hardships associated with COVID-19, the downturn in the Chinese economy and the crackdown on foreign businesses in recent years. Their voices will undoubtedly be heard at the White House as Trump attempts to tighten the noose on Beijing.

Trump’s cabinet and other nominations to date provide ample evidence that he is intent on burning the place down — so why stop at America’s borders? The foreign policy patch-up job Biden attempted to complete over the last four years — during which, many European governments, in particular, silently wondered whether an agreement with Washington was worth the paper it is printed upon — will be quickly eviscerated. An unvarnished foreign policy whose core is nationalism, protectionism and a zero-sum approach to engagement is sure to delight friend and foe alike.

Is China ready for four more years of Trump?

Beijing is certainly ready, with a list of countermeasures aimed at the American government and American businesses. US businesses in China are going to find operating there even more unpleasant for the next four years. The CCP may also be expected to attempt to strengthen its bilateral relationships around the world as America retreats and will undoubtedly find heightened levels of interest, especially in the Middle East, Africa and Latin America. The newly inaugurated mega-port in Peru is emblematic of how Beijing continues to use its Belt-and-Road infrastructure projects to strengthen its economic and diplomatic relationships. Trump’s re-election meshes nicely, also, with Beijing’s policy of self-reliance and the Made in China 2025 policy.

But the degree of economic, political and diplomatic malaise in China will also be impacted by Trump’s second term. The Chinese economy could be significantly smaller than official statistics suggest. It is spending more and more to produce less and less. Most of its natural resources are in decline, its workforce is shrinking, Xi’s dictatorial rule has prompted increasing domestic uneasiness, its economy is under growing pressure, and its Asian neighbors are ever ore alarmed by China’s aggressive actions in the region — and they are reacting to it. 

China is exhibiting classic signs of a peaking power. Xi’s crackdowns at home and increasing aggression abroad. The military buildup during peacetime is unprecedented. And China is much more willing to extend its security perimeter and to strengthen its alliances with some of the world’s most detestable regimes.

The Chinese word for crisis (wēijī) contains characters that signify danger (危) and opportunity (机), and Trump 2.0 represents both. Xi will want to use the next four years to de-emphasize China’s many domestic challenges and re-emphasize its growing stature in the world. If one envisions a cessation of the Ukraine and Israel/Gaza/Lebanon/Iran wars in 2025, Xi will feel he has more latitude to further strengthen China’s relationships with Russia, Iran, and Israel. Similarly, he is likely to feel more emboldened to introduce new initiatives to ingratiate China with a broader array of governments in areas where progress has been less pronounced, such as regarding climate change and natural disaster relief.

It seems doubtful that Trump will choose to embrace areas of possible collaboration with China, but we can expect a heightened degree of generalized competition, with an increased potential for conflict. Trump’s presidency will coincide with 2027 — the year Xi has targeted for the Chinese military to be ready to invade Taiwan. Trump will likely be tempted to cut some sort of deal with Xi (as he is so transaction-oriented) to essentially cede Taiwan to Beijing in return for something of substance for America. One can only speculate what that might be, but what seemed impossible only a few years ago seems increasingly possible, if not likely, now.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post The View From China on Trump 2.0 appeared first on Fair Observer.

Former President Barack Obama has a tagline that he and others, particularly Democrats, use routinely: “This is not who we are.” Obama trots it out at every perceived tragedy, generally in order to avoid the uncomfortable and, dare I say it, more confrontational opposite message. For example, when gun carnage abounds, Obama and others so inclined prefer to absolve the masses from any responsibility because “this is not who we are.” If only that sentiment were true.

The current presidential election gave Obama a new platform from which he reminded us all of the coming horrors should the unwashed vote for Donald Trump. Then he immediately absolved the unwashed of any responsibility for the impending doom because “this is not who we are.” Unfortunately, it is precisely who we are.

Candidate Kamala Harris was quick to jump on the “this is not who we are” bandwagon. In her “unity” message with the White House as a backdrop, she treated us all to a “this is not who we are” chorus, fanning the flames of absolution in the vain hope that she could reach those who would be offended by a more direct message. In fact, in the waning days of the election, President Joe Biden pretty much nailed it — calling Trump’s racist supporters “garbage” seemed about right to me.

I could go on with this, but it would not bring us any closer to understanding Trump’s grip on more than half the people who actually voted in the election. On one level, it seems that many voters have become so jaded by their personal “plight” that everything from the increased cost of a tomato to a martini to a Bentley offends their personal sensibilities, unfettered by concern for others and their plight. By this line of reasoning, any Trump lie about the economy received a friendly reception unencumbered by facts to the contrary.

Democrats must fight back

On another level, it looks like Trump tapped into a deep vein of fear that changing demographics are eroding the privilege that drives white Americans to a sense of comfortable superiority. This sense of superiority seems to run across economic divides in the white community, providing white voters with the impetus they needed to ignore the actual likely economic impact of specific candidate or political party proposals. Some of the same reasoning may have led “privileged” blacks and Latinos to similar conclusions.

So now that this interminable election cycle has produced a hard fall, it might be time for progressive Democrats to finally get indignant enough to confront, confuse and undermine every initiative of Trump they can find. This is long overdue. Talk of “unity” is the prescription for continued political demise.

Using Latinos as an example, apparently many chose not to hear or understand the racist, anti-immigrant message aimed at them because they voted for Trump anyway. It is time now to stand up to those Latino voters with that message in hand as Trump deports them and spits in their faces on the way out. Then, while the roundup continues, Democrats must not do anything to support any plan to “fix” America’s immigration system. Oppose any such plan every step of the way.

Democrats need to remember how nicely that political dance worked for Trump and his acolytes in this election. That same dance will work for Democrats in the next election cycle, but only if they have the political cojones required to pull it off while consistently advocating for the required components of humane and comprehensive immigration reform.

Likewise, this is a time to forcefully confront the undemocratic aspects of our political system and the inequities that they spawn. This would be a significantly more concrete message about the fight for democracy than all the blather about the cataclysmic clash between “democracy” and “autocracy,” as if winning the labeling war ends the discussion. Actually fighting for meaningful institutional reform in the US is the real fight for democracy that can reap electoral rewards and promote messaging clarity.

The list is long: Champion the simple democratic reform of eliminating the electoral college to provide that a popular vote majority elects the next president; aggressively confront voter suppression measures and seek to enact national voter access standards; force as many open congressional votes as possible on legislative proposals to enact a national living wage and provide for the childcare equity that opens pathways to a higher collective standard of living and demand that government protect the freedom to life and liberty that is threatened directly by ever-present gun violence. Then, work on easy-to-understand legislation that makes access to meaningful healthcare and quality public education a right of every man, woman and child living in America.

Further, as a painful reminder that weaponized hypocrisy has been a powerful tool of Senate Republicans, watch how smoothly they eliminate the filibuster in the upcoming legislative year to use their congressional majority to ensure that their right-wing agenda items reach Trump’s desk. Senate Democrats must use every trick they can find to stop this onslaught. The Republicans will inevitably attempt to manipulate the confirmation process to ensure the Senate confirmation of the parade of troglodytes proposed for high government, military office and the judiciary. Democrats must, for once, outmaneuver them, even as it reveals their own hypocrisy.

Finally, as Democrats reflect on what is to come, we will be treated to another pathetic round of mainstream media self-flagellation, at the conclusion of which celebratory kudos will be passed around for a job well done in difficult times. For this ever to change, we must expose the role of corporate money and its corrupting influence on the nation’s media. We must challenge the news “personalities” aspiring to be part of the story and little more, content “balance” free of context or verification and the ubiquitous presence of unregulated social media devoid of any standards.

Remember what America, sadly, stands for

As with the open and ugly face of racism that Trump’s first adventure in “governing” exposed to the easily deluded populace, this time around we will be treated to the death knell of so many more of the delusions that underpin the most venal aspects of what America has always been and sadly continues to be. So the next time you pledge allegiance to the flag and to the republic for which it stands, think of immigrants rounded up like cattle, of hungry children in our midst, of the homeless, of book bans and the like, along with a flag-friendly nod to the cruelty directed at some of the most vulnerable among us.

Meanwhile, I will be sitting on my perch watching and waiting, hoping that the younger generations finally find something to move them enough to think beyond themselves and put something at risk. It is a shame that an old man has to be the one to continue saying this.

[Hard Left Turn first published this piece.]

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Running Scared: Democrats Routed by a Torrent of Hate appeared first on Fair Observer.

In October, the prime ministers of the UK and Mauritius announced the decision to transfer sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius. Diego Garcia now stands at the center of a Byzantine nexus of colonialism, indigenous dislocation and contemporary geopolitics.

Settlement and colony

The native population of Diego Garcia, known as Chagossians, descended from enslaved Africans brought by French colonists in the late 18th century. The French were the first European power to lay claim to Diego Garcia, using the island primarily for coconut plantations. They brought enslaved people to the island who worked in agriculture and established a small, thriving community. 

After the abolition of slavery, these populations mixed with other ethnic groups and formed a Creole-speaking community with a unique cultural identity. However, in 1814, Britain took control of Mauritius and its dependencies under the Treaty of Paris — including Diego Garcia. For most of the 19th and early 20th centuries, the island and its Creole culture remained relatively isolated as it served as an obscure outpost of the British Empire’s Indian Ocean territories. 

The strategic importance of Diego Garcia only came to international attention during the Cold War. At the time, the US was searching for military base locations to counter communist influence from the Soviet Union and China. Diego Garcia’s location made it an ideal spot for a major military installation.

This was a watershed episode in the island’s history. In 1965, in anticipation of the establishment of a US military base, the British government separated Diego Garcia and the other islands of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius. This was part of the creation of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), under which Chagos became the last British colony in Africa. Under this agreement, the British leased Diego Garcia to the United States for use as a military facility. 

Mauritius, then still a British colony, was subsequently compensated £3 million ($3.8 million) for the transfer of the Chagos Archipelago. Based on an average inflation rate of 4.9%, that amounts to £50 million ($63 million) in today’s currency. This arrangement was made as part of the broader context of Mauritius gaining its independence, which finally occurred in 1968. However, critics claim the payment was inadequate. They state it took too long to reach Chagossian pockets, and that only 16.5% of the sum awarded to Mauritius actually went to the exiled Chagossian islanders.

More disturbingly, the entire arrangement was completed without the sanction or knowledge of the Chagossian peoples themselves. This planted the seeds for future disputes over the legal status of Diego Garcia and the rest of the Chagos Islands. It also laid the groundwork for the indigenous population’s deportation.

The expulsion of the Chagossians

One of the darkest days in the history of Diego Garcia was the forcible removal of the Chagossian population to make way for the US military base. Beginning in the late 1960s and continuing into the early 1970s, the British government undertook a systematic campaign to remove all the inhabitants of the island. The exact number of people displaced is disputed, but estimates range from 1,000 to 2,000 individuals. 

The British justified this removal on the basis that Chagossians were only “transient contract workers,” not indigenous inhabitants. Declassified UK Foreign Office documents outline the extent of the falsehood which was utilized to deliberately justify British actions:

A small number of people were born there and, in some cases, their parents were born there too. The intention is, however, that none of them shall be regarded as being permanent inhabitants of the islands (28 July 1965 Foreign Office memo).

On this spurious basis for eviction, namely length of historical settlement, one could similarly have argued that the entire Pakeha population of Aotearoa New Zealand should be removed given that they have lived for less time on their islands than the Chagossians have on theirs. Regardless of the illogicality, as a result of this fiction, the Chagossians were forcibly transferred from their homes to Mauritius and the Seychelles, often under the pretense of “resettlement.”

Instead of resettlement, these communities were effectively abandoned in foreign lands where they faced extreme economic hardship. In his book Island of Shame, David Vine describes that the exiles often lived in “slums or temporary housing, struggling to adapt to life in an unfamiliar environment without the means to sustain themselves.” The difficulties plagued Chagossians in Mauritius and the Seychelles alike.

The battle against displacement

The exiled Chagossian population, including the descendants of the original displaced community, was estimated in 2016 to be around 5000. While scattered across several countries, many still reside in Mauritius. Despite the passage of time and their continued displacement, the Chagossians have maintained their identity and culture, and many still hope to return to their ancestral lands. 

For decades, the various displaced Chagossians dispersed across the world have fought legal battle after legal battle for the right to return to their homeland and for compensation for the injustices they had suffered. As a result of this pressure, the British government finally offered an additional sum of £4 million ($5.1 million) to Chagossians in 1982, but this too was insufficient. 

Most significantly, this compensation did not address the right to return. A British Court of Appeal ruling in 2000 did, however, make a start on that by deeming the expulsion of the islanders illegal and granting them the right to visit their homeland for the first time in thirty years. However, Diego Garcia itself, the largest and most habitable island, was to remain off limits to them still for security concerns.

Considering that the other atolls in the archipelago were concurrently deemed uninhabitable, and with Diego Garcia itself still off limits, this ruling was merely a Pyrrhic victory. To borrow Tim Marshall’s term, Diego Garcia and the Chagossians remained “prisoners of geography.” 

Calls for for the return of Diego Garcia 

Unsurprisingly, the status of Diego Garcia has remained an ongoing subject of international legal disputes. In February 2019, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a ruling that Britain’s occupation of the Chagos Islands, including Diego Garcia, was illegal and that the islands should be returned to Mauritius. 

The court concluded that the detachment of the Chagos Islands from Mauritius in 1965 as part of the BIOT was unlawful and that the process of decolonization was incomplete. Whilst the court’s ruling was non-binding, it carried significant moral and political weight. 

Following the ICJ’s decision, the UN General Assembly then passed a resolution calling for the UK to return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. However, the government refused to comply until this past October, citing the continued strategic importance of Diego Garcia for defense purposes. The US had also expressed opposition to any changes in the status of Diego Garcia until recently, when President Joe Biden reportedly pushed for a transfer of sovereignty.

History repeating itself

There is a sad irony at play with the recent willingness of the UK Government to comply with the ICJ’s decision. While the UK has agreed to hand over power, the judgment now gives control of the islands to Mauritius, not to the Chagossian peoples themselves. One very distant colonial power merely seems to have been replaced by another, less distant one. 

This recent development mirrors the events of 1965 when negotiations were brokered solely with the incoming Mauritian government of the day rather than the Chagossians themselves. To add further injustice to this recent political development, today’s agreement will continue to see Diego Garcia remain under US and UK jurisdiction for the next 99 years. This again is reflective of the 1965 narrative when it was made clear that Mauritius’s independence would not be granted without the annexation of Diego Garcia. 

History is repeating itself. Today, the only difference is that instead of being hidden in secret Foreign Office memos, this handover is being celebrated openly as the culmination of justice. 

The path forward

Some Chagossians see it as an event worth celebrating, at least according to the Mauritius Government Information Service. In the British press, the transfer of control is likewise being described as “making sense.” Meanwhile, international pundits are claiming that the agreement is a “‘win-win-win-win’ moment in international relations.”

Nevertheless, there is a flip side to this halcyon perception, namely the danger that the British, with UN connivance, are enabling Mauritius to rule an island group and its peoples some 2000 kilometers plus away without the consent of the entire indigenous population. 

Peter Lamb, the Labour MP for Crawley where a Chagossian community 3,000 strong resides, has been publicly critical of his own leader’s recommendation to hand the islands to Mauritius without their consent. He claimed that “the decision… belongs [to] the Chagossian people, it’s not for the UK to bargain away.” Other Chagossians are similarly highly critical, referencing indigenous rights. 

Wherever they reside, all Chagos Islanders deserve to have a say in their political future. Even with the return of the islands to Mauritius, little financial compensation is likely to reach the displaced Chagossians directly. Not to mention that base lease rights and payments notwithstanding, the entire archipelago has a potential exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of an astounding 640,000 km². It remains unclear if, and how, the Chagossians will regain independent rights to these zones and their resources. But the UK and US governments are not alone in bearing responsibility. The UN is also at fault in this dire situation, as the organization played a significant role in influencing the decision to return the atoll without the consent of the indigenous population. 

As the treatment of the Chagossian population in Diego Garcia demonstrates, history continuously repeats itself when it comes to the story of empire. As long as indigenous voices continue to be overlooked, the ghosts of the colonial past will haunt the present.

[Emma Johnson edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post The Sinister Side of the Chagos Islands Handover appeared first on Fair Observer.

The only conflict where peace negotiations seem to be on the agenda is Ukraine. In April, both Vice President-elect JD Vance and Senator Rubio voted against a $95 billion military aid bill that included $61 billion for Ukraine.

Rubio recently appeared on NBC’s TODAY Show, saying, “I think the Ukrainians have been incredibly brave and strong when standing up to Russia. But at the end of the day, what we’re funding here is a stalemate war, and it needs to be brought to a conclusion… I think there has to be some common sense here.”

On the campaign trail, Vance made a controversial suggestion that the best way to end the war was for Ukraine to cede the land Russia has seized, for a demilitarized zone to be established and for Ukraine to become neutral, i.e. not enter NATO. He was roundly criticized by both Republicans and Democrats who argue that backing Ukraine is vitally important to US security since it weakens Russia, which is closely allied with China.

Any attempt by Trump to stop US military support for Ukraine will undoubtedly face fierce opposition from the pro-war forces in his own party, particularly in Congress, as well as perhaps the entirety of the Democratic Party. Two years ago, 30 progressive Democrats in Congress wrote a letter to President Joe Biden asking him to consider promoting negotiations. The party higher-ups were so incensed by their lack of party discipline that they came down on the progressives like a ton of bricks. Within 24 hours, the group had cried uncle and rescinded the letter. They have since all voted for money for Ukraine and have not uttered another word about negotiations.

So a Trump effort to cut funds to Ukraine could run up against a bipartisan congressional effort to keep the war going. And let’s not forget the efforts by European countries and NATO to keep the US in the fight. Still, Trump could stand up to all these forces and push for a rational policy that would restart the talking and stop the killing.

Netanyahu prepares for US support

The Middle East, however, is a trickier situation. In his first term, Trump showed his pro-Israel cards when he brokered the Abraham Accords between several Arab countries and Israel; moved the US embassy to a location in Jerusalem that is partly on occupied land outside Israel’s internationally recognized borders and recognized the occupied Golan Heights in Syria as part of Israel. Such unprecedented signals of unconditional US support for Israel’s illegal occupation and settlements helped set the stage for the current crisis. 

Trump seems as unlikely as Biden to cut US weapons to Israel, despite public opinion polls favoring such a halt. Additionally, a recent UN human rights report showed that 70% of the people killed by those US weapons are women and children.

Meanwhile, the wily Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is already busy getting ready for a second Trump presidency. On the very day of the US election, Netanyahu fired his defense minister, Yoav Gallant, who opposed a lasting Israeli military occupation of Gaza and had at times argued for prioritizing the lives of the Israeli hostages over killing more Palestinians.

Israel Katz, the new defense minister and former foreign minister, is more hawkish than Gallant. He has led a campaign to falsely blame Iran for the smuggling of weapons from Jordan into the West Bank.

Other powerful voices, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who is also a “minister in the Defense Ministry,” represent extreme Zionist parties that are publicly committed to territorial expansion, annexation and ethnic cleansing. They both live in illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.

So Netanyahu has deliberately surrounded himself with allies who back his ever-escalating war. They are surely developing a war plan to exploit Trump’s support for Israel, but will first use the unique opportunity of the US transition of power to create facts on the ground that will limit Trump’s options when he takes office.

A US war with Iran would be catastrophic

The Israelis will doubtless redouble their efforts to drive Palestinians out of as much of Gaza as possible. This will confront Trump with a horrific humanitarian crisis in which Gaza’s surviving population is crammed into an impossibly small area with next to no food, no shelter for many, disease running rampant and no access to needed medical care for tens of thousands of horribly wounded and dying people. The Israelis will count on Trump to accept whatever final solution they propose, most likely to drive Palestinians out of Gaza, into the West Bank, Jordan, Egypt and farther afield.

Israel threatened all along to do to Lebanon the same as they have done to Gaza. Israeli forces have met fierce resistance, taken heavy casualties and have not advanced far into Lebanon. But as in Gaza, they are using bombing and artillery to destroy villages and towns, kill or drive people north and hope to effectively annex the part of Lebanon south of the Litani river as a so-called “buffer zone.” When Trump takes office, they may ask for greater US involvement to help them “finish the job.”

The big wild card is Iran. Trump’s first term in office was marked by a policy of “maximum pressure” against Tehran. He unilaterally withdrew the US from the Iran nuclear deal, imposed severe sanctions that devastated the economy and ordered the killing of the country’s top general, Qassem Soleimani. Trump did not support a war on Iran in his first term, but had to be talked out of attacking it in his final days in office by General Mark Milley and the Pentagon.

Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, recently described to Chris Hedges just how catastrophic a war with Iran would be, based on US military wargames he was involved in. He predicts that such a war could last ten years, cost $10 trillion and still fail to conquer the country. Airstrikes alone would not destroy all of Iran’s civilian nuclear program and ballistic missile stockpiles. Once unleashed, the conflict would very likely escalate into a regime change war involving US ground forces in a country with three or four times the territory and population of Iraq, more mountainous terrain and a thousand-mile-long coastline bristling with missiles that can sink US warships.

But Netanyahu and his extreme Zionist allies believe that they must sooner or later fight an existential war with Iran if they are to realize their vision of a dominant Greater Israel. They believe that the destruction they have wreaked on the Palestinians in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, including the assassination of their senior leaders, has given them a military advantage and a favorable opportunity for a showdown with Iran.

Biden could de-escalate the Middle Eastern conflict, but won’t 

By November 10, Trump and Netanyahu had reportedly spoken by phone three times since the election, and Netanyahu said that they see “eye to eye on the Iranian threat.” Trump hired Iran hawk Brian Hook, who helped him sabotage the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear agreement with Iran in 2018, to coordinate the formation of his foreign policy team.

So far, the team that Trump and Hook have assembled seems to offer hope for peace in Ukraine, but little to none for peace in the Middle East and a rising danger of a US–Israeli war on Iran.

Trump’s expected National Security Advisor Mike Waltz is best known as a China hawk. He has voted against military aid to Ukraine in Congress, but he recently tweeted that Israel should bomb Iran’s nuclear and oil facilities. That would be the most certain path to a full-scale war.

Trump’s new UN ambassador, Elise Stefanik, has led moves in Congress to equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism. She led the aggressive questioning of US university presidents at an antisemitism hearing in Congress, after which the presidents of Harvard and Penn resigned.

While Trump will have some advisors who support his desire to end the war in Ukraine, there will be few voices in his inner circle urging caution over Netanyahu’s genocidal ambitions in Palestine and his determination to cripple Iran.

If he wanted to, Biden could use his final two months in office to de-escalate the conflicts in the Middle East. He could impose an embargo on offensive weapons for Israel, push for serious ceasefire negotiations in both Gaza and Lebanon and work through US partners in the Gulf to de-escalate tensions with Iran.

But Biden is unlikely to do any of that. When his own administration sent a letter to Israel last month, threatening a cut in military aid if Israel did not allow a surge of humanitarian aid into Gaza in the next 30 days, Israel responded by doing just the opposite: actually cutting the number of trucks allowed in. The State Department claimed Israel was taking “steps in the right direction” and Biden refused to take any action.

We will soon see if Trump is able to make progress in moving the war in Ukraine towards negotiations, potentially saving the lives of many thousands of Ukrainians and Russians. But between the catastrophe that Trump will inherit and the warhawks he is picking for his cabinet, peace in the Middle East seems more distant than ever.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Will Trump End or Escalate Biden’s Wars? appeared first on Fair Observer.

The budget battle that broke the camel’s back

Scholz is scrambling to save face amid approval ratings that have plunged to an unprecedented low of 14%. The SPD’s own approval ratings are similarly abysmal.

Polls of voting intentions show the party now tied with the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) at around 16% — a dramatic drop from the SDP’s 26% support in the last election. The FDP faces even bleaker prospects, polling around 3–4%, just below the 5% threshold needed to enter parliament.

While tensions within the coalition were no secret, the breaking point came when a proposal by Lindner leaked. The 18-page document “Turnaround Germany – A Concept for Growth and Generational Justice” suggested cutting financial aid to low-income families and refugees, which panicked the SPD and Greens.

The election of Donald Trump as the next US president has raised fears the US will soon cut its support for Ukraine, forcing Germany to pick up the tab or risk the defeat of Ukrainian forces. Lindner claims he was pressured to agree to another suspension of the debt brake. He refused, afraid of embarrassment by the constitutional court. Scholz floated the possibility of new elections, which Lindner leaked to Bild while parties were still deliberating. This was the final straw for Scholz, who asked for Lindner’s dismissal. 

The economic headwinds Germany has been facing only add to the drama. Budgets crafted on the assumption of GDP growth that never materialized have left government departments strapped. Austerity measures have strained even the nation’s soft power as cultural icons like the Goethe Institute have been forced to close German schools abroad.

Related Reading

Is the German Economy Now Destined to Decline?

The crux of the budgetary deadlock is Germany’s “debt brake,” a constitutional limit capping new debt for structural deficits at 0.35% of GDP. While this debt brake was suspended temporarily during the pandemic and the Ukraine invasion, it has since snapped back into force, severely restricting the government’s freedom of action.

Who stands to gain?

With elections likely in early spring, Germany’s political map could shift drastically. The center-right Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU), currently polling at 33%, are poised to regain power, though their numbers fall short of a parliamentary majority. A coalition with the Greens remains unlikely due to ideological divides, and the SPD’s recent failure makes it a dubious ally. That leaves the CDU/CSU with only a handful of feasible partners — including an intriguing, if controversial, one in the newly-formed Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht (BSW).

BSW, led by former leftist Sahra Wagenknecht, has captivated voters disillusioned with mainstream parties but unwilling to embrace the far-right AfD. Known for her anti-immigration stance and advocacy for a negotiated settlement with Russia, Wagenknecht is a questionable candidate to offer the CDU/CSU a politically stable alliance. 

It should be noted that AfD came out as the party with the most votes during recent state elections in Thuringia (34.3%, slightly ahead of CDU 33.5%). It missed to reach that goal in Saxony, but only by a hair (34.0% compared to 34.4% for CDU).

Voter discontent in Germany, especially in the former East German states, has led to a surge in support for right-wing AfD. Due to Germany’s history, politicians are very aware of the danger of fascism, but they seem rather helpless in addressing the root causes (increased unemployment in rural areas, social anxiety, xenophobia, feelings of being second-class citizens).

Financial and global implications

The collapse of the German government sends shivers through markets already sensitive to geopolitical risk. Shares of Germany’s iconic automakers — BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Porsche and Volkswagen — have fallen sharply, anticipating the return of Trump-era import tariffs on European goods. With Germany’s political attention diverted inward, “budget sinners” like Italy, France and Spain may find relief, as former members of the hard-currency block, such as Germany, have historically pressured them to meet strict fiscal criteria under the Maastricht Treaty.

So far, little or no spread widening between German and other Euro-area government debt has been observed in reaction to the earthquake in Berlin. While the German 10-year government bond yield stands at 2.4%, France and Spain pay a clear premium at 3.2%, followed by Greece at 3.3% and Italy at 3.7%. Still, Italy (135% debt-to-GDP ratio) and Greece (162%) pay lower interest rates than the UK (98%) and the US (123%). Those yields only make sense if the political will to keep the Euro area together would galvanize politicians into further bailouts of countries should the need arise.

If no stable coalition emerges, Germany faces the prospect of another election, potentially plunging Europe’s largest economy into a period of prolonged instability. A caretaker government may limp along in the interim, but effective governance and ambitious legislative agendas will be on hold.

Internationally, the political crisis could have wide-reaching effects. As Germany becomes preoccupied with its own domestic woes, European allies such as Italy and France may gain breathing room in their own budgetary struggles, potentially facing less scrutiny from Berlin on debt under the Maastricht Treaty. However, any withdrawal from a Trump-led US could leave Europe drifting in the high seas without clear leadership, missing out on a potentially generational opportunity to determine the geopolitical direction of a future Europe unshackled from US dominance.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post The Collapse of Germany’s Government: An Earthquake With Global Aftershocks appeared first on Fair Observer.

Thirteen among the more than thirty countries that have formally expressed their interest in membership are now associated with BRICS+: four Southeast Asian countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam), two Latin American countries (Cuba and Bolivia), three African countries (Algeria, Nigeria, Uganda), two Central Asian countries (Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan) and two European countries (Belarus and NATO member Turkey). They were given the status of “partner states” in Kazan.

To say that the Americans are not enthusiastic about the appeal of this new global club would be an understatement. Should the success of the summit in Kazan be interpreted as a sign of the failure of their strategy to isolate Russia? Worse still, are we witnessing the beginning of the end of the American century?

In addition to the nine member states and thirteen partners, the summit was also attended by some representatives of countries whose presence was rather unexpected, such as the Serbian Deputy Prime Minister, the very Russophilic Alexander Vulin. However, it was the presence of UN Secretary-General Antonio Gutierres that caused outraged reactions, especially in Ukraine. “The UN Secretary-General declined Ukraine’s invitation to the first global peace summit in Switzerland. However, he has accepted the invitation of the war criminal Putin to Kazan,” hammered the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry.

It is true that Gutierres boycotted the Bürgenstock meeting this spring. It is also legitimate to wonder whether a UN Secretary-General should shake hands with a person accused of war crimes, even if he is the president of a permanent member of the UN Security Council. The International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin on March 17, 2023.

This juicy skewer of participants is notable for its heterogeneity. There are dictatorships and democracies, Muslim, Christian and secular countries, economic superpowers and failed nations; some have been characterized as rogue states. Are what we are witnessing merely an updated reiteration of that elastic non-aligned movement launched in the 1960s by Yugoslavia’s Prime Minister Josip Tito and Indian Jawaharlal Nehru, which encompassed two-thirds of the world but never achieved any real global influence? No, something else is happening here. In the space of sixty years, the balance of global power has clearly changed.

A motley but (almost) global group with growing influence

Antonio Gutierres is a realist. He understands how historically significant the bubbling events within the BRICS states are. He was in Kazan because it is important. To underline that point, consider a few figures. The nine countries now called BRICS+ account for more than half of the world’s population. Their combined gross national product is already greater than that of their rivals in the G7, the Western directorate comprising the US, Canada, Japan, Germany, France, Italy and the UK. The gap is likely to widen in the coming years, since the BRICS+ growth rate is around 5%, while Western economies are stagnating at 1–2% — and some, like Germany’s, are officially in a recession.

Related Reading

Is the German Economy Now Destined to Decline?

Despite these new geo-economic realities, the international order established by the West after the World War II has been resistant to change. The UN Security Council will remain secure in the hands of its five permanent members — three Western states plus China and Russia — for a long time to come. However, the BRICS states are not seeking to change the United Nations Charter or create a parallel system to the United Nations. Rather, they are focusing on the economic and financial governance of the world.

Parallel to the founding of the United Nations, the victorious Western powers, at the Bretton Woods conference in 1945, created institutions designed to regulate world finance. The dollar became the world’s reserve currency, making every country vulnerable to US sanctions. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, which provide financial assistance to countries in difficulty, are run like shareholder meetings, in which the US holds a decisive vote. Together with the other Western nations, they possess an absolute majority. It is these two pillars of Western power in the world that the BRICS states hope to compete with. But how?

It would be literally impossible to reform the international financial institutions in such a way as to reduce Western influence in them. However, they cannot prevent the creation of parallel systems of payment. The BRICS countries are thus working on three main tasks:

• A mechanism for processing international payments independent of SWIFT — from which Russia was excluded after its invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
• An intensification of trade that is invoiced in local currencies instead of dollars, in order to accelerate the “de-dollarization of the world.”
• A development bank that competes with the World Bank and finances infrastructure projects. There are currently 96 projects underway with a total volume of $32 billion.

Critics of the BRICS states doubt that they are able to really compete with the dollar. Despite a steady erosion, the greenback still accounts for 55% of the reserves of the national banks. And when it is replaced by other currencies, these tend to be Western currencies, with the notable exception of the Chinese renminbi. Nevertheless, the trend is clear and the potential of BRICS+ is there. The formation of alternative transportation corridors is part of the same strategy to break free from Western, i.e., American dependency.

Land routes vs. sea routes

In a globalized and interdependent world, the transport of goods represents a strategic dimension. From cars to cell phones, hardly any industrial activity exists that does not include and depend on an accumulation of natural resources and semi-finished products from all corners of the world. Over the last hundred years, goods have primarily been transported by sea. Today, sea freight accounts for 70% of world trade. You only have to look at a map of the 128 US naval bases around the world to realize how important the sea lanes are to Washington’s power strategy. From the Sea of Japan to Malacca, the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, Cyprus, Gibraltar, Panama, Rotterdam and New York, Washington’s ambition — sometimes supported by its British ally — to dominate the seas is obvious.

With its “Belt and Road” initiative, China has been trying for several years to develop land routes to, compete or at least complement the existing sea routes. It is therefore very revealing that one of the flagship projects highlighted in Kazan was the North–South Corridor, which will ultimately connect St. Petersburg with India, without passing through any Western-controlled areas. Is it worth remembering that India has become the largest importer of Russian oil products, despite the very audible gnashing of teeth in Washington?

What is Switzerland doing?

Between soft power and economic impact, the BRICS+ are redrawing the geopolitical map. Is Switzerland even aware of this probably irreversible development? Has it sought an invitation to Kazan?

The answer is yes, Swiss companies are well aware of the underlying forces shaping the world of tomorrow. This is why some, for example in the trade sector, are moving to Dubai. Yes, Switzerland’s State Secretariat for Economic Affairs is well aware of this. It wants to update our free trade agreement with China. Switzerland is the only European country apart from Iceland to have concluded such an agreement. That is an advantage.

Unfortunately, the options chosen by the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs and the Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sport have not been helpful. By running after the Americans, who have been losing all their wars for twenty years, weFO° Exclusive: Make Sense of BRICS Summit in Russia
have turned Russia against us and made China doubt our reliability. Moreover, for three quarters of the world Gaza has become a symbol of the moral bankruptcy of the West, including Switzerland. Is there still time to restore our credibility? Is this even possible with the current political cast running our affairs? These are the questions that every Swiss citizen must rightly ask themselves.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Has Anyone Noticed What BRICS+ Is Telling Us About a New World Order? appeared first on Fair Observer.

Iran isn’t the only nation advancing its nuclear capabilities in recent years. In 2019, the United States withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), which banned intermediate-range land-based missiles, citing alleged Russian violations and China’s non-involvement. The US is also modernizing its nuclear arsenal, with plans to deploy nuclear weapons in more NATO states and proposals to extend its nuclear umbrella to Taiwan.

Russia, too, has intensified its nuclear posture, expanding nuclear military drills and updating its nuclear policies on first use. In 2023, the nation suspended participation in the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), which limited US and Russian-deployed nuclear weapons and delivery systems. In 2024, it stationed nuclear weapons in Belarus. Russia and China have also deepened their nuclear cooperation, setting China on a path to rapidly expand its arsenal, as nuclear security collaboration with the US has steadily diminished over the past decade.

The breakdown of diplomacy and rising nuclear brinkmanship among major powers are heightening nuclear insecurity among themselves, but also risk spurring a new nuclear arms race. Alongside Iran, numerous countries maintain the technological infrastructure to quickly build nuclear weapons. Preventing nuclear proliferation would require significant collaboration among major powers, a prospect currently out of reach.

The US detonated the first nuclear weapon in 1945, followed by the Soviet Union in 1949, the United Kingdom in 1952, France in 1960 and China in 1964. It became evident that with access to uranium and enrichment technology, nations were increasingly capable of producing nuclear weapons. Though mass production and delivery capabilities were additional hurdles, it was widely expected in the early Cold War that many states would soon join the nuclear club. Israel developed nuclear capabilities in the 1960s, India detonated its first bomb in 1974 and South Africa built its first by 1979. Other countries, including Brazil, Argentina, Australia, Sweden, Egypt and Switzerland, pursued their own programs.

However, the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), enacted in 1968 to curb nuclear spread, led many countries to abandon or dismantle their programs. After the end of the Cold War and under Western pressure, Iraq ended its nuclear program in 1991. In a historic move, South Africa voluntarily dismantled its arsenal in 1994. Kazakhstan, Belarus and Ukraine relinquished the nuclear weapons they inherited after the collapse of the Soviet Union by 1996, securing international security assurances in exchange.

Nuclear proliferation appeared to be a waning concern, but cracks soon appeared in the non-proliferation framework. Pakistan conducted its first nuclear test in 1998, followed by North Korea in 2006, bringing the count of nuclear-armed states to nine. Since then, Iran’s nuclear weapons program, initiated in the 1980s, has been a major target of Western non-proliferation efforts.

Nuclear ambitions in the Middle East, Asia and Europe

Iran has a strong reason to persist. Ukraine’s former nuclear arsenal might have deterred Russian aggression in 2014 and 2022. Elsewhere, revolutionary Muammar Gaddafi, who dismantled Libya’s nuclear program in 2003, was overthrown by a NATO-led coalition and local forces in 2011. If Iran achieves a functional nuclear weapon, it will lose the ability to leverage its nuclear program as a bargaining chip to extract concessions in negotiations. While a nuclear weapon will represent a new form of leverage, it would also intensify pressure from the US and Israel, both of whom have engaged in a cycle of escalating sometimes deadly confrontations with Iran and its proxies over the past few years.

An Iranian nuclear arsenal could also ignite a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Its relations with Saudi Arabia remain delicate, despite the 2023 détente brokered by China. Saudi officials have indicated they would obtain their own nuclear weapon if Iran acquired them. Saudi Arabia gave significant backing to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program, with the understanding that Pakistan could extend its nuclear umbrella to Saudi Arabia, or even supply the latter with one upon request.

Turkey, which hosts US nuclear weapons through NATO’s sharing program, signaled a policy shift in 2019 when Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan criticized foreign powers for dictating Turkey’s ability to build its own nuclear weapon. Turkey’s growing partnership with Russia in nuclear energy could meanwhile provide it with the enrichment expertise needed to eventually do so.

Middle Eastern tensions are not the only force threatening non-proliferation. Japan’s renewed friction with China, North Korea and Russia over the past decade has intensified Tokyo’s focus on nuclear readiness. Although Japan developed a nuclear program in the 1940s, it was dismantled after World War II. Japan’s breakout period, however, remains measured in months. Despite this, public support for nuclear weapons remains low, given the legacy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where nuclear bombings in 1945 killed more than 200,000 people.

In contrast, around 70% of South Koreans support developing nuclear weapons. South Korea’s nuclear program began in the 1970s but was discontinued under US pressure. However, North Korea’s successful test in 2006 and its severance of economic, political and physical links to the South in the past decade, coupled with the abandonment of peaceful reunification in early 2024, have again raised the issue in South Korea.

Taiwan pursued a nuclear weapons program in the 1970s, which similarly ended under US pressure. Any sign of wavering US commitment to Taiwan, together with China’s growing nuclear capabilities, could prompt Taiwan to revive its efforts. Though less likely, territorial disputes in the South China Sea could also motivate countries like Vietnam and the Philippines to consider developing nuclear capabilities.

Russia’s war in Ukraine has also had significant nuclear implications. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy recently suggested to the European Council that a nuclear arsenal might be Ukraine’s only deterrent if NATO membership is not offered. Zelenskyy later walked back his comments after they ignited a firestorm of controversy. Yet if Ukraine feels betrayed by its Western partners — particularly if it is forced to concede territory to Russia — it could spur some factions within Ukraine to attempt to secure nuclear capabilities.

The war has also spurred nuclear considerations across Europe. In December 2023, former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer endorsed a European nuclear deterrent. Donald Trump’s re-election in the 2024 US presidential election could amplify European concerns over US commitments to NATO, with France having increasingly proposed an independent European nuclear force in recent years.

Nuclear collaboration

Established nuclear powers are unlikely to welcome more countries into their ranks. But while China and Russia don’t necessarily desire this outcome, they recognize the West’s concerns are greater, with Russia doing little in the 1990s to prevent its unemployed nuclear scientists from aiding North Korea’s program.

The US has also previously been blindsided by its allies’ nuclear aspirations. US policymakers underestimated Australia’s determination to pursue a nuclear weapons program in the 1950s and 1960s, including covert attempts to obtain a weapon from the UK. Similarly, the US was initially unaware of France’s extensive support for Israel’s nuclear development in the 1950s and 1960s.

Smaller countries are also capable of aiding one another’s nuclear ambitions. Argentina offered considerable support to Israel’s program, while Israel assisted South Africa’s. Saudi Arabia financed Pakistan’s nuclear development and Pakistan’s top nuclear scientist is suspected of having aided Iran, Libya and North Korea with their programs in the 1980s.

The slippery slope to nuclear conflict

Conflicts involving nuclear weapons states are not without precedent. Egypt and Syria attacked nuclear-armed Israel in 1973 and Argentina faced a nuclear-armed UK in 1982. India and China have clashed over their border on several occasions. Ukraine continues to resist Russian aggression. But conflicts featuring nuclear countries invite dangerous escalation, and the risk grows if a nation with limited conventional military power gains nuclear capabilities; lacking other means of defense or retaliation, it may be more tempted to resort to nuclear weapons as its only viable option.

The costs of maintaining nuclear arsenals are already steep. In 2023, the world’s nine nuclear-armed states spent an estimated $91.4 billion managing their programs. But what incentive do smaller countries have to abandon nuclear ambitions entirely, especially when they observe the protection nuclear weapons offer and witness the major powers intensifying their nuclear strategies?

Obtaining the world’s most powerful weapons may be a natural ambition of military and intelligence sectors, but it hinges on the political forces in power as well. In Iran, moderates could counterbalance hardliners, while continued support for Ukraine might prevent more nationalist forces from coming to power there.

Yet an additional country obtaining a nuclear weapon could set off a cascade of others. While larger powers are currently leading the nuclear posturing, smaller countries may see an opportunity amid the disorder. The limited support for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, in effect since 2021, coupled with the collapse of other international treaties, reinforces the lingering allure of nuclear arms even among non-nuclear states. With major powers in open contention, the barriers to nuclear ambitions are already weakening, making it ever harder to dissuade smaller nations from pursuing the ultimate deterrent.

[Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute, produced this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Which Countries Are on the Brink of Going Nuclear? appeared first on Fair Observer.

The legitimacy of the June 2 election results is not in question. The concern lies in the exceptional concentration of power in the presidential position as well as the instability that will arise from such unchecked authority. Observers’ previous expectations of a moderate administration are slowly fading. The inability to address root causes of violence and the disregard for institutional checks and balances raises questions about the government’s commitment to democratic processes. 

Rampant violence shows cracks in public security

Violence remains rampant across Mexico. Over a thousand killings have been recorded in Sheinbaum’s first 13 days in office alone. Among the most significant incidents were the beheading of Alejandro Arcos Catalán, the mayor of Chilpancingo, and the recent killing of Marcelo Pérez, a priest and social activist in Chiapas. Additionally, military personnel were accused of negligence after six migrants and a nurse were killed in the crossfire of a shootout between the National Guard and suspected drug cartel vehicles. 

While Sheinbaum has proposed a new security plan, it does not diverge significantly from her predecessor Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s strategy. Obrador’s approach, which was to create the National Guard, a nationwide police force, resulted in the most violent presidential term in Mexico’s modern history. Furthermore, the Mexican Congress passed a controversial reform that places the National Guard under the Ministry of Defense. Sheinbaum supports both of these decisions and vows to strengthen the National Guard even more. Critics argue this will only further militarize public security and fail to address the root causes of violence.

Judicial overhaul has consolidated executive power even further

This failure to address the rampant violence isn’t the only concern Mexican citizens have regarding Sheinbaum’s administration; the new president has also shown a blatant disregard for checks and balances. The recent judicial reform is the clearest example. This reform mandates a complete overhaul of the judicial system, replacing all the judges in the country, at all levels, with new ones elected by popular vote. However, more than half of the appointees will be filtered by Morena, the governing party, through “expert committees.” 

The reform also reduces the requirements to become a judge, which used to involve examinations and a long technical career. This has raised serious concerns about the politicization of the judiciary and the potential loss of judicial autonomy. Critics warn that this reform could threaten core democratic principles, including the separation of powers and adherence to the rule of law.

The judicial reform has also the potential to spark a constitutional crisis. Numerous judges have already filed amparos (legal injunctions) challenging the reform’s constitutionality. They argue, among other things, that the legislative procedure to pass the reform was deeply flawed. However, Sheinbaum’s government has largely disregarded the rulings and doubled down by proposing a new constitutional reform that shields any constitutional changes, even retroactively, from judicial oversight. The main argument used by the president and the governing party is that “a few judges” cannot overturn “the will of the people.” This move has alarmed many human rights advocates and legal experts. They view it as a regressive step in the defense of human rights and a violation of Mexico’s civil commitments.

Mexico’s future remains unclear

Despite political uncertainty, day-to-day operations in Mexico have remained largely unaffected, partly due to anticipation around the evolving political context. The business community and political observers alike are closely watching how Sheinbaum will navigate internal tensions within Morena and its coalition, as well as external challenges, including potential disruptive policies and hardball negotiations under Trump’s second presidency.

In addition, Mexico’s global economic and political ties, such as the USMCA trade agreement, serve as external constraints on the government’s ability to implement drastic changes. The country’s diversified economy also limits the scope for dramatic policy shifts. External factors such as trade, debt obligations and international relations stabilize Mexico’s economy during this period of political transition. While it is true that internal political dynamics and violence present serious challenges, these external influences may help curb some of the more drastic reforms that threaten democratic checks and balances.

It is clear that Mexico faces significant challenges and uncertainties. Strengthening democratic institutions, maintaining checks and balances and protecting the electoral system’s capacity for power alternation are essential for ensuring stability and upholding the rule of law. Equally important is the need to respect institutional democratic processes, even when they produce outcomes that may not align with all preferences. 

The author is a professor in the Social and Political Environment department at IPADE Business School.The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not represent the official position of IPADE Business School.

[Cheyenne Torres edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Mexico’s New President Claudia Sheinbaum Faces — and Fuels — Political Instability appeared first on Fair Observer.

The two largest parties followed: the centrist People’s Party (ÖVP) with 26.2% and the Social Democratic Party (SPÖ) with 21.1%. The results mark a seismic shift in voter preferences. The ÖVP suffered the biggest loss for a governing party in history, dropping 11.2 points. The SPÖ saw their worst-ever vote since World War II.

The liberal NEOS, the only party without prior government experience, achieved its best result with 9.1%, gaining 1.0 point over its last showing. Meanwhile, the Green Party, which had served as the junior coalition partner over the past four years, secured just 8.2% of the vote, a loss of 5.7 points. The results are widely seen as a protest against the ruling coalition between the People’s Party and the Greens. Their shared 51% in the 2019 elections plummeted to only 36.6%.

The ÖVP-Green tenure faced undeniable challenges. Issues including the COVID-19 pandemic, high inflation and the Russian war in Ukraine plagued the partnership. The FPÖ capitalized on these crises by positioning itself as a vocal critic and, at times, leaning on conspiracy theories. In contrast, other parties aimed to cooperate with the government and avoided polarizing the public further. The FPÖ used its own platforms, such as YouTube and social media, to spread messages that would not appear in mainstream media. Voters viewing themselves as disaffected resonated with these messages.

When no one wants to govern with the populists

The FPÖ won the election, but just with a plurality of seats. Only the ÖVP sees a possible coalition with the FPÖ. However, they attached a significant condition. Karl Nehammer, the ÖVP chairman and current Austrian Chancellor, demanded that Herbert Kickl, the FPÖ leader, not be part of a coalition. This demand is unacceptable to the FPÖ. Kickl’s leadership was central to their record-breaking electoral success.

Winning the battle but not the war is a familiar scenario in elections across the region. Just a year earlier, Poland’s right-wing populist Law and Justice (PiS) party won an election by a narrow margin after governing for eight consecutive years. Although it was clear they would be unable to form a government, President Andrzej Duda still entrusted them with the task. Two valuable months were ultimately lost in negotiations destined to fail. In contrast, Austrian President Alexander Van der Bellen took a different approach. He first met with all parties that passed the electoral threshold to discuss potential coalition intentions. Following these discussions, he confirmed what had already been stated publicly: No party was willing to form a coalition with the FPÖ.

As a result, Van der Bellen encouraged the three largest parties to explore coalition options among themselves. After both the ÖVP and SPÖ confirmed they had no interest in allying with the FPÖ but would consider working together, Van der Bellen formally tasked Nehammer with forming a new government. Unlike in Germany, where parties commonly work together to isolate the far-right Alternative for Germany, a cordon sanitaire has not been the norm in Austria. The FPÖ has previously served as a junior coalition partner on three occasions.

Austria’s future government

Currently, the ÖVP and SPÖ are negotiating with each other and seeking a third coalition partner. They hold exactly the 92 seats that are necessary for a majority. In reality, this is a tight bind. Potential illnesses or absences among MPs limit political maneuvering and efficiency. Therefore, a third partner is necessary. This too brings its own issues. Challenges arise between governing with either the liberal NEOS or the Greens. To reach a broad consensus, each party may have to compromise on key issues. The Social Democrats advocate for new taxes on businesses and inheritance, which the liberal NEOS oppose. A continued coalition with the Greens may be less advantageous politically for the People’s Party (ÖVP), as it has not been popular with voters.

The election result is a clear signal that change is needed in Austrian politics. Due to these policy differences, negotiations may take time, and a government might not even be formed before Christmas. Although the chances of a new election are low, they cannot be entirely ruled out. Electoral results in the federal state of Vorarlberg and upcoming elections in Styria put extra pressure on party leaders to come up with a solution. Vorarlberg has already shown the continuation of the good results for the FPÖ, although the ÖVP was able to keep their first place. In Styria, the situation could be reversed in the upcoming vote, which might undermine Nehammer’s refusal to work with Kickl. At the least, a strong FPÖ showing in Styria could spark a debate about his leadership within the ÖVP. SPÖ leader Andreas Babler is internally contested, leaving the third largest party with little breathing room. The FPÖ is already labeling the negotiations as being run by a “coalition of losers,” noting their decreased popularity from past elections.

One of the primary challenges facing the new government will be Austria’s struggling economy, which is projected to be in recession for the second consecutive year. National debt is also surpassing acceptable levels under the Maastricht criteria set by the EU. In these already unfavorable circumstances, there will be the task of proving that the new coalition can work credibly together for the future of the country. There have not been any experiences with three parties in Austria, unlike neighboring Germany. The German government proves the difficulty of balancing multiple parties’ interests. The recent collapse of the coalition does certainly not advocate for such a model. In any case, failure only benefits the FPÖ. Despite his loud protesting, Kickl most likely prefers the role of opposition leader to continue feeding his victim narrative and build on his election result. 

Austria’s international position

No matter what the next coalition in Austria looks like, we can already draw some conclusions: The far-right in the EU continues its success throughout the latest elections. The Patriots for Europe faction in the European Parliament has now received the most votes in national elections in France, the Netherlands, Hungary and Austria. The Czech Republic will likely follow next year.

Even if they are not part of the government in all of these nations, the far right is shaping the political discourse. This can already be felt on the European level. One issue is migration. Border controls have been reintroduced in Germany, where state elections have seen the rise of the far-right, even if they are not (yet) polling at the first place nationally. Another possibility is the emergence of a nationalist, anti-migration, anti-transatlantic party on the left side of the spectrum taking part of some of these state governments. Despite only being founded earlier this year, a party with similar policies joined the government in Slovakia.

What unites both left and right-wing extremists is their pro-Russian narratives. This is bad news for Ukraine, as they are losing support in Central Europe, a region that has mostly experienced Soviet occupation. Seemingly, everyone has forgotten their historical experiences. Pertinently, Austria lies only about 430 kilometers (267 miles) from Ukraine. With US President Donald Trump now returning to the White House, this might even result in abandoning support for Kyiv, coupled with shattering the security architecture in Europe. The external and internal threat coming from the Kremlin has the possibility to further erode democracy within Europe and the European Union, bringing it to the brink of collapse

Austria might just have been another piece in the puzzle if they cannot counter appropriately as mentioned above. A phrase from Karl Kraus comes to mind, who called Austria in the interwar period the “experimental station of the end of the world.” However, this has already been used to describe the inauguration of a new government a decade ago. But then there is another (most likely wrongly ascribed) quote from Kraus: “if the end of the world comes, I will go to Vienna, because everything happens there ten years later.”

[Stephen Chilimidos edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Austria’s Arduous Path to a New Government: Without the Far-Right appeared first on Fair Observer.

Although his official deadline for a general election was January 2025, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak brought the date forward for a general election by a full six months. Similarly, French President Emmanuel Macron, in a moment of panic following a disastrous round of European parliamentary elections, called a snap general election in June. The results were equally disastrous for both Sunak’s and Macron’s fragile power base.

A number of other elections made headlines without producing significant surprises. Russia re-elected President Vladimir Putin with a very comfortable majority, even if few think of Russia as a model of democracy. Mexico elected its first female president, Claudia Sheinbaum, who also happens to be Jewish, demonstrating a significant cultural shift in Mexico’s electoral tradition. Many think of that as a win for democracy.

But the “big” election everyone was waiting for in 2024 took place this week in the 50 United States (disunited during presidential elections for the sake of counting “electoral votes”). This contest was trumpeted (no pun intended) as the litmus test for the health of US democracy. Democrats consistently claimed that, if elected, former President Donald Trump would abolish democracy. Now that he has handily won the electoral vote and possibly the popular vote as well, there is little likelihood that Trump will call into question the democratic processes that got him elected, now for the second time.

We might, therefore, assume that nearly all observers are ready to take as a sign of the vibrancy of democracy the fact that most of these elections, including Trump’s, appear to have been conducted in a peaceful, orderly manner. Alas, some experts and pollsters persist in promoting the average citizen’s belief that the merit of democracy seems to be flagging.

In an article published by the Journal of Democracy in 2015, Larry Diamond, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, began by stating bluntly: “Democracy has been in a global recession for most of the last decade.” Two years later, in 2017, the Pew Research Center Democracy Report issued this dire warning: “Scholars have documented a global ‘democratic recession,’ and some now warn that even long-established ‘consolidated’ democracies could lose their commitment to freedom and slip toward more authoritarian politics.”

In June 2023, Financial Times published a two-part piece, “Martin Wolf on saving democratic capitalism: the ‘democratic recession.’”

Today’s Weekly Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Democratic recession:

A concept borrowed from economics by political analysts to make their complaints about the difficulty of governing sound more scientific.

Contextual note

One could make the paradoxical case that what the experts mean by “democratic regression” is a form of democratic progression. Those who use the term present it as signifying a loss of faith in democratic processes. But who is guilty of this loss of faith? In their view it is not the leaders, the parties and marketing experts who now play a dominant role in elections. No, they are innocent. The guilty party is none other than… the demos. It’s the people, the citizens of democracy, who enjoy the right to vote. They appear to be using a form of critical thinking to assess the democratic failure of an electoral system that appears, in the political results it produces, either to ignore or betray the average citizen’s interests. Instead, what they see corresponds troublingly to the very concept Wolf invokes: not democracy, but “democratic capitalism.”

To be fair to Wolf, he asserts that reversing the trend he calls democratic recession and which he associates with Trump-style populist movements, requires governments to address underlying economic issues by creating more inclusive economic policies that benefit broader populations rather than just the elite.

But, as any of the classic capitalist theoreticians might have reminded him, capitalism is, by design, a system that concentrates economic power in an elite. As the economic elite consolidates its wealth, it systemically distributes it not to the public, but to a political elite that not only shares its values but allows that same economic elite to dictate its policies. All lucid populists, right and left, complain that politicians respond not to the electors but to the “donor class.”

Economic power secretes political power, embraces it and effectively controls it. If the vote is the only concrete and extremely constrained tool of expression the people possess, political campaigns and the corporate-controlled media constitute the shared tools of the elite. The power this represents is carefully and expertly managed.

The logic behind such a system of “power-sharing” is famously enshrined in the US Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling that “money is speech.” Voting serves one simple purpose: to elect the individual members of the political elite which is destined to merge with the economic elite. Votes change the names on the governing roster. Money serves to get things done. The people losing faith in democracy are not mistaken when they feel they’re treated as paying spectators of a pre-scripted show.

Historical note

The Pew study appeared in 2017 following two dramatic historical events a year earlier. The Brexit vote in the UK took place in June 2016. That November, Trump shocked a world expecting Hillary Clinton, a bona fide member of the political elite, to waltz into the White House. The study offered the following analysis: “Roughly a quarter of people (median of 23%) across the 38 countries surveyed are committed democrats. About twice as many (median of 47%) are less-committed democrats. Relatively few (13%) are nondemocratic. A small share (8%) does not endorse any of these forms of governance.”

Rather than being alarmed, a careful reader might have concluded that 70% (23 + 47%) of more or less committed democrats sounds reassuring. But this kind of statistical analysis deliberately ignores the most fundamental and seemingly obvious reality: that whatever wavering exists concerning a population’s faith in democracy is likely to be proportional to the perception that the established democratic systems those citizens experience do not function democratically. Instead of losing faith, they are gaining in lucidity.

No one can pretend that Trump is a political thinker and even less a theoretician of democracy. The democratic process is a game he has learned to play. He was bold enough to invent his own rules, a bit like the American Basketball Association (ABA) when it shook up the sports world by rivaling the established National Basketball Association (NBA) and inventing the three-point shot before the startup league was constrained to disappear within the folds of the NBA, which enthusiastically adopted the innovation. Similarly, Trump’s rules appear to have put the radically demographic orientation of the Democratic party’s rulebook out of commission.

Trump’s political behavior reflects the fact that he’s an “artist” of the deal, a businessman combined with an entertainer. But how democratic was the procedure that put Kamala Harris on the ballot as the only viable alternative honest US citizens might vote for? She was selected after a primary process from which all serious competitors were excluded. She was pegged to win following the traditional demographic analysis of minority voter blocs the Democratic National Committee counted on to vote in lockstep.

Reviewing the philosophical history of the idea of democracy in an article published earlier this week, our collaborator Anton Schauble reminded us that “it is no longer a secret that the US is not a democracy, but an oligarchy.” A Princeton University study in 2014 provided statistical proof of that by examining the legislation Congress passed and comparing how well it reflected the interests of the elite as opposed to the stated preferences of the people. Schauble points out that instead of thinking of Trump as a democratic outlier, we should realize that “he is an oligarch from America’s oligarchy… But oligarchies like America produce Donald Trumps like cherry trees produce cherries.”

The journal Southern Living tells us that “around a thousand different types of cherries grow in the U.S.” and some are tastier than others. Harris and the Democratic party clearly left a bad taste in a lot of people’s mouths. Trump may be a crass vulgarian, but no one can deny he offers something with a strong taste.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of Fair Observer Devil’s Dictionary.]

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Was Trump’s Win a Victory or a Defeat for Democracy? appeared first on Fair Observer.