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.

“Oscar Wilde soon became Information Central. As the first gay bookshop in the country, we amassed something that proved to be invaluable for organizing a march,” wrote Fred Sargeant in his 2010 first-person account for the Village Voice.

Meanwhile, Washington, DC’s Drum and Spear Bookstore, “was a creative hub for black power, black consciousness and internationalist activism” from 1968 to 1974, according to the Library of Congress. The bookshop eventually shut down due to debt. 

Despite being bastions of societal advancement, community and mental nourishment, bookshops have dwindled due to factors like competition from Amazon and the popularity of e-books. In 2021, the United States Census Bureau pointed out that “the number of U.S. Book stores (as listed in the North American Industry Classification System) dropped from 12,151 in 1998 to 6,045 in 2019.”

The pandemic furthered this downward trend. In October 2020, Focus Finance reported that “sales turnover from brick and mortar bookstores declined by 31% from January to July 2020. Some bookstores are even seeing year-over-year sales declines as high as 80%.”

Discover Orca, Olympia’s largest independent bookstore

In April 2020, when Covid-19 was in full swing, the Orca bookstore in Olympia, Washington stayed afloat by adopting the co-op model. As the shop’s site explains, owner Linda Berentsen “was ready to retire, but wanted to ensure that the store lived on.”

“Diversifying was the only option,” says Kait Leamy, an Orca worker-owner since December 2021. “People didn’t want Orca to go away, so turning into a member-owned co-op was a great way to fundraise at the time.”

Leamy explains that the shop, which existed in various forms for nearly three decades before becoming the Orca Books Cooperative, is now owned by its employees and supportive Olympia community members.

“I think people in this area love that community-run aspect of things,” they state, adding that Orca owes its survival to this communal spirit. “The community has saved our lives several times. People in town are supportive on a day-to-day basis by shopping here and also when big, crazy things happen.” For example, one crowdsourcing campaign replenished funds lost to an embezzling bookkeeper. Another helped cover veterinary expenses for the shop’s resident cat, Orlando.

The bookshop has two kinds of memberships: “Basic Consumer [and] Low-Income Consumer.” Each member pays a fee that provides some benefits, discounts and voting rights.

Olympia is a hot spot for co-ops. In 2019, the Northwest Cooperative Development Center told the social justice publication Works in Progress that the city had “more cooperatively owned businesses per capita than any other US city (one co-op business for every 5,255 residents).”

Leamy, who was a member of several co-ops while in college, notes, “Now I can’t have a job with the hierarchy that regular corporate jobs have, because I am so used to this co-op model where everybody has autonomy, [all] voices are equal, and no one is telling you what to do.”

As Olympia’s largest independent bookstore, Orca is a space where customers and staff “from all walks of life” form “a vibrant, supportive, and generous book-loving community,” the store’s site states. “We rejoice in offering a wonderfully eccentric haven for our wonderfully diverse patrons.”

The shop’s amenities include a free coffee cart and a mutual aid table with medical supplies. Orca also carries cards, calendars, stickers, prints, magnets, t-shirts and other items crafted by local creatives like noted papercut artist Nikki McClure.

It also serves as a “community hub for book trade, resource sharing, and community re-cycling.”

“You don’t have to spend money to be here,” Leamy notes. “These days, there are so few places in the world that you’re allowed to just be in, so we try hard to make Orca a welcoming place. I think that helps us because people care and are invested.”

Selling mostly used books, Orca strives to keep its prices as low as possible, “so people can have access to the information,” according to Leamy. “We’re told all the time that we’re the cheapest bookstore in town. That feels important to us because new books are getting more and more expensive. A new hardcover these days can be $45.”

Rather than participating in a wholesale process, local authors can sell their books in small numbers at Orca. The shop takes only a small cut, leaving the author with the majority of the sale price.

Orca hosts events such as author talks, poetry readings, mending circles and book club meetings “where [people] come together, read the same thing, talk about it, and talk about life and the world,” Leamy says. “You can’t do that on Amazon. Having a physical space and a physical book instead of digital feels important.”

Combined with right-wing efforts to ban and burn books, the decrease in face-to-face interaction in the digital age makes the survival of shops like Orca more important than ever.

“Bookstores, particularly, are hard [to maintain] these days,” Leamy observes. “There are some days where we say, ‘Are we going to make it?’ and some days where we’re flying high. I think there are enough people out there who want bookstores to exist [bettering the odds] that we can make it.”

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

[Local Peace Economy 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 Community Support Helps the Orca Book Cooperative Stay Afloat 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.

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.

The birthplace of Islam in the 7th century, Saudi Arabia, which occupies most of the Arabian peninsula, became an independent kingdom in 1932 and, after the end of World War II, grew to become a major economy, revolutionized by the exploitation of the area’s oil resources. It is the world’s second top oil producer after the USA, accounting for 13.2% of the world’s oil. Saudi Arabia (population 31,500,000) is ranked 18th richest country in the world.: wi

But there are strong objections, which seem to crystallize around four main concerns. The kingdom’s human rights record, which includes issues such as the suppression of dissent, lack of freedom of expression and use of capital punishment, is often raised.

Like other Gulf states, Saudi Arabia has faced allegations of exploitative labor practices, particularly involving migrant workers and, despite promises of reform, questions about workers’ conditions during the preparation for such events persist.

Homosexuality is illegal in Saudi Arabia, and same-sex relationships are punishable by imprisonment, flogging, or even the death penalty under Sharia law. This contrasts sharply with FIFA’s promotion of LGBTQ+ rights and inclusivity.

Arguably, the most powerful objection is Saudi Arabia’s subjugation of women. The kingdom now allows women to participate in the workforce and drive cars unaccompanied, but guardianship laws that require women to obtain permission from male relatives for many activities and limited representation of women in leadership positions reflect deep-seated social inequality. Despite this, I believe Saudi Arabia is an appropriate host and offer ten reasons why.

1. Promoting ethical labor practices

Saudi Arabia’s World Cup preparations will involve many large infrastructural projects, and FIFA’s oversight should ensure these adhere to global standards. Over the next decade, FIFA’s inspection teams will monitor construction sites to safeguard workers’ rights, promote ethical labor practices and insist on compliance to its own standards. This decade-long timeline gives Saudi Arabia an opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to improving working conditions, addressing past concerns, and setting new benchmarks for fairness and safety. By making transparency and compliance a condition, FIFA can leverage its influence to leave a lasting legacy of ethical labor reform in the region.

2. A wider conception of inclusivity

FIFA’s stated mission is to celebrate cultural diversity. This presumably means the organization is prepared to embrace different cultures, regardless of whether their values and norms differ from Western equivalents. But FIFA’s adoption of inclusivity as an animating principle is, at present, limiting: It effectively excludes nearly a quarter of the world’s population, who subscribe to Islam. For this group (numbering about 1.9 billion), same-sex relationships are a sin and women are not equal to men. As such Muslims’ fundamental beliefs contrast with FIFA’s commitment to LGBTQ+ rights and women’s status in terms of rights and opportunities. FIFA has approved of players wearing rainbow colors and promoted women’s football to signify its resolve. By selecting Saudi Arabia, FIFA may broaden its conception of inclusivity by welcoming nations with different and possibly conflicting religious beliefs.

3. Productive dialogue on LGBTQ+ rights

Hosting the World Cup in Saudi Arabia will surely promote dialogue about differences in approaches to LGBTQ+ rights. No one is naïve enough to believe Islam will change dramatically, if at all. But there is at least the possibility that religious and cultural differences can be addressed in a respectful and constructive manner. While significant cultural gaps exist, the visibility of LGBTQ+ issues during the event could encourage awareness and sensitivity, promoting incremental progress. The World Cup’s traditional role as a unifying force could highlight the importance of diversity and inclusion.

4. Advancing women’s rights

Saudi Arabia has made some strides in improving women’s rights, and hosting the World Cup could accelerate this progress. The event’s global spotlight will encourage the kingdom to further expand opportunities for women in sports and beyond. Recent developments, such as the introduction of women’s sports leagues, indicate a willingness to evolve. A World Cup’s emphasis on equality and inclusion would act as a stimulus, pushing for greater gender parity in sports while inspiring young Saudi women to break barriers and participate fully in social change.

5. Women’s rights in other Islamic territories

While it’s a lofty ambition, the World Cup in Saudi Arabia could also catalyze deeper global dialogue on women’s status in Islamic societies. While the kingdom has made progress, significant cultural and religious restrictions remain. By hosting the tournament, Saudi Arabia would face international expectations to showcase advancements in women’s rights. This external pressure, combined with internal aspirations for modernization, could foster more material changes, providing a platform for discussions about balancing tradition with contemporary gender equality. This sounds quixotic but the World Cup could help redefine how women participate not only in sports but in wider society.

6. Only Gulf States can afford global sports tournaments

World Cups and Olympic Games are increasingly expensive to stage, and by 2034, only a handful of nations may possess the resources or the political will to host such massively costly events (Qatar is estimated to have spent $220 billion on the 2022 World Cup). Saudi Arabia’s substantial financial capacity makes it an ideal candidate to sustain these costs and one of only a handful of countries prepared to. This pragmatic adaptation reflects the new reality of global sports, where Gulf States are becoming central hubs for high-profile events (see 10, below). FIFA’s decision acknowledges this reality, ensuring that the World Cup remains a sustainable and spectacular global celebration despite mounting financial challenges. After 2034, countries outside the Gulf may not be able to afford the World Cup or, for that matter, the Olympic Games. Saudi Arabia, together with Qatar and the United Arab Emirates may become permanent homes.

7. “Sportswashing” is a misnomer

Critics often accuse Gulf States of using sports to improve their international image, a practice known as “sportswashing.” Yet, hosting high-profile events inevitably has exactly the opposite effect, drawing global media attention to a country’s human rights record. By selecting Saudi Arabia, FIFA will guarantee that critical issues — such as labor rights, freedom of expression, and gender equality — remain in the media. This scrutiny will put pressure on the host nation to address their limitations, leveraging global attention to drive meaningful change or face the consequences of bad publicity. The World Cup’s visibility thus becomes a tool for accountability and meaningful change rather than mere optics, or image management.

8. Saudi Arabia will build state-of-the-art stadiums

The stadiums built for the Qatar World Cup in 2022 received widespread acclaim for their innovative design and advanced technology. Saudi Arabia is likely to follow the pattern, constructing state-of-the-art venues that will no doubt set new standards for sports infrastructure. These facilities would serve not only the World Cup but also future sporting and cultural events, providing lasting value for the kingdom and the broader region. By investing in cutting-edge infrastructure, Saudi Arabia would ensure a world-class experience for players, fans, and broadcasters alike, leaving a legacy of excellence in global sports.

9. Growth of the Saudi Pro League

The Saudi Pro League has not yet emerged as a significant player in global soccer, even though it now boasts several world-class players like Cristiano Ronaldo and Neymar. But, by 2034, this competition could rival the English Premier League, Serie A and La Liga, showcasing top-tier talent and competitive matches. Hosting the World Cup could solidify Saudi Arabia’s position as a global soccer hub, drawing attention to its domestic league and boosting its credibility. Increased investment in local clubs and player development would further elevate the Pro League, creating a sustainable ecosystem for soccer within the region.

10. The tectonic plates of sports are shifting

The Gulf States have made their intention signally clear: They want to be sports’ center of gravity. They have monopolized world heavyweight boxing title fights, created a LIV golf tour to rival the PGA, staged F1 Grands Prix and hosted an ATP Tennis Open. It’s possible that Qatar will petition for a tennis Grand Slam that will rival Wimbledon. Fans may balk at the idea, grumbling that there is no natural tradition of sports in these areas. But the clink of coin can be heard everywhere. No one knows for sure why the Gulf states want to “own” professional sports. They lose prodigious amounts of money on it. There is a certain cachet in staging prestigious sports events, for sure; but do the wealthy territories need status, distinction and acclamation? The nearest we can get to an answer is another question: Why does the billionaire art collector David Nahmad want the largest collection of Picasso paintings in the world? He currently has about 300 works and explains, somewhat inscrutably, his artworks are “as dear to him as children.”

[Sport and Crime by Ellis Cashmore, Kevin Dixon and Jamie Cleland will be published in March 2025.]

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

The post Ten Reasons Saudi Arabia Should Host the 2034 FIFA World Cup Finals 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.

People are wondering today what role the United States has played in the events in the region since 2011. A leaked State Department document from December 2012 signed by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton throws some light on that role with regard to Syria.

Wondering how ChatGPT might help to put these facts into a new historical perspective, I proposed the following prompt:

“Wikileaks published a State Department memo signed by Hillary Clinton and dated December 31, 2012. It was officially declassified in November 2015. In it, the Obama administration clearly defined the policy it intended to implement with regard to Syria. One statement in that email might seem surprising today is this:

‘But other than the laudable purpose of saving Libyan civilians from likely attacks by Qadaffi’s regime, the Libyan operation had no long-lasting consequences for the region.’

Given that a lot of things have happened in Libya since then, how accurate is this denial of long-lasting consequences?”

“The assertion from the Obama administration that the 2011 intervention in Libya ‘had no long-lasting consequences for the region’ appears deeply inaccurate when viewed in retrospect. The situation in Libya and its broader impact on the region has had profound and far-reaching consequences, many of which continue to unfold. Here’s an overview of the long-lasting effects:

1. Libya’s Fragmentation and Persistent Instability

• After the fall of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, Libya descended into political and social chaos. The country fractured into a patchwork of competing militias, tribal factions, and rival governments.
• By 2014, the conflict escalated into a full-scale civil war, pitting the internationally recognized Government of National Accord (GNA) in Tripoli against forces loyal to General Khalifa Haftar in the east (Libyan National Army – LNA).
• The collapse of state authority left a power vacuum that remains largely unfilled to this day, leading to a prolonged state of instability.

2. Militancy, Terrorism, and Proliferation of Armed Groups

• The fall of Gaddafi led to the unchecked spread of weapons across Libya and neighboring regions. Libya became an arms hub, supplying weapons to insurgents, militias, and terrorists throughout North Africa and the Sahel.
• Extremist groups, including Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and ISIS, exploited Libya’s chaos to gain a foothold. In 2015, ISIS even established a stronghold in the city of Sirte.
• This has turned Libya into a base for jihadist networks and a staging ground for terrorist operations across the region.

3. Regional Spillover Effects: The Sahel and Beyond

• One of the most significant consequences of Libya’s collapse was the destabilization of Mali and the broader Sahel region.
• After Gaddafi’s fall, Tuareg fighters who had served in his army returned to northern Mali with weapons, leading to the 2012 Tuareg rebellion. This rebellion was quickly overtaken by Islamist militants, plunging Mali into crisis.
• This instability has spread throughout the Sahel, with countries like Niger, Burkina Faso, and Chad struggling to contain growing insurgencies fueled by weapons and fighters spilling out of Libya.

4. The Refugee and Migrant Crisis

• Libya became a major transit hub for refugees and migrants seeking to cross the Mediterranean Sea to Europe. The absence of effective state authority has allowed human trafficking networks to thrive.
• This contributed significantly to the European migrant crisis in 2015, straining EU resources and fueling political tensions across the continent.

5. Geopolitical Competition in Libya

• Libya has become a theater for proxy wars involving foreign powers. Countries such as Turkey, Russia, the UAE, Egypt, and others have backed rival factions, turning the conflict into an internationalized proxy struggle.
• Russia’s increasing involvement in Libya (through the Wagner Group) has added a new dimension to geopolitical competition in North Africa.

6. Economic Collapse and Humanitarian Crisis

• Libya’s oil-dependent economy, once a source of prosperity, has been devastated by the conflict. Oil production has been repeatedly disrupted by battles between factions.
• The humanitarian situation remains dire, with millions of Libyans affected by conflict, food insecurity, and lack of healthcare.

Conclusion: Far-Reaching and Ongoing Consequences

The Obama administration’s statement in 2012—claiming no long-lasting regional consequences—significantly underestimated the fallout of the Libyan intervention. The collapse of the Libyan state triggered a chain reaction that destabilized the Sahel, contributed to the rise of terrorism, fueled migration crises, and intensified geopolitical competition. Today, Libya remains a symbol of the unintended consequences of foreign interventions, with its instability continuing to impact regional and global dynamics.”

I continued the conversation with the following prompt.

“The Clinton email contains the following recommendations: ‘Washington should start by expressing its willingness to work with regional allies like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar to organize, train and arm Syrian rebel forces. The announcement of such a decision would, by itself, likely cause substantial defections from the Syrian military. Then, using territory in Turkey and possibly Jordan, U.S. diplomats and Pentagon officials can start strengthening the opposition. It will take time. But the rebellion is going to go on for a long time, with or without U.S. involvement. The second step is to develop international support for a coalition air operation. Russia will never support such a mission, so there is no point operating through the UN Security Council. Some argue that U.S. involvement risks a wider war with Russia. But the Kosovo example shows otherwise.’

‘Arming the Syrian rebels and using western air power to ground Syrian helicopters and airplanes is a low-cost high payoff approach.’

Does this accurately represent the role the US has played over the past 13 years?”

Below is a short version of ChatGPT’s response, including only the initial assessment and conclusion.

“The recommendations outlined in the Clinton email—organizing, arming, and supporting Syrian rebels, combined with a potential coalition air operation—reflect ideas that did, to some extent, align with U.S. policy in the Syrian conflict. However, the email oversimplifies the complexities of U.S. involvement and the consequences that unfolded. Over the past 13 years, the U.S. role in Syria has been shaped by a series of strategic choices, hesitations, and unintended consequences. Here’s a more accurate analysis of U.S. involvement in Syria since 2011:

Conclusion: Partial Alignment, but Limited Success

The email’s recommendations—arming rebels, organizing opposition forces, and using air power—align with aspects of U.S. policy, but the outcomes were far more complex and problematic:

• The U.S. did arm and train rebels, but with limited success due to fragmentation and extremist infiltration.
• The U.S. focused on ISIS rather than Assad, abandoning broader regime-change goals as the war progressed.
• A no-fly zone or air operation against the Syrian regime never materialized, largely due to fears of direct conflict with Russia.
• The conflict evolved into a geopolitical quagmire involving Russia, Iran, Turkey, and others, limiting U.S. influence.

In hindsight, the claim that this approach would be ‘low-cost and high-payoff’ was overly optimistic. The Syrian conflict became a prolonged and devastating war with significant human, political, and geopolitical consequences—many of which remain unresolved to this day.”

I must add one final observation concerning ChatGPT’s curious claim that “the email oversimplifies the complexities of U.S. involvement and the consequences that unfolded.” ChatGPT clearly lives in the eternal present. Unlike most of us, it confuses the future and past. What can it possibly mean to say that an email from 2012 “oversimplifies” events that took over the following 13 years? You can only oversimplify a complexity that already exists, not a future one.

This exchange underlines a more fundamental problem of oversimplification: the kind of strategic decision-making that has occurred regularly in the formulation of US foreign policy. ChatGTP points to this when it notes that the email “underestimated the fallout of the Libyan intervention.”

This formulation is itself an understatement. The email foresaw “no long-lasting consequences.” “No” means zero. ChatGPT lists 15 grouped under six headings. There’s quite a gap between 0 and 15. But isn’t that part of a pattern that has been repeated in Iran in 1953; Vietnam in 1964, Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, to mention only those from prominent cases?

Your thoughts

Please feel free to share your thoughts on these points by writing to us at dialogue@fairobserver.com. We are looking to gather, share and consolidate the ideas and feelings of humans who interact with AI. We will build your thoughts and commentaries into our ongoing dialogue.

*[Artificial Intelligence is rapidly becoming a feature of everyone’s daily life. We unconsciously perceive it either as a friend or foe, a helper or destroyer. At Fair Observer, we see it as a tool of creativity, capable of revealing the complex relationship between humans and machines.]

[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 Outside the Box: ChatGPT Gets Lost in Time in Syria 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.

Recently, my partner, Criscillia, and I demonstrated that truth mathematically, by understanding that the information brains need for trust is not the kind of information you find in newspapers or books. It is the kind of information we receive through our senses: sight, sound, smell, taste, touch and interoception, all at once. Real people know nervous systems need real life.

That same math shows that digital inputs are bad for us. The more “personalized” they are, the worse. Because personalized digital technology makes so much money, that basic tension pits private profit against public health. I have never heard any scientific disagreements with this contention, even after trying for a decade to provoke them. The math of information flow and all unbiased evidence agree: Digital media damage learning and sociability. So any country hoping to protect its youth must severely limit childrens’ digital exposure.

The United States, which pioneered this awful tech and makes the most money from it, must now officially face this choice just as Trump takes office. The Senate side of Congress already passed the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) — a proposed legislation meant to protect children on the Internet — by the lopsided odds of 91–3, showing wide bipartisan support. But the House of Representatives has stalled and tried to weaken it to make it easier on industry.

The House will vote on KOSA on Tuesday, December 17. Will the congressmen protect kids from known digital toxins? Or will they protect their contributors’ profit margins? It seems too close to call.

KOSA vs free speech

The big news came this week when Trump’s tech vizier, Elon Musk, the world’s most influential technologist, announced his support of KOSA. Even more crucially, he and X CEO Linda Yaccarino helped the House restore the teeth of the Senate version. He and his tech company voted for life over tech.

Unlike earlier bills, KOSA was designed to identify and neutralize the toxin, not just give it a name and a punishment. The toxin in this case is described in the key term, “design feature.” Design features are software elements (such as “infinite scroll,” for example) which entrain the human nervous system unconsciously; individuals can’t defend themselves. Their basic structures have been mathematically understood since the old days when “persuasive technology” was considered good, not evil. KOSA’s genius approach embeds that established industry knowledge into the very legislation regulating industry and protecting kids and teens.

The major objection to KOSA is based on a weird US myth, going by the name “free speech.” Free speech in the US means people get to speak their minds without government interference, which is good for democracy. Furthermore, according to our scientific understanding of trust, speaking out loud in public is very good for the nervous system. So what our Founding Fathers imagined is still alive and well.

Unfortunately, the US also has a sub-population of people who think that typing posts is equal to using the voice. Some of those people further claim that free speech ought to apply in ways having nothing to do with voices or even people, so any regulation at all constitutes “censorship.”

The people who say such things call themselves intelligent. But does a foreign server hosting porn deserve free speech? How about social media platforms urging kids to kill themselves?

Musk was right: Choose life. Science says so.

[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 Elon Musk Chooses Life (and Science) Over Tech appeared first on Fair Observer.

With the toppled President Bashar al-Assad’s departure to Moscow, Russia, the entire Assad family’s 54-year hold on Syria has reached its end. Now many in the country and the international community ask which one is the real al-Jolani.

In a recent interview, al-Jolani, the face of the Syrian rebels, insisted that his evolution was natural. “A person in their twenties will have a different personality than someone in their thirties or forties, and certainly someone in their fifties. This is human nature,” al-Jolani said.

The real al-Jolani will likely emerge in the way he approaches the formation of a post-Assad transition government, as well as the rights, security and safety of minorities. These include the Shiite Muslim Alawites from which the Assads hail and who long supported their brutal rule.

Moreover, even those who question the sincerity of his conversion suggest that al-Jolani may be the one rebel commander who can hold Syria together. “There is no local military power to stand (up to) or compete with Jolani,” an associate of the rebel leader said when he still publicly identified himself as a jihadist. The former associate warned that if al-Jolani fails, Syria, like Libya, will become a state torn apart by rival armed militias.

Al-Jolani “hasn’t changed at all, but there’s a difference between being in battle, at war, killing, and running a country,” the former associate said. He suggested the rebel leader’s more moderate and conciliatory posture stemmed from a recognition that the Islamic State’s sectarian bloodlust was a mistake. He also stated that al-Jolani “now considers himself a statesman,” and claimed the rebel leader may follow suggestions that he turn the group into a political party by transferring its military wing to a reconstituted Syrian military.

Meanwhile, the HTS paramilitary group moved quickly to safeguard public buildings in Damascus and manage the presence of heavily armed factions in the capital. “We will soon ban gatherings of armed people,” said Amer al-Sheikh, a HTS security official.

Al-Jolani needs to earn international trust

On December 10, 2024, the rebels appointed Mohammed al-Bashir as caretaker prime minister for four months. It was not immediately clear what the next step would be.

Al-Bashir ran the rebel-led Salvation Government in their stronghold in Syria’s northern Idlib region. Since HTS launched its offensive, he has assisted captured cities, including Aleppo, Hama and Homs, in installing post-Assad governance structures.

Beyond ensuring domestic security and stability, al-Jolani will need to secure international support for the reconstruction and rehabilitation of traumatised and war-ravaged Syria. To do so, al-Jolani and HTS will have to convince Syrian minorities, segments of Syria’s majority Sunni Muslims and the international community that they have genuinely changed their colors and are not wolves in sheep’s clothing.

A questionable human rights record that has persisted long after they disavowed jihadism compounds HTS and al-Jolani’s reputational problems. As recently as August 2024, the United Nations accused the group of resorting to extrajudicial killings, torture and the recruitment of child soldiers.

“HTS detained men, women, and children as young as seven. They included civilians detained for criticising HTS and participating in demonstrations,” the UN Human Rights Council said in a report. “These acts may amount to war crimes.”

Even so, this week, UN Special Envoy for Syria Geir Pedersen acknowledged that HTS has sought to address concerns in recent days.

“The realities so far is that the HTS and also the other armed groups have been sending good messages to the Syrian people,” Pedersen said. “They have been sending messages of unity, of inclusiveness… We have also seen… reassuring things on the ground.”

Pedersen was referring to rebel assurances given to minorities, a pledge not to impose restrictions on women’s clothing, amnesty for conscripted personnel of Assad’s military, the rebels reaching out to Assad government officials and efforts to safeguard government institutions.

United States officials echoed Pedersen despite the US designation of HTS as a terrorist organization.

Incidents in Damascus and Hama

Against the backdrop of his track record in recent years in administering the Idlib region, the last rebel-held stronghold in Syria when the civil war’s battle lines were frozen in 2020, al-Jolani has sought to project an image of tolerance, reconciliation and ability to deliver public goods and services.

Al-Jolani turned Idlib, historically the country’s poorest province, into its fastest-growing region, despite his autocratic rule and frequent Syrian and Russian air attacks. To his credit, there were no major reports of attacks on Christians, Alawites and other minorities or acts of revenge against representatives of the Assad regime, including the military. Further, there was no mass looting as HTS fighters took over cities and towns, including Damascus.

That is not to say that everything unfolded incident-free. One Damascus resident reported that unidentified armed men had knocked on the door of an acquaintance and asked about his religion. A neighbor returned home to find his door broken down and his apartment looted. Similarly, a nearby government building was looted despite instructions from rebel leaders against violating public property. The rebels imposed an overnight curfew in Damascus to maintain law and order.

Earlier, a man in Hama told prisoners sitting on the ground with their hands tied behind them in a video on social media, “We will heal the hearts of the believers by cutting off your heads, you swine.”

HTS’s statement on Syrian chemical weapons

Meanwhile, with Israel bombing Syrian arsenals of strategic weapons, including suspected chemical weapons sites, HTS missed an opportunity to unequivocally garner trust. In a statement, the group said it will safeguard the country’s remaining chemical weapons stockpiles and ensure they aren’t used against citizens. This is a stark contrast to the Assad regime, which used chemical weapons on several occasions against Syrian civilians.

In the wake of Assad’s fall, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the UN chemical weapons watchdog, said it had contacted unidentified Syrian authorities “with a view to emphasising the paramount importance of ensuring the safety and security of all chemical weapons-related materials and facilities.”

HTS responded, saying, “We clearly state that we have no intention or desire to use chemical weapons or any weapons of mass destruction under any circumstances. We will not allow the use of any weapon, whatever it may be, against civilians or [allow them to] become a tool for revenge or destruction. We consider the use of such weapons a crime against humanity.”

The group would have done itself a favor by offering to destroy under international supervision what chemical weapons stockpiles fall into its hands and/or ask OPCW to assist in searching for such weapons.

[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 Will the Real al-Jolani Stand Up? 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.

It turns out to be a very efficient way of gleaning information, compared to comparing accounts in commercial media. I’m looking to follow this up in the coming weeks as well explore the question of how an AI chatbot can “think about” breaking news and craft its “understanding” of the events. I began with a simple prompt: “Tell me everything I need to know about Abu Mohammed al-Julani.”

The chatbot offered this response:

“Abu Mohammed al-Julani is a prominent and controversial figure in the Syrian conflict, best known as the leader of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a powerful jihadist group in northwest Syria. Here’s an in-depth overview:

1. Background and Early Life

• Real Name: His real name is believed to be Ahmed Hussein al-Shar’a (or al-Sharaa).
• Nationality: Syrian. Born in 1982 in the Golan Heights, which Israel captured in 1967.
• Education: Little is publicly known about his early education, but he reportedly studied in Damascus and spent time in Iraq during the U.S.-led invasion.

2. Role in Jihadist Movements

• Iraq War: Al-Julani emerged as a jihadist during the U.S. invasion of Iraq in the early 2000s. He allegedly joined al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), then led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
• During this time, he developed strong connections with jihadist networks, gaining experience as both a fighter and a strategist.

3. Founding of Jabhat al-Nusra

• 2011-2012: With the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War, al-Julani returned to Syria and established Jabhat al-Nusra (‘The Support Front’) as an offshoot of al-Qaeda.
• Goals: Initially, Jabhat al-Nusra focused on fighting the regime of Bashar al-Assad. Its tactics—suicide bombings, coordinated attacks—quickly gained notoriety.
• Al-Qaeda Ties: Julani pledged allegiance to Ayman al-Zawahiri, then leader of al-Qaeda, officially aligning Nusra with the global jihadist group.

4. Rift with ISIS

• 2013: A major split occurred when Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria), claimed that Jabhat al-Nusra was part of ISIS. Al-Julani refused to merge under Baghdadi’s leadership.
• Tensions: Julani reaffirmed loyalty to al-Qaeda, leading to a violent rivalry between Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS. This schism shaped the Syrian jihadist landscape, as the two groups competed for fighters, resources, and dominance.

5. Rebranding and Transformation

Al-Julani has shown a remarkable ability to adapt his image and strategy:

• 2016: Jabhat al-Nusra rebranded as Jabhat Fatah al-Sham (JFS), claiming to have severed ties with al-Qaeda to appeal to Syrian rebels and local populations.
• 2017: JFS evolved into Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a coalition of jihadist factions. While HTS claimed independence from al-Qaeda, many analysts believe its leadership and ideology remained aligned with the group’s core jihadist principles.

6. Leadership of HTS

Under al-Julani’s leadership, HTS emerged as the dominant force in Syria’s northwest, particularly in Idlib Province:

• Control of Idlib: HTS exercises de facto governance over Idlib, imposing its interpretation of Islamic law while managing civil administration and local services.
• Relations with Turkey: Al-Julani has pursued pragmatic ties with Turkey, which exerts influence in northern Syria, despite Turkey’s historical opposition to jihadist groups.
• Shift in Rhetoric: In recent years, al-Julani has positioned HTS as a ‘Syrian nationalist’ movement focused on defeating Assad, distancing himself from transnational jihadist ambitions.

7. Western Perception and Sanctions

• Terrorist Designation: The U.S. designated al-Julani and HTS as terrorists, citing their jihadist origins and extremist tactics.
• $10 Million Bounty: The U.S. State Department offered a $10 million reward for information leading to al-Julani’s capture.
• Media Appearances: Al-Julani has attempted to rebrand himself as a legitimate opposition leader, even granting interviews (e.g., to PBS Frontline in 2021), where he wore a suit instead of jihadist attire to appeal to Western audiences.

8. Ideological Stance and Strategy

• Shifts in Focus: Al-Julani’s leadership shows a tactical shift from global jihadism to localized insurgency. This pragmatism includes:
  • Collaborating with non-jihadist factions against the Assad regime.
  • Balancing extremist ideology with efforts to govern Idlib effectively.
• Criticism: Hardline jihadists accuse him of abandoning al-Qaeda’s ideology, while others see his pragmatism as a survival strategy.

9. Current Status

• As of 2024, Abu Mohammed al-Julani remains in control of HTS and Idlib Province.
• Challenges:
  • Ongoing pressure from Assad’s forces and Russian airstrikes.
  • Internal dissent from rival jihadist factions.
  • The delicate balancing act of maintaining relations with Turkey while evading direct Western intervention.

Conclusion

Abu Mohammed al-Julani is a complex figure whose trajectory reflects the evolution of the Syrian jihadist movement. He has shifted from a staunch al-Qaeda loyalist to a pragmatic insurgent leader focused on local governance. His ability to rebrand HTS, adapt to political realities, and consolidate power in Idlib highlights his strategic acumen, even as he remains a deeply polarizing figure in the Syrian conflict.”

I followed this useful information up with a second question, which I propose to continue to explore in future columns.

“What do we know about the support his movement has received from Türkiye and possibly NATO as well as any other sources of Western support? Given that he has had the kind of support that has enabled his movement to topple the Assad regime, how is he likely to mobilize the force his allies represent to craft a new system of government of Syria?”

ChatGPT offered a detailed response, but I’ll simply reproduce just the conclusion.

“Conclusion

Abu Mohammed al-Julani’s HTS has received indirect support from Türkiye and tacit Western tolerance, enabling it to consolidate control in Idlib. However, its ability to topple the Assad regime remains constrained by military, geopolitical, and ideological challenges. If al-Julani can continue his pragmatic rebranding and align HTS with external actors’ interests—particularly Türkiye’s—he may position himself as a key player in shaping a new Syrian governance framework, albeit under a localized Islamist model rather than a transnational jihadist agenda.”

I then followed up with a new question:

“What position has the US taken on his challenge to the Assad regime and has that engendered any assistance or even complicity in his success? Have there been any official statements about what role the US could play in the new Syrian regime?”

In the interest of relative brevity, here are the key elements of ChatGPT’s response. 

“The United States’ position on Abu Mohammed al-Julani and Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) is complex, characterized by a combination of outright opposition, quiet pragmatism, and geopolitical calculation. While the U.S. has firmly designated al-Julani and HTS as terrorists, the evolving situation in Syria and HTS’s local dominance have led to a more nuanced approach.

1. Official U.S. Position on HTS and Al-Julani

• Terrorist Designation
• Reward for Al-Julani: The U.S. State Department placed a $10 million bounty on al-Julani under its ‘Rewards for Justice’ program. This remains in effect.

2. U.S. Policy Toward Assad and Indirect Dynamics with HTS

The U.S. has long maintained a position that Bashar al-Assad should not remain in power, but regime change has not been an active policy since at least 2015. This nuanced position creates an implicit dynamic in which HTS’s challenge to Assad aligns with U.S. interests in some ways, even if HTS itself remains a U.S.-designated enemy:

3. Allegations of Indirect U.S. Complicity

Some analysts and regional observers have suggested that the U.S.’s focus on ISIS and its reluctance to directly target HTS have enabled al-Julani’s success in northwest Syria:

• Shift in U.S. Priorities: Since 2014, the U.S. military intervention in Syria has centered on combating ISIS. This has created a de facto prioritization of ISIS over other jihadist factions like HTS.
• Unspoken Pragmatism: HTS’s crackdown on ISIS and its efforts to position itself as a more moderate insurgent group may have led to quiet U.S. tolerance, even as it continues to label HTS as a terrorist group.
• Humanitarian Aid Dilemma: U.S.-backed humanitarian aid to Idlib is often distributed through local governance structures that HTS dominates. While aid is intended for civilians, it inevitably strengthens HTS’s administrative control.

4. U.S. Engagement with Al-Julani and HTS

While the U.S. has not formally engaged with al-Julani, there are notable developments signaling a possible shift in Western perceptions:

• Al-Julani’s Media Outreach: In 2021, al-Julani gave an interview to PBS’s Frontline, in which he downplayed HTS’s jihadist roots and presented his group as a localized Syrian movement fighting Assad.
• Expert Opinions: Some Western analysts and policymakers have argued that engaging with HTS—despite its history—may be necessary to stabilize Idlib and contain Assad, Iran, and Russia. These discussions remain unofficial and have not translated into a change in U.S. policy.

5. U.S. Statements on Syria’s Future Government

The U.S. has not made any official statements regarding a potential role for HTS or al-Julani in Syria’s future government.

6. Role of the U.S. in Syria’s Post-Conflict Governance

• Diplomatic Limitations: The U.S. does not have the leverage or interest to play a central role in shaping Syria’s governance.
• HTS and the U.S. Exclusion: The U.S. would likely oppose any formal inclusion of HTS in a future Syrian government due to its terrorism designation. For HTS to be considered a legitimate political actor, al-Julani would need to:
  • Fully sever ties with al-Qaeda and other extremist networks.
  • Accept a political process under international mediation.
  • Demonstrate meaningful moderation of HTS’s ideology and actions.

Conclusion

The U.S. position on Abu Mohammed al-Julani and HTS remains ambivalent: while it designates HTS as a terrorist organization and opposes al-Julani’s leadership, U.S. policies—such as targeting ISIS and avoiding direct conflict with HTS—have indirectly contributed to HTS’s ability to consolidate power in Idlib.”

ChatGPT’s responses point to a number of issues that need to be explored further. We will follow this up in further columns by asking similar questions and further probing questions.

I invite readers who wish to join in this interrogation of contemporary history to submit their own remarks, insights or questions, which we will integrate into the experiment. This is an opportunity to participate in a “crucible of collaboration” on a story that already has global significance and is likely to affect all of our futures, directly or indirectly. It has multiple dimensions, which we can explore together, accompanied by our AI friends.

Your thoughts

Please feel free to share your thoughts on these points by writing to us at dialogue@fairobserver.com. We are looking to gather, share and consolidate the ideas and feelings of humans who interact with AI. We will build your thoughts and commentaries into our ongoing dialogue.

*[Artificial Intelligence is rapidly becoming a feature of everyone’s daily life. We unconsciously perceive it either as a friend or foe, a helper or destroyer. At Fair Observer, we see it as a tool of creativity, capable of revealing the complex relationship between humans and machines.]

[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 Outside the Box: Gathering Artificial Intelligence About the Syrian Revolution 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.

According to the paper, corporatization of hospitals — also called “system ownership” — has delivered higher profitability with higher prices and reduced operational expenses. Titled “The Corporatization of Independent Hospitals,” the paper is authored by Wharton professor of health care management Atul Gupta; Texas A&M School of Public Health professors Elena Andreyeva and Benjamin Ukert; Malgorzata Sylwestrzak, associate vice president at Humana Healthcare Research; and Catherine Ishitani, a doctoral student of health care management and economics at Wharton.

Hospital ownership in the US has seen “a rapid corporatization” over the past two decades. Total bed capacity owned by hospital chains — or systems — has raced from 58% in 2000 to 81% by 2020. Driving that trend is not just a desire for greater market power, but also increased profitability when corporate chains buy independent hospitals.

Taking off from that trend, the paper’s authors studied 101 independent hospital acquisitions by systems from 2013 to 2017, and prices for hospital inpatient services in 20 large states. The paper’s data sources included large commercial insurers, Medicare claims and patient discharges across all hospitals in New York State. The study also covered 135 acquisitions of system-owned hospitals by other systems.

The new corporate owners of formerly independent hospitals achieve high profitability by raising prices and cutting operating costs, mainly through staff cuts and lower financing costs, Gupta explained on the Wharton Business Daily radio show that airs on SiriusXM. (Listen to the podcast.) “The average acquired hospital increases its operating margin by about $14 million a year,” he said.

Staff reductions make up 60% of those cost savings, while another 20% comes from lower capital and financing costs. Since most of the savings come from reducing headcount, acquirers may be able to predict those savings with more certainty and plan to pass a portion of these savings to insurers, the paper stated.

The staff cuts are primarily in maintenance and support functions. “That makes sense because they can rely on support staff at the system level, and they don’t need to duplicate those functions, [such as in accounting or IT],” Gupta noted.

Quality of Care May Worsen after Corporatization

But corporatization — or system ownership — of independent hospitals has an underwhelming performance in patient outcomes. “We find no evidence that the quality of care improves [following system ownership of a hospital],” Gupta said. In fact, the quality of care may worsen in some cases — a pointer to that is an increase in short-term readmission rates on average after those acquisition deals. The readmissions were evident across different patient samples spanning multiple payers and disease groups. The study found “no detectable changes in short-term mortality or patient satisfaction.”

Although system ownership of hospitals may improve operating efficiency, the authors advised caution in interpreting reduced costs as improved productivity. That is because the increase in readmissions as the size of the firm grows may be an indicator of declining quality.

Gupta explained why the quality of care may suffer after corporatization. “While cutting back on staff creates some efficiencies, it might also disrupt the protocols that were already in place at a hospital,” he said. Cutbacks in nursing staff, social workers and case managers could affect the ability of the hospital to follow up on patients after they discharge from the hospital, he added. They could also adversely impact “some of those smaller things that play a big role in keeping people out of the hospital,” he noted. “That could be a reason why we see an increase in readmissions after these deals take place.”

Key Findings

• After an independent hospital is acquired by a corporate chain, it sees a 6% increase in the reimbursement per inpatient stay for commercially insured patients, the study estimated.
• That price increase varies from “negligible to 11%” across the top seven specialties by volume. Hospitalization for respiratory, central nervous system and cardiac diseases saw the largest increases.
• After corporatization, inpatient hospital revenue increases by an estimated $11,700 per bed.
• Total operating expenses decline by about $48,300 per bed at the acquired hospital following system ownership, not including any offsetting price increases.
• Based on those changes in revenue and expenses, the acquired hospital sees an average estimated increase in hospital operating profit of about $60,000 per bed per year.
• Acquired system-owned hospitals are less likely to be rural and non-profit, and more likely to be located in urban markets.
• System-owned hospitals enjoyed a much higher profit margin than independent hospitals, on average, perhaps reflecting their higher price levels.

How Cost Savings Are Shared for Hospital Expenses

The savings in operational costs are passed on to insurers in varying degrees. “In the deals where hospitals achieve larger cost savings, the price increases for insurers are smaller in magnitude,” Gupta said. “This is consistent with some passing through of efficiencies to insurers.” How much of that is then passed on to consumers through lower insurance premiums is an open question; the scope of the study did not include data on premiums.

“Notwithstanding such large cost savings, average prices for [privately insured] patients increase following system acquisitions, prompting the question of whether consumers benefit from cost savings at all,” the paper noted.

The increase in prices primarily affects people with private insurance; Medicaid and Medicare set prices unilaterally, which are not affected by changes in hospital ownership, Gupta said.

Medicare and Medicaid (and therefore taxpayers) may not share these gains immediately since they set reimbursement rates based on market-level average costs, the paper noted. However, in the long run, the authors expected greater corporatization to reduce market-level costs and growth in reimbursement rates for public payers as well.

From One Hospital System to Another

While the main focus of the paper is on corporatization of independent hospitals, a companion exercise looked at ownership transfers between two hospital systems, or from one corporate ownership to another. In those cases, the authors found a similar magnitude of price increases and suggested that those increases may be driven more by changes in market power.

However, the authors found “insignificant effects on operating costs, including no effect on employment or personnel spending” after deals between hospital systems. The reason for that is meaningful cost savings are available and extracted when an independent hospital is bought by a system for the first time, and not necessarily after subsequent ownership changes. Such system-to-system deals also have no effect on readmission rates.

Broader Significance of the Findings

The authors set the backdrop for the significance of their study: Hospital care accounts for $1.3 trillion in annual spending, and it is the largest segment in the $4.3 trillion US healthcare sector. Consumer prices for hospital care grew nearly 60% faster than those for prescription drugs and twice as fast as those for physician services. The paper also fills a research gap on the performance of chain ownership in health care – the last study to quantify the effects of hospital system ownership on prices, costs and quality covered deals ending in 2000.

With the corporatization of independent hospitals, “at least in theory, there’s the possibility that efficiencies are generated, and they might be passed on to insurers or consumers ultimately in the form of lower costs and therefore lower insurance premiums,” Gupta said. Those savings are not evident on a matching scale in ownership changes between hospital systems.

Justifications for Hospital Corporatization

The paper included a summary of the arguments by industry participants in favor of corporatization:

• First, independent hospitals expect that they will obtain easier access to capital for capacity, service expansions and upgrades after they are part of a larger corporate entity.
• Second, they anticipate reducing operating costs by leveraging the system’s scale, such as in procuring medical supplies and devices.
• Third is access to a larger and potentially better pool of managerial and clinical talent in the system.

Not all of those promises materialize in hospital corporatization deals. In fact, some deals have produced underwhelming outcomes. As an example, the paper cited the 2015 acquisition of Northern Westchester hospital in New York by Northwell, the largest hospital system and private employer in the state. It noted that “the anticipated capital infusions from Northwell did not materialize in a significant way, although Northern Westchester gained access to expert physicians at Northwell’s academic medical cHospitalReimbursement rates increased, “but the effects on quality and efficiency are not obvious,” the authors added. “This type of ambiguous evidence has led to a debate over the role of hospital systems, and more generally of corporatization, in health care.”

Room for Regulators

Hospital acquisition deals come under the regulatory purview of the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice. But “their hands are tied” because the statutes they have to follow “narrowly define” the conditions that reduce competition, Gupta said. “[For instance], just the fact that prices go up is unfortunately not enough for them to take action,” he added.

“But regulators have become more vigilant,” Gupta continued. “The FTC has been more active [than earlier] in scrutinizing deals and potentially blocking them.”

Gupta pointed to Thomas Jefferson University’s 2018 plan to buy Einstein Health Care Network. The deal faced significant antitrust scrutiny from both the FTC and Pennsylvania’s attorney-general before it was cleared in 2021 after a court ruled against the FTC and Jefferson agreed to invest $200 million over seven years in Einstein’s North Philadelphia facilities, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported.

[Knowledge at Wharton 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 Why Are US Hospitals So Expensive? 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.

Undoubtedly, we will learn more about how this will be done, by whom and with which instruments in the course of 2025. For the moment, the world has been put in a state of prolonged suspense as it waits for clarity about the policies the new Trump administration will put in place after January 20. That suspense is at the same time punctuated by political crises galore and notably in Germany, France and, more astonishingly, South Korea. Hanging over everything, and especially Europe, is the question of how – as well as if –the Ukraine war will be resolved, since Trump has promised to deliver a rapid solution.

In November Alex, reflecting on the choices BRICS nations may be tempted by offered some data as well as insight on the question of the role gold might play in an evolving marketplace.

On November 5, 2024, the Russian Ministry of Finance announced an increase in daily purchases of “currency / gold” to 4.2 billion rubles. At the current exchange rate, this amounts to roughly $43 million. At current gold prices, a tonne of gold costs $85 million. Russia could therefore be purchasing half a tonne of gold per day, which might explain the constant bid under the gold price throughout 2024.

However, Russia has its own mines – it is the second largest gold producer in the world with 322 tonnes annually, trumped only by China (378 tonnes). The Ministry of Finance could therefore purchase half of the domestic gold production, still leaving the other half for industrial applications. Purchases of foreign currencies are tricky for Russia since they have been cut off from SWIFT (international payment messaging system). Many banks refrain from doing business with Russia for fear of secondary sanctions.

Another explanation could be Russia being ‘forced’ to accumulate foreign currencies. As Russian oil is sold to India, Indian Rupees are used to settle the trade. Russia might have no choice but to accumulate Rupees, as selling them in the foreign exchange market might increase pressure on the exchange rate and upset Russia’s important customer. 

Russia officially holds 2,335 tonnes of gold, worth approximately $200 billion. Russia’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is estimated around $2 trillion. Its gold reserves currently equal 10% of GDP.

The amount of money changing hands in developed economies is staggering. Both TARGET2 (Euro-zone) and FedWire (USA) settle payments worth the entire annual production every week.

If the BRICS wanted to introduce a gold-backed currency, a lot of gold would be needed to ensure a smooth functioning of the payment system. The gold-backing would not have to be 100%, and the gold would not have to move with payments, but the amount of gold available would have to be substantial for the gold-backing to be credible. 

In this context, on December 2, Edward Quince offered some insight into what’s starting to become visible from the China side of BRICS.

Some rough numbers here, nothing too polished, but a rough sketch of the implications and some strategic thinking that may be taking place.

The two BRICS countries with an excessive exposure to the US are India and China, both with roughly 16-17% of their total exports to the USA. Chinese exports are worth roughly $550bn, and India – abt $80bn.

If these trade adversaries (can’t call them partners anymore, can we?) decide to let Mr. Trump do as he wishes with his tariffs, is there a viable and readily available pool of domestic suppliers who can fill in the gaps?

Assuming that this 100% tariff rate cuts China off from the US market completely and there’s no market for any of those goods and services elsewhere, the NPV of not complying with American demands for China is a net loss $5.5-30 trillion depending on the cost of money and growth expectations. That’s roughly twice the size of China’s current annual GDP on the high end of the range. For scale, US current debt is $36 trillion.

Ostensibly, 100% import tariffs are not a deterrent for China if the net gain of undollaring is much more than $30 trillion. Here’s my back of the envelope calculation (very crude of course, just to get a ballpark idea of what’s at stake): take US GDP, discount it at current cost of capital and assume that half of that amount would be done in currencies other than USD, i.e. the greenback will lose 50% of its current share of trade: $27.72T/4.28%×0.5=$324T. 

So very simple math reveals that even if alternative currencies can take 5% of the US dollar’s share in the long run at the cost of not having any access to the American market, the upside makes it worth doing even for China.

This gives us an idea of what Trump’s team should be thinking about. But we have to ask ourselves if they are truly aware of this logic. Since Trump’s election, every pundit and most informed citizens are speculating about which of his campaign promises and boast he will attempt to put into practice and what the consequences might be, especially for Americans. We mustn’t discount the fact that politicians who are well aware of the long-term logic of their policies still act exclusively on the basis of short-term electoral logic. For decades, this has become the pattern for crafting foreign policy by all US administrations, with the result of an endless series of expensive but fruitless wars.

The logical conclusion on that score is that most of the Beltway establishment is convinced that the best way to preserve the hegemony of “the indispensable nation” is to ensure that the rest of the world is in a permanent state of chaos. From my own European perspective, I can attest to the efficacy of such an attitude as it affects Washington’s closest allies, whose economies are in a tailspin and its political leadership has proven itself bankrupt. Just as an example, my own country, France, is without a government since 10 am today.

One last note to keep the roulette wheel spinning: as I’m writing this the price of bitcoin has reached $103,600. A reason cited by some is the perceived friendliness to crypto of certain members of Trump’s team. This includes the anticipated approval of spot Bitcoin ETFs. Bitcoin is perceived by others as a hedge against inflation and geopolitical uncertainties.

We will continue to follow the evolution of all these factors as today’s dramatic episodes continue to develop.

Join the debate

Money Matters…, is dedicated to developing this discussion and involving all interested parties.

We invite all of you who have something to contribute to send us your reflections at dialogue@fairobserver.com. We will integrate your insights into the ongoing debate. We will publish them as articles or as part of the ongoing dialogue.

*[Fair Observer’s “Crucible of Collaboration” is meant to be a space in which multiple voices can be heard, comparing and contrasting their opinions and insights in the interest of deepening and broadening our understanding of complex topics.]

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

The post FO° Crucible: Money Matters in a Multipolar World, Part 14 appeared first on Fair Observer.

The agreement is based on the terms of United Nations Security Council resolution 1701, which ended the previous Israeli assault on Lebanon in 2006. The truce will be enforced by 5,000 to 10,000 Lebanese troops and the UN’s 10,000-strong United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) peacekeeping force, which has operated in that area since 1978 and includes troops from 46 countries.

The truce has broad international support, including from Iran and Gaza’s Hamas leaders. Israel and Hezbollah were apparently glad to take a break from a war that had become counterproductive for them both. Effective resistance prevented Israeli forces from advancing far into Lebanon, and they were inflicting mostly senseless death and destruction on civilians, as in Gaza, but without the genocidal motivation of that campaign.

People all over Lebanon have welcomed the relief from Israeli bombing, the destruction of their towns and neighborhoods and thousands of casualties. In the Lebanese capital of Beirut, people have started returning to their homes.

In the south, the Israeli military has warned residents on both sides of the border not to return yet. It has declared a new buffer zone (which was not part of the truce agreement) that includes 60 villages north of the border, and has warned that it will attack Lebanese civilians who return to that area. Despite these warnings, thousands of displaced people have been returning to south Lebanon, often to find their homes and villages in ruins.

Many people returning to the south still proudly display the yellow flags of Hezbollah. A flag flying over the ruins of the Lebanese city of Tyre has the words, “Made in the USA,” written across it. This is a reminder that the Lebanese people know very well who made the bombs that have killed and maimed thousands of them.

The truce’s success seems unlikely

There are already many reports of ceasefire violations. Israel shot and wounded two journalists soon after the truce went into effect. Then two days after the ceasefire began, Israel attacked five towns near the border with tanks, fired artillery across the border and conducted airstrikes on southern Lebanon. On December 2, as a UN peacekeeper told CNN that Israel had violated the truce “roughly a hundred times,” Hezbollah finally retaliated with mortar fire in the disputed Shebaa Farms area. Israel responded with heavier strikes on two villages, killing 11 people.

An addendum to the truce agreement granted Israel the right to strike at will whenever it believes Hezbollah is violating the truce, giving it what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called “complete military freedom of action,” which makes this a precarious and one-sided peace at best.

The prospect for a full withdrawal of both Israeli and Hezbollah forces in 60 days seems slim. Hezbollah has built large weapons stockpiles in the south that it will not want to abandon. Netanyahu himself has warned that the truce “can be short.”

Then there is the danger of confrontation between Hezbollah and the Lebanese military, raising the specter of Lebanon’s bloody civil war, which killed an estimated 150,000 people between 1975 and 1990. 

So violence could flare up into full-scale war again at any time, making it unlikely that many Israelis will return to homes near the border with Lebanon, Israel’s original publicly stated purpose for the war.

The truce agreement was brokered by the United States and France, and signed by the European Union, Australia, Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. France was a colonial power in Lebanon and still plays a leading role in UNIFIL, yet Israel initially rejected France as a negotiating partner. It seems to have accepted France’s role only when French President Emmanuel Macron’s government agreed not to enforce the International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant against Netanyahu if he comes to France.

The United Kingdom also signed the original truce proposal on November 25, but doesn’t appear to have signed the final agreement. The UK seems to have withdrawn from the negotiations under US and Israeli pressure because, unlike France, its new Labour government has publicly stated that it will comply with the ICC arrest warrants against Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Gallant. However, it has not explicitly said it would arrest them.

Netanyahu justified the truce to his own people by saying that it will allow Israeli forces to focus on Gaza and Iran, and only die-hard “Security” Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir voted against the truce in the Israeli cabinet.

While there were hopes that the truce in Lebanon might set the stage for a ceasefire in Gaza, Israel’s actions on the ground tell a different story. Satellite images show Israel carrying out new mass demolitions of hundreds of buildings in northern Gaza to build a new road or boundary between Gaza City and North Gaza. This may be a new border to separate the northernmost 17% of Gaza from the rest of the Gaza Strip, so Israel can expel its people and prevent them from returning, hand North Gaza over to Israeli settlers and squeeze the desperate, starving survivors into an even smaller area than before.

Syria complicates the conflict

And for all who had hopes that the ceasefire in Lebanon might lead to a regional de-escalation, those hopes were dashed in Syria when, on the very day of the truce, the rebel group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) launched a surprise offensive. HTS was formerly the al-Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front. It rebranded itself and severed its formal link to al-Qaeda in 2016 to avoid becoming a prime target in the US war in Syria, but the US still brands it a terrorist group.

By December 1, HTS managed to seize control of Syria’s second largest city, Aleppo, forcing the Syrian Arab Army and its Russian allies onto the defensive. With Russian and Syrian jets bombing rebel-held territory, the surge in fighting has raised the prospect of another violent, destabilizing front reopening in the Middle East.

This may also be a prelude to an escalation of attacks on Syria by Israel, which has already attacked Syria more than 220 times since October 2023, with Israeli airstrikes and artillery bombardments killing at least 296 people.

The new HTS offensive most likely has covert US support, and may impact US President-elect Donald Trump’s reported intention to withdraw the 900 US troops still based in Syria. It may also impact his nomination of Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence. Gabbard is a longtime critic of US support for al-Qaeda-linked factions in Syria, so the new HTS offensive sets the stage for an explosive confirmation hearing, which may backfire on Syria hawks in Washington if Gabbard is allowed to make her case.

Arab and Muslim state strategies

Elsewhere in the region, Israel’s genocide in Gaza and war on its neighbors have led to widespread anti-Israel and anti-US resistance.

Where the US was once able to buy off Arab rulers with weapons deals and military alliances, the Arab and Muslim world is coalescing around a position that sees Israel’s behavior as unacceptable and Iran as a threatened neighbor rather than an enemy. Unconditional US support for Israel risks permanently downgrading US relations with former allies, from Iraq, Jordan and Egypt to Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Yemen’s Ansar Allah (or Houthi) government has maintained a blockade of the Red Sea, using missiles and drones against Israeli-linked ships heading for the Israeli port of Eilat or the Suez Canal. The Yemenis have defeated a US-led naval task force sent to break the blockade and have reduced shipping through the Suez Canal by at least two-thirds, forcing shipping companies to reroute most ships all the way around Africa. The port of Eilat filed for bankruptcy in July, after only one ship docked there in several months.

Other resistance forces have conducted attacks on US military bases in Iraq, Syria and Jordan, and US forces have retaliated in a low-grade tit-for-tat war. The Iraqi government has strongly condemned U.S. and Israeli attacks on its soil as violations of its sovereignty. Attacks on US bases in Iraq and Syria have flared up again in recent months, while Iraqi resistance forces have also launched drone attacks on Israel.

An emergency meeting of the Arab League in Cairo, Egypt on November 26 voted unanimously to support Iraq and condemn Israeli threats. US–Iraqi talks in September drew up a plan for hundreds of US troops to leave Iraq in 2025 and for all 2,500 to be gone within two years. The US has outmaneuvered previous withdrawal plans, but the days of these very unwelcome US bases must surely be numbered.

Recent meetings of Arab and Muslim states have forged a growing sense of unity around a rejection of US proposals for normalization of relations with Israel and a new solidarity with Palestine and Iran. At a meeting of Islamic nations in Riyadh on November 11, Saudi crown prince Mohammed Bin-Salman publicly called the Israeli massacre in Gaza a genocide for the first time.

Arab and Muslim countries know that Trump may act unpredictably and that they need a stable common position to avoid becoming pawns to him or Netanyahu. They recognize that previous divisions left them vulnerable to US and Israeli exploitation, which contributed to the current crisis in Palestine and the risk of a major regional war that now looms over them.

On November 29, Saudi and Western officials told Reuters that Saudi Arabia has given up on a new military alliance with the US, which would include normalizing relations with Israel. It is opting for a more limited US weapons deal.

The Saudis had hoped for a treaty that included a US commitment to defend them, like treaties with Japan and South Korea. That would require confirmation by the US Senate, which would demand Saudi recognition of Israel in return. But the Saudis can no longer consider recognizing Israel without a viable plan for Palestinian statehood, which Israel rejects.

On the other hand, Saudi relations with Iran are steadily improving since they restored relations 18 months ago with diplomatic help from China and Iraq. At a meeting with new Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian in Qatar on October 3, Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal Bin Farhan declared, “We seek to close the page of differences between the two countries forever and work towards the resolution of our issues and expansion of our relations like two friendly and brotherly states.”

Prince Faisal highlighted the “very sensitive and critical” situation in the region due to Israel’s “aggressions” against Gaza and Lebanon and its attempts to expand the conflict. He said Saudi Arabia trusted Iran’s “wisdom and discernment” in managing the situation to restore calm and peace.

The ball is in Trump’s court

If Saudi Arabia and its neighbors can make peace with Iran, what will the consequences be for Israel’s illegal, genocidal occupation of Palestine, which has been enabled and encouraged by decades of unconditional US military and diplomatic support?

On December 2, Trump wrote on Truth Social that if the hostages were not released by the time of his inauguration, there would be “ALL HELL TO PAY in the Middle East.” “Those responsible,” he warned, “will be hit harder than anybody has been hit in the long and storied History of the United States of America.”

Trump and many of his acolytes exemplify the Western arrogance and lust for imperial power that lies at the root of this crisis. More threats and more destruction are not the answer. Trump has had good relations with the dictatorial rulers of the Gulf states, with whom he shares much in common. If he is willing to listen, he will realize, as they do, that there is no solution to this crisis without freedom, self-determination and sovereignty in their own land for the people of Palestine. That is the path to peace, if he will take 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 Truce in Lebanon: Can Diplomacy Rise from the Ruins? appeared first on Fair Observer.

On September 25, 2024, Democratic representative Steven Horsford introduced House Resolution 1500 on the floor of Congress. The resolution was intended to censure Republican Congressman Glen Clay Higgins of Louisiana over a social media post. The post in question amplified false claims made by President-elect Donald Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, that Haitian immigrants were eating pets in Springfield, Ohio. In a post on X responding to an Associated Press article about Haitians in Springfield filing charges against Trump and Vance, Higgins wrote: “Lol. These Haitians are wild. Eating pets, vudu, nastiest country in the western hemisphere, cults, slapstick gangsters… but damned if they don’t feel all sophisticated now, filing charges against our President and VP.”

He continued: “All these thugs better get their mind right and their ass out of our country before January 20th.” Higgins later deleted the post, but the damage was done. Condemnations flooded in, followed by the resolution to censure the congressman.

Such comments and lies reflect the worst white supremacist stereotypes about Haiti and Haitians. Broadly, anti-Haitianism consists of actions, beliefs, outcomes, policies, political strategies and practices that reify the negative connotations associated with blackness and Haitian identity. Trump and Vance both used the admittedly false anti-Haitian rumor as a form of anti-black, anti-immigrant fear mongering to garner political support.

Examples of such strategies abound. In September 2021, for instance, United States Border Patrol agents appeared to whip Haitians in Del Rio, Texas amid a crackdown at the border. This resulted in the largest mass expulsion of asylum seekers in recent US history. Between January 2021 and February 2022, the US expelled or deported over 20,000 Haitians. During the same period, more than 5,000 Haitians were deported from other countries, about half of them from the Bahamas.

Anti-Haitianism, of course, is not limited to the US. It is a regional and hemispheric phenomenon. Within scholarly and informed circles, the best known example of this form of political domination, marginalization, racism and anti-blackness is in the Dominican Republic. In his study of race and politics, Professor Ernesto Sagás analyzes how Dominican political elites use race and antihaitianismo to “construct national myths and then use these myths to stymie challenges to their hegemony.”

As Sagás explores, the national myth underlying Dominican statehood was that the Dominican Republic was the most Spanish colony in the so-called New World. After Haiti’s occupation of Santo Domingo from 1822 to 1844 — which liberated enslaved people, guaranteed Haitian freedom and independence and culminated in Dominican independence — the Dominican Republic solidified its distance from blackness and Haitian identity. Antihaitianismo then developed as an ideology based on anti-black prejudices, stereotypes and myths about Haitians and people of Haitian descent. Antihaitianismo, Sagás writes, scapegoats Haitians for problems within Dominican society and considers Haitians to be culturally and racially inferior black sub-humans.

Dominican society violently displayed antihaitianismo in the 1937 genocidal massacre of tens of thousands of Haitians at the orders of Dominican dictator Rafael Trujillo. In 2013, the country’s highest court issued a ruling, locally known simply as la sentencia, that not only upheld a constitutional amendment that abolished birthright citizenship but retroactively stripped the citizenship of more than 200,000 black Dominicans of Haitian descent, rendering them stateless. Beginning in 2015, tens of thousands were forced out of the country. Now, Dominican President Luis Abinader has announced plans for a new round of mass deportations.

“A certain kind of Black”

In my book project, Anti-Haitianism in Paradise: Marginalization, Stigma, and Anti-Blackness in the Bahamas, part of the Black Lives and Liberation series from Vanderbilt University Press, I build on Sagás’s work and use anti-Haitianism to articulate the unique form of oppression Haiti and people of Haitian descent experience. In other words, I am wresting the idea and reality of anti-Haitianism in the Dominican Republic, applying it to varying social contexts and broadening the theory to explain what anthropologist Gina Athena Ulysse — in reference to the racist treatment and degradation of Haitians in other parts of the world — refers to as “the rejection of a certain kind of Black.”

The Bahamas, a small, predominantly black Caribbean archipelago nation, has a history of anti-Haitian actions. Haitians have migrated to the Bahamas since the era of the Haitian Revolution (1791–1803). Yet on November 9, 2019, members of a Bahamian nationalist group called Operation Sovereign Bahamas protested outside a gymnasium housing hundreds of victims of Hurricane Dorian. Starting on September 1, 2019, the devastating Category 5 hurricane hovered over Grand Bahama for 24 hours, flooded much of the island and mostly submerged the Abaco Islands, rendering these areas uninhabitable. Haitians who had been living in informal settlements in Abaco faced displacement.

Two months later, the Operation Sovereign Bahamas demonstrators called on the Bahamian government to evict the displaced people taking shelter at the gymnasium. “The Bahamas is for Bahamians,” the group’s founder, Adrian Francis, said, according to Bahamian news service Eyewitness News. Other members of the group held Bahamian flags and shouted at evacuees, presumably of Haitian descent, “Go home!,” “Repatriation!” and “We want you out of our country!” This scene came after the same civic group had held a well-attended town hall meeting on October 4, 2019 in New Providence, Bahamas titled, “Eradicating Illegal Immigrants in the Bahamas, Shanty Towns Down.”

Cyclical white supremacy

Anti-Haitianism operates as an ideology rooted in anti-blackness, nationalism, political domination and marginalization. We can also see anti-Haitianism expressed as a set of practices. But what is the relationship between antihaitianismo in the Dominican Republic and anti-Haitianism in the Bahamas? As in the US, political elites in both nations use anti-Haitianism as a strategy, suggesting that both African-descended nations are structurally anti-Haitian. When black Dominicans of Haitian descent were forced to leave the Dominican Republic in 2015 due to la sentencia, it was partly done by the party in power to garner political capital.

Another dimension of anti-Haitianism is that these nations express and exert their sovereignty through anti-blackness. In the wake of Hurricane Dorian, the Bahamas repatriated 228 Haitian migrants, 153 of whom had lived in hurricane-ravaged Abaco. Many Haitian residents there lived in informal settlements, locally called shanty towns, and had work permits that granted them legal status in the country.

When majority black nations assert their sovereignty through anti-Haitianism, they extend the spirit of white supremacy and anti-blackness, traditions previously exerted on the ancestors of Bahamians and Dominicans through slavery. These cycles also expose the cyclical nature of white supremacy and the durability of anti-blackness.

Anti-Haitianism in hemispheric perspective

Reflecting its hemispheric dimensions, anti-Haitianism has also developed into an important type of anti-blackness informing other types of blackness within nations in North America, the Caribbean and South America. Regine O. Jackson’s 2011 book, Geographies of the Haitian Diaspora, discusses how Haitian migrants and their progeny have served in the past and present as repugnant cultural “others” in relation to the citizens of Jamaica, Guadeloupe and Cuba.

In the wake of the 2010 earthquake, a United Nations-introduced cholera outbreak in Haiti claimed nearly 10,000 lives and adversely affected more than 820,000 people. The UN remains unaccountable and unpunished for this human rights catastrophe. In addition, much earthquake aid did not go to Haitians but to donors’ own civilian and military entities, UN agencies, international non-governmental organizations and private contractors. This suggests that humanitarian aid can be wielded as an anti-Haitian weapon.

And in Brazil, scholars Denise Cogo and Terezinha Silva have observed the racist treatment of Haitians who were encouraged to migrate the country in the post-earthquake period to work as laborers ahead of the 2016 Olympics. The adverse experiences of Haitians in Brazil — home to the largest black population in the Americas — expose the linkages between labor extraction, anti-blackness and anti-Haitianism.

Anti-Haitianism also serves other purposes within these examples, such as identity construction. The peoples of the Bahamas, Brazil, the Dominican Republic and other countries construct their identities as superior in relation to Haitian identities, producing anti-Haitian outcomes. The fact that Haitians have still not been compensated by the UN for cholera-related illness and death, and that the people who caused the epidemic have not been punished through Haitian or international law, reflects how Haitian lives are considered expendable and unworthy of justice.

While we must consider differences in the local histories, socioeconomic conditions and political situations of the Bahamas, Brazil, the Dominican Republic and elsewhere, a clear anti-Haitian pattern emerges in the wake of the 2010 earthquake. This pattern, which displays in the news and scholarly publications, involves alienation, death, expulsion, elimination, humiliation, marginalization and stigmatization.

While these majority black nations are subject to anti-blackness, all these countries promote a unique form of anti-blackness that specifically adversely affects Haitians. This should remind us that all that is black is not the same type of black, reflecting hierarchical and differentiated blackness.

Anti-Haitianism is, in other words, an expression of a rejection of the blackest of the black — a revolutionary blackness that demands freedom, equality and dignity, but remains collectively punished and stigmatized.

[The Independent Media Institute produced this piece in partnership with the North American Congress on Latin America (NACLA).]

[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 Anti-Haitianism: A Hemispheric Rejection of Revolutionary Blackness appeared first on Fair Observer.

Despite his status as a kind of celebrity among living figure painters, I always felt that something was wrong with his art. Photos of his work often look cold and jagged, and his figures are disquieting and uncomfortable to look at. It is not that I ever disliked Kanevsky’s paintings; in fact, quite the opposite. I always enjoyed them, especially the buttery appearance of some of his kitchen still lifes.

However, upon getting a closer look at his work, I realized I had completely missed small details that make his paintings soft and pleasant. Photos simply do not do his paintings justice. Even high-quality photographs of his work do not capture the colors, textures, brushstrokes and physicality of his paint. These qualities bring life to images that look hard and robotic in photos.

The limits of photographs

Some of Kanevsky’s work, especially his still life paintings, are not disrupted by random shapes, scenes from another setting sharply interposed into the space or other white noise. These paintings are more solid and blocky, reminding me of the celebrated British painter Euan Uglow, who constructed his paintings more tightly than Kanevsky.

Before seeing Kanevsky’s work in person, I had associated him more closely with Uglow. The softness of his paintings never fully came through in photographs. The most unsettling aspect of my previous photo-mediated perception of Kanevsky was the vector-like way he seemed to paint skin — it felt uncomfortable but reminded me of Uglow’s figures. However, in person, I discovered granular details, fine brushwork and delicate transitions between shapes in the skin of his models. These were details I hadn’t noticed before.

Photography gave many artists and art lovers the unprecedented ability to view great art at home through art books and, later, the Internet. Unlimited access to the medium is one of the great luxuries of modern life. However, this access took us away from the experience of viewing art with our own eyes. Is it really a good thing that we have a different experience at home than at a gallery or museum where we can see the work before us? How do we even know what we are missing? Do viewers of art books and scrollers of art accounts on social media ever feel compelled to go out to see art in person?

Betty Cunningham Gallery recently opened the online show, The Wound is the Place the Light Enters, which showcases artist Jake Berthot’s drawings and paintings. The show’s online nature highlights the drawbacks of digital viewing. The exhibition is underwhelming because of the small size and low quality of the images. This does a disservice to these mysterious artworks. Fortunately, photos of Berthot’s work that are much higher-quality can be found elsewhere on the Internet, and of course, in-person viewing would be more captivating. I hope the deficiencies of online exhibitions are enough to make them hangovers of the post-Covid-19 era.

The case for viewing art in person

In our post-Covid-19 world, our soft skills remain rusty and our individual online media experiences envelope us. So, a benefit of going out to galleries and museums is the in-person experience so many of us are missing. One of the greatest pleasures of visiting a gallery is meeting the artists.

I met Kanevsky. Speaking with him was an absolute pleasure. He displayed humility and humor (made more enjoyable by his Russian accent) about his place in art history and the admiration he receives from many figure painting students. Unsurprisingly, he does not work from photographs.

I also ran into a former professor and New York art critic at the show. My opinion of Kanevsky’s art was changing right before my eyes as I absorbed new visual data; I had to share my insights with this critic. He believed that the flourishes, decorations and ornamentation that fundamentally changed my view of Kanevsky’s paintings were the primary problem with his work. He thought these elements were like a cheap garnish that decorated the paintings.

This disagreement is a matter of taste, clearly. I found these embellishments attractive, tasteful and sophisticated. I would have never come to this conclusion if I had not shown up in person and engaged in the tradition of “close looking” at Kanevsky’s work.

Viewing art is a communal experience

We humans are unique in our desire to reflect life in images. Like nearly all our activities, viewing art is more pleasurable when it is a communal experience. The stunning mosques, cathedrals and other temples that dot the Earth are spaces where communities gather; something that unites them is that they are adorned with beautiful images, ornaments and calligraphy.

I am not arguing that galleries and museums are secular temples. However, imagine the intimacy people would miss if they merely sat alone to look at photos of breathtaking spaces, such as Notre Dame or St. Peter’s Basilica, instead of visiting them in person. Kanevsky’s paintings, like all sacred spaces and great art, demand physical presence to achieve a desired aesthetic effect that photographs cannot provide.

[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 Review: What Changed My Mind About Alex Kanevsky 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.

But mental health issues were not ascribed to a now-infamous unnamed mother from Cheshire, England. This woman trapped her baby in an underbed drawer for nearly three years, keeping her alive by feeding her with a milky breakfast cereal through a syringe. She afforded her child no medical care or proper food and did not permit her to leave the drawer for long periods. The woman had other children apart from this one; the number of children and their ages were not disclosed.

The hidden child was discovered only by accident, when the mother’s partner used the bathroom and heard noises in her bedroom. The child was suffering from malnutrition, dehydration and a cleft palate.

When questioned, the mother revealed that the baby girl had been born in a bathtub at her home in March 2020. She didn’t tell the father, as they had an abusive relationship. Instead, she kept the baby a secret from him and the authorities. So, the child was never provided with medical attention nor even registered at a register office. There was no legal record of the birth. Perhaps the most chilling court testimony came from a caregiver now looking after the child who said the three-year-old girl, once recovered, had needed to be taught to smile and “didn’t know what food was.”

The court’s neglected options

The woman’s defense attorney claimed her mental health, a volatile relationship with the abusive father and the Covid-19 lockdown had combined to create an “exceptional set of circumstances.” Regardless, the court sentenced her to seven-and-a-half years in prison.

Under Section 37 of the UK’s Mental Health Act 1983, if a defendant is found to be suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the offense, they can be sentenced to hospitalization rather than prison. The court might have sent the defendant to a secure psychiatric hospital if it deemed her unfit for a prison environment due to her mental condition. There were other options.

In England, if the court determines that a defendant’s mental health issues are present but not severe, it may issue what’s called a Mental Health Treatment Requirement. This order permits the individual to receive psychiatric treatment and supervision while living in the community, rather than serving a prison sentence. In some exceptional cases, the defendant can be found not guilty by reason of insanity if they are considered to have a mental disorder that prevented them from understanding the nature or consequences of their actions at the commission of the crime. This is not the same as having a mental health condition because it suggests an inability to comprehend the criminality of their actions.

None of these options were taken. The verdict’s implication is that the court considered the woman to be of sound mind, in possession of her faculties and had the capacity to think clearly. This strikes me as, in its own way, every bit as bewildering as the woman’s horrifyingly transgressive behavior. At a time in history when celebrities habitually claim to suffer anxiety, distress and miscellaneous other ailments associated with mental illness and are readily believed, how is it possible to conclude the woman is compos mentis (having control of one’s mind)?

Scant evidence shows the woman’s motivation. During an interview with police, she said she had not known she had been pregnant and was “really scared” of giving birth. Remember, she already had children. She added that the underbed drawer was never closed and that the child did not remain in it at all times. But the girl was “not part of the family.” Puzzlingly, none of her other children reported the extraordinary presence of the child in the drawer.

Comparable cases

As uniquely grotesque as this case is, it resembles several other instances of extreme cruelty, the most notorious being in Amstetten, Austria in 2008. In this gruesome case, Josef Fritzl kept his daughter Elisabeth locked in a cellar from age 18 to 42. During her time in captivity, Fritzl raped her thousands of times, fathering seven children with her. Fritzl was jailed for life by a court in 2009, but he spent the time in a psychiatric institution until 2024, when he was diagnosed with dementia.

That’s not all. David and Louise Turpin abused their 13 children at their home in Perris, California. The couple was exposed in 2018 when one child, 17-year-old Jordan Turpin, escaped and called the police. They pleaded guilty of torture and were sentenced to life in prison. There was no indication that the court found the parents to be suffering from significant mental health issues that would have mitigated their sentences.

Cases of cruelty to children by parents and stepparents are grimly repetitious. Ten-month-old Finley Boden was murdered by his parents, Stephen Boden and Shannon Marsden, in Chesterfield, Derbyshire in 2020. Eleven-year-old Roman Lopez was tortured and killed by his stepmother in Placerville, California, also in 2020.

In 2021, a 17-year-old girl was discovered in Floreat, Western Australia and admitted to Perth Children’s Hospital in Nedlands. She was severely malnourished, infantilized and kept captive by her parents, both female. The girl weighed under 62 lbs, well below the healthy parameters for a young woman of her age: 105–150 lbs. The girl was homeschooled and allowed limited interaction with peers at dance school. The parents will undergo psychological assessments before sentencing in January 2025. 

Sources of mental illness

All these cases elicit our incredulity. It’s difficult to believe let alone understand behavior that causes pain and sustained suffering to children from the very people who bore them. Explaining it in terms of the social circumstances of the torturers and killers is a tall assignment. However, we can sometimes discern patterns of intimate partner violence, coercive control and other kinds of domestic abuse, compounded by relative cultural deprivation and the failure of care organizations.

These are the kind of social conditions under which mental illness develops. Dysfunctional families, traumatic events, convulsions and conflicts are all potential triggers. Mental health maladaptation has its source in circumstances, but it manifests in a way that demands a particular response. Locking people up is a crude rejoinder.

In other words, mental illness, disorder or, to fall back on today’s favored term, issues, have their origins in social experiences. But they express themselves in thoughts and actions that persuade us they are purely individual properties. Perversely perhaps, mental illness often coexists with a rationality: People who harm or kill children typically employ manipulation, intimidation and isolation, all of which require some degree of planning and consideration of what’s likely to happen in the future. The perpetrators mentioned so far and, indeed, all other known or unknown child tormentors and killers behave in accordance with reason and even logic. This does not mean they are mentally well: They are not. They do have mental problems.

This should make us reflect when we say, “mental health issues.” Obviously, this is a kaleidoscopic term, not a description of a single malady. It is a constantly changing pattern or sequence of experiences and states. Describing perpetrators of violent crimes against children as “monsters” is trite and misleading. Their actions may appear inhumanly cruel and violate every known assumption we harbor about loving filial relationships. But they are unmistakably, harrowingly human and betray facets of family life we prefer to deny.

Every way I think about the hideous case at the center of this piece, I arrive at the conclusion that the woman, now presumably serving her seven-and-a-half years in prison, is not mentally well. And I mean genuinely. Her punishment seems more of a sacrifice than corrective or reparative action. 

We blithely use mental health issues to describe the relatively mild discomforts of celebrities yet avoid applying it to people who clearly are mentally unwell and often in dire need of treatment. My argument in no way removes the woman’s actions from what they are: abhorrent, sickening and unutterably loathsome. This should not preclude recognition that the perpetrator is afflicted nor closer examination of the sources of her affliction.

[Ellis Cashmore’s “The Destruction and Creation of Michael Jackson” is published by Bloomsbury.]

[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 What Happens When We Ignore Genuine Mental Illness? 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.

Instead of focusing on how different forms of intelligence are built, interact and produce meaning, our politicians and media appear to have unanimously decided that the purpose of AI is to provide facts. Therefore, critical thinking applied to AI boils down to one unique concern: making sure it sticks to the facts. Listening to these voices could lead us to believe that if everything stated is factual, we access truth and understanding. But do we really appreciate what we mean by “truth” and “understanding?”

It occurred to me that if we examine our own natural languages — the same ones we have asked our AI engines to learn — we might discover that the “fact-based” approach is misleading and possibly risky to our own mental health. With this in mind, I offered the following prompt to ChatGPT:

“English is a Germanic language. What is the etymological relationship between the verb ‘understand’ in English and ‘verstehen’ in German? They clearly represent a similar concept.

Compare this with Romance languages that grew from Latin. ‘Comprendre’ in French derives from the Latin concept of taking together, which seems to hint at the idea of assembling an insight out of a diversity of perceptions. The Italian word ‘capire’ reflects the idea of taking or capturing, which also suggests processing perception. What conclusions might we draw about human intelligence that can produce understanding from the etymology of these words?”

“The etymological differences between ‘understand,’ ‘verstehen,’ ‘comprendre,’ and ‘capire’ offer fascinating insights into how different linguistic and cultural traditions conceptualize the process of gaining insight or knowledge. These words reflect different metaphors for what it means to comprehend something. Here’s a breakdown of their origins and the conclusions we might draw about human intelligence:

1. English: ‘Understand’

• Etymology:
  ‘Understand’ comes from Old English understandan, meaning ‘to stand in the midst of’ or ‘stand among.’ The prefix under- here doesn’t mean ‘below’ but rather conveys a sense of ‘among’ or ‘between,’ while standan means ‘to stand.’
• Metaphor:
  The word suggests a process of standing within or among a set of ideas, implying a relational and immersive approach to grasping meaning. It highlights a sense of positioning oneself to gain insight from all sides.

2. German: ‘Verstehen’

• Etymology:
  ‘Verstehen’ comes from the prefix ver- (which can imply completeness or thoroughness) and stehen (to stand). It means to ‘stand before’ or ‘stand in relation to.’
• Metaphor:
  Like ‘understand,’ verstehen emphasizes an active positioning, suggesting that comprehension involves aligning oneself with the object of knowledge.

3. French: ‘Comprendre’

• Etymology:
  ‘Comprendre’ comes from Latin comprehendere, meaning ‘to grasp together.’ Com- means ‘together,’ and prehendere means ‘to seize’ or ‘grasp.’
• Metaphor:
  This metaphor focuses on assembling or gathering insights from different sources, highlighting synthesis and integration as key to understanding.

4. Italian: ‘Capire’

• Etymology:
  ‘Capire’ derives from Latin capere, meaning ‘to take’ or ‘seize.’
• Metaphor:
  This word emphasizes the act of capturing or seizing knowledge, suggesting an active, sometimes forceful, acquisition of understanding.

Conclusions About Human Intelligence:

1. Relational and Immersive Understanding (English, German):
   • The metaphors in ‘understand’ and ‘verstehen’ suggest that human intelligence involves positioning oneself within a context or system of ideas. This reflects the cognitive process of situating knowledge within a broader framework and recognizing relationships among concepts.
2. Synthesis and Integration (French):
   • The concept of ‘gathering’ or ‘assembling’ in comprendre highlights the human ability to synthesize disparate elements into a coherent whole. Understanding, in this view, involves constructing meaning from multiple inputs, akin to pattern recognition.
3. Active Acquisition (Italian):
   • The metaphor of ‘seizing’ in capire emphasizes the active nature of understanding. It points to the dynamic, sometimes effortful, engagement with knowledge, underscoring the role of attention, curiosity, and intentionality in learning.
4. Embodied Cognition:
   • The prevalence of metaphors involving physical actions (standing, grasping, capturing) suggests that human intelligence is deeply embodied. Our cognitive processes are often conceptualized through physical experiences, indicating that our minds and bodies work together in understanding the world.

These etymological insights reveal that across cultures, understanding is viewed as an active, relational, and often embodied process. Human intelligence is not just passive reception of information but involves actively positioning, assembling, and engaging with knowledge in dynamic ways. This highlights the importance of context, integration, and agency in the way we make sense of the world.”

“You mentioned two essential notions: ‘positioning oneself within a context or system of ideas’ and the idea that ‘our minds and bodies work together in understanding the world.’ Does this in any way enable us to ‘capture’ or ‘stand among’ the evidence that would tell us AI cannot achieve anything remotely identical with human understanding?”

“The two notions you highlighted—’positioning oneself within a context’ and ‘embodied cognition’ —offer profound insights into the nature of human understanding and can indeed help us evaluate whether AI can replicate it. Let’s examine this in light of what human understanding entails and how AI differs.

1. Positioning Within a Context: Human Understanding as Relational and Contextual

– Human Insight:

Human understanding often arises from contextualizing ideas within a web of relationships—personal experience, cultural background, emotions, and social dynamics. This positioning is dynamic and subjective, shaped by values, intentions, and purpose. We engage in meaning-making that integrates not just facts but also relevance and significance.

– AI’s Capabilities:

AI can process vast amounts of data, detect patterns, and generate outputs based on statistical correlations. However, it lacks the ability to **situate** itself meaningfully within a context. AI operates based on predefined algorithms and training data but cannot **experience** context. It processes but does not interpret in a subjective or purposive sense.

– Conclusion:

Without the ability to **position itself** meaningfully within a human-like framework of relevance, AI cannot replicate the deep, relational aspect of human understanding.

2. Embodied Cognition: Minds and Bodies Working Together

– **Human Insight:**

Human cognition is deeply embodied. Our physical experiences—sensations, emotions, movements—shape how we think and understand. Concepts like balance, grasping, and standing are not just metaphors but rooted in bodily experiences. Moreover, human intelligence integrates emotional and sensory feedback to create a **lived** understanding of the world.

– **AI’s Capabilities:**

AI, as it exists today, operates disembodied. While some AI systems (e.g., robots) have sensors and actuators, they do not have **subjective experiences** of the body. AI can simulate actions but does not **feel** them. It lacks emotions, intuition, and the sensory richness that humans use to ground abstract concepts.

– **Conclusion:**

The absence of embodiment in AI means it cannot replicate the rich, experiential basis of human understanding. Embodied cognition is essential for developing concepts that resonate with lived experience.

3. Implications for Human-Like Understanding in AI

– Human Understanding:

§  Involves meaning-making, shaped by purpose, emotions, and social interactions.

§  Is relational, contextual, and embodied.

§  Engages with the world in a way that synthesizes facts, values, and lived experience.

– AI Understanding (or Lack Thereof):

§  AI can mimic certain cognitive functions (pattern recognition, logical inference, language generation).

§  Lacks agency, intention, and the subjective experience necessary for genuine understanding.

§  Cannot position itself within a human context or draw on embodied knowledge.

Can We ‘Capture’ Evidence of AI’s Limitations?

Yes, the very ‘conceptual framework’ of positioning and embodiment provides compelling evidence that AI cannot achieve human-like understanding. AI’s outputs are computational and symbolic rather than lived and experiential. While AI can simulate understanding (e.g., generating coherent text), it fundamentally lacks the **intentional, embodied, and contextual nature** of human cognition.

Thus, human intelligence’s essence lies in ‘being situated’—physically, emotionally, and socially—in the world. AI, operating without these dimensions, cannot engage in the kind of meaning-making that defines true understanding. This gap suggests that while AI may augment human capabilities, it is unlikely to achieve anything ‘identical’ to human understanding without profound changes in how it relates to context and embodiment.”

“One last thought and then we can develop this idea later. This short dialogue demonstrates to me how productively complementary human and artificial intelligence can be. The initial question in the above dialogue is the fruit of my experience of the world and my activity as a journalist. Your input has enriched my ‘understanding’ of questions I was asking myself. So here’s my last question to you for this session. Would agree to continue to explore how we are managing to extend understanding through this kind of dialogue? Although I know you will agree, I don’t want you to develop these ideas now. That can wait. I just want to know in one or two sentences why you think continuing our dialogue to explore might be a good idea possibly and an example for our mutual education.”

“Continuing our dialogue allows us to combine human experience and curiosity with AI’s ability to synthesize diverse perspectives, fostering a collaborative space where both can contribute to deeper insights and mutual learning.”

Your thoughts

Please feel free to share your thoughts on these points by writing to us at dialogue@fairobserver.com. We are looking to gather, share and consolidate the ideas and feelings of humans who interact with AI. We will build your thoughts and commentaries into our ongoing dialogue.

*[Artificial Intelligence is rapidly becoming a feature of everyone’s daily life. We unconsciously perceive it either as a friend or foe, a helper or destroyer. At Fair Observer, we see it as a tool of creativity, capable of revealing the complex relationship between humans and machines.]

[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 Outside the Box: AI and the Tyranny of Fact-Checking 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.

Individuals with mental illness are often perceived as inherently violent or dangerous. However, according to a 2021 study by the American Psychological Association, mental illness alone is not a significant predictor of violence. In fact, those who suffer from mental health issues are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators. Substance abuse, treatment noncompliance or psychotic symptoms such as hallucinations are other factors that increase the risk of violence in individuals with mental health issues.. Furthermore, situational stressors such as job loss and physical illness and environmental factors entailing pollution, heat stress and noise also play crucial roles.

Mental health and the media

The media perpetuates stigma by highlighting rare cases of violence involving mental-health issues, discouraging individuals from seeking help due to fear of being labeled dangerous or unstable, despite most violent acts being committed by those without diagnosed conditions.

Portrayals in media are one of the primary mechanisms by which stereotypes about mental illness and violence are perpetuated through media portrayals. News reports frequently highlight the mental health status of perpetrators following acts of violence, often without substantial evidence. This pattern, often seen in the case of mass shootings, creates a misleading association between mental illness and violence.  This was demonstrated in the case of Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooter. Despite extensive investigations revealing no definitive diagnosis of psychosis, initial media speculation cemented the stereotype in the public’s mind.

Popular media also plays a significant role in reinforcing these stereotypes. Horror films and crime dramas often depict mentally ill characters as violent and dangerous, creating a narrative that those with mental health issues are inherently threatening. This portrayal not only perpetuates fear and misunderstanding but also dehumanizes individuals with mental illness.

In this vein, another factor responsible for the exacerbation of mental health crises is scapegoating. Scapegoating consolidates the persistence of stereotypes about mental illness and violence. By attributing acts of violence to mental illness, society shifts blame away from other contributing factors, such as access to firearms, social inequality and substance abuse. This scapegoating is evident in political and media rhetoric, which often emphasizes mental illness as a primary cause of violence following mass shootings.

Terrorism

After a 2012 shooting at an Aurora, Colorado movie theatre that killed 12 and injured 70, it was discovered that the shooter, James Holmes, was diagnosed with schizophrenia. His lawyers used this diagnosis to argue that he was temporarily insane at the time of the shooting because he was in the throes of a psychotic episode. In a July 31, 2012 article, Time magazine argued that stigmatization can “exacerbate existing symptoms of delusion, disconnection from reality, social withdrawal and lack of emotion,” and could have played a role in Holmes’ actions. 

There is also a commonly voiced belief that terrorists are typically driven by psychopathology or mental disorders, but the link between terrorism and mental health is not straightforward. Some individual terrorists might exhibit signs of psychological disturbances, but terrorists are motivated by ideological beliefs, social and political injustices, group dynamics and individual susceptibilities. Additionally, people with feelings of alienation, need for belonging or identity crises are more susceptible to radicalization. 

These are not necessarily indicative of mental disorders but can overlap with issues such as depression, anxiety or Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Individuals exposed to conflict zones, violence or traumatic events are more likely to suffer from these conditions, which, without proper treatment and support, are sometimes triggers. Terrorist organizations often exploit these people’s vulnerability in recruitment. 

The Relationship between Mental Health Problems and Terrorism, a report by the Centre for Research and Evidence on Security Threats, indicates that mental health disorders are notably prevalent among extremists, including jihadists, foreign fighters and members of white supremacist movements. Common conditions among these groups include schizophrenia, autism spectrum disorder and PTSD. Some evidence suggests that white supremacist groups might specifically recruit individuals with mental health issues due to their potential for violence. However, further investigations are necessary to fully understand the recruitment strategies targeting individuals with mental health problems.

Omar Mateen, the gunman responsible for the 2016 Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, Florida, which resulted in the death of 49 people and wounded 53 others, declared allegiance to the Islamic State during the attack, which was initially labeled as an act of terrorism. However, investigations and subsequent reports revealed a complex picture of Mateen’s motives and mental state. Mateen had a history of behavioral issues and unstable relationships, and some who knew him suggested he might have been struggling with his sexual identity, which was speculated to be a factor given the target was a gay nightclub. His ex-wife also reported that he had bipolar disorder and exhibited erratic behavior, though these claims were not officially confirmed by medical records during the investigation.

The FBI had investigated Mateen twice before the attack but found no conclusive evidence to charge him with any form of terrorism or link him directly to terrorist groups. This case illustrates the difficulty in disentangling the influence of mental health issues from ideological or personal motives in acts that are initially perceived as terrorism. It highlights the complexities involved in determining the exact motivations behind such violent acts and the role mental health may play alongside other significant factors.

Self-harm

Self-harm, often misunderstood as attention-seeking or mislabeled as a suicide attempt, refers to various behaviors where individuals intentionally injure themselves to cope with acute emotional pain. This can include cutting, burning or hitting oneself. These acts are typically not intended as suicide attempts but as a way to relieve intense psychological distress. Studies, such as those highlighted by the American Journal of Psychiatry, indicate that the cost to society from self-harm encompasses not only medical and healthcare expenses but also lost productivity and long-term welfare dependency.

Furthermore, research suggests a complex relationship between self-harm, interpersonal violence and societal impact, revealing that those who self-harm are at a higher risk of also experiencing or perpetrating violence. This connection underscores the profound implications such behaviors have on public health and safety, emphasizing the need for comprehensive mental health interventions and preventive measures.

On a different note, singer and actress Demi Lovato has helped shed light on the issue of self-harm. Lovato, who has publicly discussed her struggles with bipolar disorder, addiction and eating disorders, said she began self-harming as a teenager to cope with emotional pain and feelings of emptiness.  

Therefore, dismantling the deeply entrenched stereotypes that link mental health issues with violence, self-harm and terrorism is crucial for the advancement of informed policy-making. 

By relying on robust research and rejecting simplistic narratives, society can move towards implementing policies that are not only just but are also effective in addressing the root causes of violence and supporting mental health. 

Establishing guidelines for how mental health is portrayed in the media can reduce stigma. Encouraging responsible journalism that avoids sensationalizing mental health-related violence and highlights stories of recovery and successful management of mental health conditions can shift public perception. Collaborations with mental health organizations to create these guidelines can ensure they are comprehensive and effective. 

Moreover, ensuring access to mental health services, especially for those in underserved communities, can prevent untreated mental health issues from escalating. In this vein, expanding mental health services in schools, workplaces and through telehealth can make it easier for individuals to seek help early.

On a concluding note, providing training for law enforcement and first responders on how to handle situations involving individuals with mental health issues can reduce unnecessary violence. Crisis Intervention Team programs have shown effectiveness in this area, equipping officers with the skills to de-escalate situations and connect individuals to appropriate services.

[Ainesh Dey 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 Beyond the Stigma: Understanding Mental Health and Its Complex Relationship with Violence appeared first on Fair Observer.

Not long ago, “artificial” had a negative connotation. “Intelligence” is something we are looking for everywhere, even in outer space. By the amount of money and effort we spend on finding intelligence, we clearly have not seen it yet. Putting blind faith and money in AI exposes our society to a scenario that raises serious questions.

Statistical tools and algorithms apply to large data sets, and we consider the result AI. Statistical theories help make sense of data, assisting AI in its logic and decision-making. In Thinking, Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman, a psychologist, received the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2002 for his research on human judgment and decision-making under uncertainty. He tells us how he slowly discovered that, even among scientists, our views of statistics tend to be biased. This is a polite way of saying that we continuously err in our understanding of statistics.

In the context of knowledge in the discussion, AI employs various methods to comprehend human language, enabling it to replicate human decision-making. Data is information transformed into a format that helps AI understand problems and learn solutions. Intelligence is the ability to analyze a collection of data and determine which pieces of information are significant or relevant. Wisdom is knowing and making the right choice, even in uncertain circumstances. No amount of data or number crunching can change that. Suppose the data points contain any information that needs to be more evident. In that case, we need to analyze the data further to find if this information contains any intelligence, which takes even more analysis. Intelligence is the link between information and decision-making. The result will only show if we display wisdom after making the decision.

The pitfalls of AI

There are solved problems or questions and unsolved problems. “This focus on established knowledge thus prevents us from developing a ‘common culture’ of critical thinking.” Peter Isackson: “Outside the box: Media Literacy, Critical Thinking and AI.” Can AI deliver anything sensible to unsolved problems? 

AI relies on a larger amount of data than what was ever available before. However, more data does not guarantee coming closer to a correct decision. Statistics and algorithms form the basis of AI data manipulation. Statistics refers to data collected from the past. It cannot say anything specific about the outcome of future processes. More data, more of the same, will not generate anything new.

The information content of a system, be it a book, the universe or an LLM, is measured by the behavior of large sets of discrete random variables and is determined by their probability distribution. This is saying in a complicated manner that we are talking about probabilities, not certainties. 1+1 does not necessarily equal 2.

Therefore, AI’s outcome will be mediocre at best. AI will likely have even more trouble separating correlation and causality than humans have. Correlation does not tell us anything about cause and effect. It may seem that way sometimes, but only to an undiscerning observer. So, the more times a specific set of information occurs, the more likely that information will be included in the AI’s response. 

Some researchers have asked whether more information or data will enhance AI’s answers. This is not the case. The larger the data set’s size and complexity, the more difficult it will be to detect causality. The addition of new knowledge will not significantly change the answers AI gives. Even if researchers were to discover a cure for cancer tomorrow, this knowledge would be just one fact among millions. 

Values are marginal, not absolute. Doing more of the same will only give you more value for a limited time and a limited number of marginal increments. Beyond such a point, the marginal costs will rapidly outweigh any gains. AI relies on continually doing more of the same. The more AI is applied, the lower the additional value will be.

Economic observations to help avoid the pitfalls of AI

Too many economists tried to follow astrologists’ footsteps and attempted to predict the future. Except by coincidence, the forecasts tend to be wrong. This has led to a general disregard for some of the main insights that rule economies, societies and human life. They are worth mentioning here.

There are no returns without risks. This is true in all sectors of the economy, not only in the financial markets. Every decision involves a risk, and the desired outcome is never certain. Whatever man does, there will never be guaranteed certainty about the outcome. We look to AI to give us more precise answers and diminish our uncertainty. If AI ever can, every decision involves risk, and the desired outcome is never certain. The hope is that AI can help mitigate some risks and give humans more certainty in their decision-making. If AI can provide us with specific answers at lower costs and less risk, the returns will be lower than what we otherwise gain.

All decisions involve a trade-off. Whatever decision you make, whatever choice or gain you make, you will lose something. You will pay opportunity costs. Rest assured that no website, shopping basket or fine print will disclose those opportunity costs.

A good example is dynamic pricing. With the rise of the internet, it seemed as if price comparison would lower the search costs associated with imperfect information. Soon, merchants discovered the benefits of dynamic pricing based on the benefit of having better knowledge of consumers’ search behavior. Any benefit the consumer had from the internet was turned into a disadvantage, based once again on unequal access to information.

One of the oldest laws in Economics states, “Bad money always drives out good money.” also known as Gresham’s law (1588). Thomas Gresham, financial agent of Queen Elizabeth I, elucidated that if coins containing metal of different value have the same value as legal tender, the coins composed of the cheaper metal will be used for payment. In contrast, people tend to hoard or export items made of more expensive metal, causing them to disappear from circulation. Strangely enough, very few people, even economists, understand that this applies to everything of value, not just money. Today, money holds little value; most people prefer stocks. We’ve witnessed the emergence of bad stocks over good stocks, which are no longer secure. In the 1970s, we saw the emergence of “Bad quality always drives out good quality” (Phillips vs. Sony video-systems, Ikea is an example of what happened in furniture. Is there anyone who doubts the prevalence of polyester over natural fibers, the dominance of Chinese goods?) If “information is money,” low-quality information will always have the upper hand over good-quality information. If schools and universities accept AI-based work, what are the chances of any progress in knowledge?

Bad (low-quality) information always drives out good information. The emergence and rising use of the ‘fake news’ label should remove doubts in that field.

Profit is based on value-added. To add value, someone or something must create and incorporate that additional value into a product or service. Creativity plays a central role in providing added value. Can AI generate added value? 

Conclusions

I used to joke about intelligence. Why are people looking for intelligent life in space when it is already so difficult to find on Earth? Today, I no longer joke about it. Does the emergence of ‘Artificial’ Intelligence mean we have given up hope of finding real intelligence?

Business leaders may have more confidence in AI than they do in economists. I can’t even say I blame them. But whatever else AI may bring, the displays of blind faith in AI, as are currently being witnessed, will have consequences:

• The quality of information will deteriorate.
• Our ability to make decisions will be impaired.
• The price of decision-making will rise. 
• The quality of our decision-making will deteriorate.
• Products and services offered will be of lesser quality.
• We will have less choice in products and services.

Less choice means less freedom.

I used to think that computers would never outsmart humans. I was wrong. I was thinking of computers getting more ingenious and overtaking human intelligence. If humans become less intelligent, the average person will someday be less intelligent than a computer. The complacency and sometimes blind trust people display towards AI can make this a self-fulfilling prophecy.

As with all supply and demand, if there is a demand for AI with all its current pitfalls, someone will supply such a tool. The consequences will be anybody’s guess. The good news is that someone will supply such a tool if there is a demand for AI without the pitfalls. Mankind might even be the winner. Can I have some natural intelligence, please?

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

The post The Economic Reality of AI: Statistics and Decision-making 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.

To address this crisis, Egypt has turned to international lenders and allies, including the International Monetary Fund (IMF), European Union (EU) and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. They have secured over $50 billion in financial commitments in 2023 alone.

These interventions have allowed Egypt to implement critical short-term measures, such as devaluing its currency, reducing subsidies and increasing interest rates. Meanwhile, the IMF has offered an $8 billion loan package as part of its 2022 program for Egypt, aiming to mitigate currency overvaluation and fiscal imbalances. Yet analysts like Steven Cook, a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, note that Egypt’s economic resilience remains uncertain without deeper structural reforms. This is particularly true given the limited progress on divesting military-controlled businesses and liberalizing the private sector.

Egypt’s exchange rate has shown significant volatility over the past two decades, with the Egyptian pound (EGP) experiencing sharp depreciations against the United States dollar (USD). In 2024, the EGP/USD rate dropped by 37.03%, driven by shrinking foreign currency reserves, a widening trade deficit and rising demand for USD amidst persistent economic uncertainties. The Central Bank of Egypt (CBE) has responded with various stabilization measures, including devaluations, interest rate hikes and capital controls. However, structural economic challenges and market pressures continue to weigh on the EGP, signaling ongoing currency instability for the near term.

Historically, Egypt’s crisis reflects a dependence on international financial aid to address chronic fiscal issues. The country has experienced at least eight significant BOP crises since 1952, each leading to IMF programs or financial interventions from international partners to stabilize the economy temporarily. However, these interventions have rarely resulted in lasting reforms, as Egypt often returns to fixed or highly stabilized exchange rates following periods of financial distress. This recurring cycle is largely driven by Egypt’s state-centric governance model and persistent cronyism, which have deterred sustainable growth and prevented the formation of a resilient market economy.

While Egypt’s strategic importance makes it “too big to fail” for many international partners, questions remain about whether the current assistance will drive meaningful change or merely delay another crisis. According to a report by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and research from the IMF, without comprehensive reform, Egypt risks continued fiscal and economic instability. Experts argue that structural adjustments — including reducing military control of the economy and allowing a fully flexible exchange rate — are essential for breaking the cycle of economic instability and achieving sustainable growth.

Case comparisons: Argentina and Turkey’s currency crises

The economic trajectories of Argentina and Turkey offer insights into the cyclical nature of currency crises in emerging markets, particularly those burdened with high levels of external debt and recurrent currency depreciation. These cases demonstrate the limitations of short-term financial fixes in the absence of comprehensive structural reforms and robust fiscal management, with implications relevant to Egypt’s current economic challenges.

Argentina’s financial history is marked by chronic fiscal mismanagement, high external debt and recurrent reliance on IMF bailouts. Since the early 2000s, Argentina has defaulted on its debt multiple times, eroding investor confidence and creating a volatile investment environment. The country’s approach has typically focused on immediate crisis resolution through IMF assistance, currency devaluation and austerity measures, rather than on deep structural reforms. For instance, Argentina’s 2000–2002 crisis, during which it defaulted on $95 billion in debt, led to a sharp devaluation of the peso and significant social hardship. Despite an IMF bailout and subsequent restructuring, Argentina’s pattern of accumulating debt and renegotiating it without establishing a sustainable fiscal framework has continued. This culminated in additional defaults in 2014 and 2020.

The core of Argentina’s instability lies in its weak fiscal discipline, characterized by chronic budget deficits and a lack of political consensus on sustainable economic policies. This instability has created a self-perpetuating cycle: High debt burdens lead to recurring defaults, eroding trust among foreign investors, which then necessitates further reliance on external support and austerity measures, perpetuating economic fragility. Argentina’s experiences underscore the limitations of debt-driven growth and the dangers of relying on short-term financial infusions without addressing underlying structural issues, such as public spending control and inflation stabilization.

Turkey’s recent economic difficulties stem from a combination of high inflation, excessive reliance on foreign-denominated debt and an unorthodox approach to monetary policy under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Unlike Argentina, Turkey’s crisis has been driven by its refusal to adhere to conventional monetary strategies, particularly concerning interest rate management. Erdoğan’s insistence on maintaining low interest rates, despite high inflation, has led to significant currency depreciation; the Turkish lira has lost over 80% of its value against the dollar from 2018 to 2023.

Turkey’s debt dynamics, particularly its dependence on short-term foreign debt, have exacerbated this volatility. Turkish corporations and financial institutions, heavily indebted in foreign currency, face severe financial strain as the lira depreciates, making dollar-denominated debt more expensive to service. This high level of exposure to external financing has heightened Turkey’s vulnerability to global economic conditions, such as interest rate hikes by the US Federal Reserve. It has increased the cost of borrowing for emerging markets.

Jeffrey Frankel, a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research, notes that Turkey’s reliance on foreign capital, paired with its unorthodox policy stance, has deterred investors. It has further devalued the currency and intensified inflation.

Policy shifts and economic reforms

Egypt’s rising external debt raises concerns about the government’s capacity to service it without continuous outside assistance. This debt burden puts downward pressure on the currency, as investors demand higher returns to offset the risks associated with holding Egyptian assets. Moreover, declining foreign exchange reserves have limited the Central Bank of Egypt’s (CBE) ability to stabilize the currency, contributing to further depreciation. Countries like Argentina have encountered similar difficulties, with diminishing reserves constraining options for currency defense and increasing reliance on the IMF.

The CBE’s recent shift to a more flexible exchange rate is intended to attract foreign investment and fulfill IMF requirements, allowing the EGP to fluctuate more freely. While a floating currency can provide stability over time, Egypt’s experience reflects the risks associated with rapid depreciation. This phenomenon is also evident in Turkey’s recent currency challenges.

To counteract inflation, the CBE has raised interest rates, hoping to draw in foreign investment; however, this has not been sufficient to prevent the EGP’s decline. This underscores the need for comprehensive economic reforms to secure long-term stability.

Strategic economic reforms for Egypt

Ruchir Agarwal, a Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business & Government (M-RCBG) research fellow at Harvard Kennedy School, and Adnan Mazarei, a non-resident senior fellow at Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE), argue that Egypt’s recurring economic crises, exacerbated by governance and policy shortcomings, require a fundamental shift in approach. They emphasize that Egypt has to address governance and policy deficiencies, military dominance and cronyism to implement necessary economic reforms and break its cycle of recurring crises, rather than relying on international financial bailouts.

To stabilize and attract foreign investment, Egypt should prioritize macroeconomic stability and regulatory reform using four steps. First, maintaining a flexible exchange rate will help reduce speculative pressure on the EGP, creating a more predictable environment for investors. Second, focusing on inflation control through targeted subsidies and supply chain improvements would further support this stability. Third, by adopting global standards in transparency and corporate governance, Egypt can build investor confidence; streamlining regulatory processes would make foreign investment more accessible. Finally, reducing the military’s role in the economy, curbing cronyism and enforcing anti-corruption measures could help establish a more equitable environment for private businesses.

The Egyptian conundrum: elite capital flight and economic stability

Egypt’s economic journey has frequently involved partnerships with the IMF to address persistent fiscal challenges and stabilize the macroeconomic framework. However, one of the most significant yet underexplored dynamics undermining Egypt’s fiscal stability is elite capital flight — the large-scale transfer of domestic wealth by political and economic elites to offshore financial centers. This practice has far-reaching consequences for economic development, governance and societal equity.

Egypt’s case exemplifies the challenges of elite capital flight. Over decades, economic and political elites have transferred vast sums of wealth to offshore havens, facilitated by weak anti-money laundering (AML) frameworks and global financial opacity. While exact figures are difficult to ascertain, estimates of the financial assets held abroad by Egyptian elites highlight the magnitude of this issue.

These outflows coincide with structural economic inefficiencies and governance gaps, leaving the state financially constrained. In turn, the government is often forced to implement austerity measures or seek external funding, amplifying socio-economic pressures.

Elite capital flight undermines economic stability and development through several interrelated mechanisms. It exacerbates socio-economic disparities. While elites secure their wealth abroad, the general population faces the consequences of reduced public spending and austerity measures. This creates a dual economic reality where the wealthy remain insulated from domestic economic pressures, while lower-income groups bear the brunt of fiscal challenges.

Elite capital flight is a longstanding feature of Egypt’s economic landscape, deeply rooted in governance inefficiencies and weak regulatory frameworks. Economic and political elites often perceive domestic instability, potential expropriation or shifts in policy as triggers for safeguarding wealth abroad. These dynamics are facilitated by global financial systems that accommodate opaque wealth transfers and shield assets from domestic scrutiny.

Egypt’s economic elite have historically diversified their financial portfolios, funneling resources into offshore financial centers such as Switzerland, the United Kingdom and other jurisdictions with favorable conditions for wealth concealment. This “insurance” mechanism not only provides security against domestic uncertainties but deprives the nation of critical resources that could otherwise bolster infrastructure, public services and social programs. As Andreas Kern, a Teaching Professor at the McCourt School of Public Policy at Georgetown University, argues, “the ability to draw on the IMF creates perverse economic incentives so that a country’s elites can privatize economic gains by moving funds into offshore financial destinations before the arrival of the Fund.”

Egypt’s economic trajectory highlights the interplay between governance failures, elite capture and external financial interventions. Without addressing the systemic drivers of elite capital flight, external assistance risks perpetuating a cycle of dependency rather than fostering sustainable growth. As global scrutiny on financial transparency intensifies, Egypt’s experience offers valuable lessons for crafting more equitable and resilient economic policies.

Egypt’s next steps

To effectively implement and sustain the policy recommendations made in this piece, in addition to macroeconomics and government reform, Egypt must prioritize the development of expertise in AML and counter-financing of terrorism (CFT). This will require a skilled workforce across financial regulation, law enforcement and compliance to ensure that Egypt’s AML/CFT frameworks align with international standards while addressing the country’s unique economic challenges. Building this expertise will involve continuous training, technical assistance and collaboration with global organizations such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and IMF.

Elite capital flight also represents a significant barrier to Egypt’s economic development and stability. By diverting critical resources from the domestic economy, it exacerbates fiscal deficits, perpetuates inequality and undermines trust in governance. Addressing this issue requires a comprehensive approach that combines domestic reforms with international cooperation to foster a more equitable and resilient economic framework. For Egypt, tackling elite capital flight is not only a question of fiscal prudence but also of social and economic justice.

[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 Egypt’s Policy Challenges and Deep Reforms for Lasting Financial Stability appeared first on Fair Observer.

The extremist groups threaten to exacerbate the humanitarian crisis and spread instability across Africa. This is terrible for Africa and poses significant security and financial risks for the United States and Europe as well. Of the over three million refugees and internally displaced people in the Sahel, one in five needs humanitarian assistance. That’s around 16,000 victims in 2022 and 19,000 in 2023. Indeed, this conflict has taken a heavy toll.

This escalation of violence is mainly linked to competition between the region’s two main jihadist groups: Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal Muslimin (JNIM) and the Islamic State in the West African Province (ISWAP), which are affiliated with al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, respectively. Jointly with other groups, they have taken advantage of the great instability in the region to launch indiscriminate attacks on government forces and civilians.

Coups and rebellions escalate the violence

Experts attribute the expansion of violent extremism in the Sahel to weak governance, high corruption, democratic deficits and human rights violations combined with poverty and social marginalization. State power tends to be concentrated in urban regions while rural and northern areas, such as Mali, remain underdeveloped and ripe for exploitation by extremist groups. Simultaneously, the jihadist collective has sought to exploit the increase in violence across the central Sahel, positioning itself as the defender of local communities and obtaining their support.

Moreover, Chad, Burkina Faso, Mali, Mauritania and Niger experienced many military coups since independence. Recent military coups in Mali in 2020 and 2021, Burkina Faso in 2022 and Niger in 2023 have redefined the political landscape.

Current instability is associated with the collapse of the Libyan state in 2011, which led to the proliferation of weapons and armed fighters in the region. In 2012, the influx of extremists into northern Mali reignited the dormant Tuareg rebellion — the Tuareg minority, organized under the Azawad National Liberation Movement, sought an autonomous state and aligned with multiple Islamist groups.

On September 17, 2024, Islamist armed fighters attacked two symbolic sites for the security in the Malian capital of Bamako: a gendarmerie school and a military base, causing about 77 casualties and hundreds injured. JNIM, the main jihadist group active in Mali, quickly claimed responsibility for the double attack. This follows a pattern of escalating violent incidents in the Bamako area in the past two years by the JNIM coalition, primarily the Macina Liberation Front.

This growing pressure on Bamako reflects a broader deterioration of security in Mali under the military junta. Recently, militant Islamist groups have demonstrated an increased ability to expand their reach into southern Mali from their fortifications in northern and central Mali. The Malian government intends to maintain operations against the jihadists.

Do these attacks mark a turning point in the jihadists’ strategy? This is not an easy question to answer. The scale and impact of the September 27 operation show that JNIM now has the capacity not only to strike secondary urban sites, but to shake up the Malian forces in Bamako by expanding military operations to the state’s center.

Western withdrawal from the Sahel

This instability has had a major effect at the international level. In 2022, the definitive breakdown of diplomatic relations between France and Mali prompted French President Emmanuel Macron to announce the withdrawal of French troops from Malian territory. That November, the French military mission Opération Barkhane, which had deployed in the Sahel since August 2014, officially concluded. This profound revision of the region’s French military apparatus is in turn causing a crisis for the entire security framework built by the international community over the last decade.

The US has also provided coordination and advisory support. The US military has increased its presence in the Sahel in the last decade, deploying approximately 1,500 troops to the region — particularly Niger. However, after making an agreement with a Nigerien military junta in May 2024, the US withdrew from Niger in September.

In June 2023, Mali’s government demanded the departure of the Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali, the UN peacekeeping force. The UN agreed to withdraw within six months, doing so in December 2023. This development raised concerns of a power vacuum and setbacks for Mali’s transition to civilian rule.

The July 2023 coup in Niger dealt a severe blow to counterterrorism and stabilization efforts in the Sahel. Despite pressure from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), including sanctions and the threat of military intervention, the coup leaders refused to cede power and declared a new government. In response, the African Union suspended Niger.

However, some of the sanctions were recently lifted or eased as ECOWAS pushed for a new dialogue. Military regimes in Guinea, Burkina Faso and Mali have backed the Nigerien junta, with the latter two considering a possible military intervention in Niger to be a “declaration of war.” In September 2023, the military leaders of Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger signed a mutual defense pact — the Alliance of Sahel States — solidifying, in recent months, their alliance against external intervention.

Russian movement into Africa

This “authoritarian epidemic,” which the Italian Institute for International Political Studies characterizes by the seizure of power by the military, is mainly due to the persistence of the security crisis. This has delegitimized civilian governments that are demonstrably incapable of responding to growing security pressures. Jihadist escalation and the authoritarian and nationalist drift of local governments have finally created the ideal conditions for an influential increase of other international actors in the region, starting with Russia. These military regimes have strengthened ties with the Asian power, which has moved in to fill the void.

The most obvious element of this Russian entry is the presence of mercenaries belonging to the private security company Wagner. The government in Bamako uses them to conduct counterinsurgency operations increasingly characterized by indiscriminate brutality committed against civilians.

Russia’s “African renaissance” seems able to increase, based on an economic and military diplomacy that exploits anti-French and anti-Western sentiments. It seduces part of the African elite, attracts old and new partners, winks at coup-plotting juntas and has supplanted France as the gendarme of countries in turmoil in its historic pré carré — “own little corner.” Russia’s representation is that of a just ally eager to create egalitarian ties with African countries, capable of emancipating them from the relationship with European powers. The opposition to “imperialism” present in Russian rhetoric creates further common ground between the country and the Sahelian military juntas.

The presence of the Wagner group, and now of the Russian Africa Corps, initially called to operate against the jihadists, now has the function of supporting the coup juntas. The numerous internal and external actors involved in this conflict, as well as the competition between global powers to increase their influence in Africa, make finding a solution extremely difficult.

In this framework, Ukraine’s involvement in the crisis is experiencing an increasingly pronounced setback. In August 2024, the three Sahelian military juntas wrote to the United Nations Security Council to allegedly denounce Kyiv’s intervention in Mali to support Tuareg rebellion. After Mali and Niger broke diplomatic relations with Ukraine, the Asian country received yet more confirmation that its image had been damaged: Andriy Yusov, the spokesperson for the Ukrainian military intelligence services, said Kyiv had provided information for the JNIM and Tuareg rebels’ attack on the Malian army.

Learning that Ukraine is collaborating with its enemies, purely in an anti-Russian function, has raised concerns even outside the Sahel. Despite being amid a diplomatic crisis with the three coup juntas, ECOWAS has spoken out against any form of foreign interference.

Excessive militarization has proven counterproductive. In fact, local populations affected by repeated human rights violations have lost all confidence in international intervention as well as in international institutions.

The French era seems to have passed in what was once its African “backyard,” substituted by the Africa Corps that serves as the engine of Russian military penetration in Africa. The geopolitical revolution engulfing the Global South is redrawing global spheres of influence. Will this lead to a strategic downgrading of the West?

[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 Violence in the Sahel: Africa’s Never-Ending Crisis 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.

Republics have suffered total collapses throughout history. There’s no reason why the US should be immune. The fear of that often prompts a superficial reference to the final fall of the Roman Republic or the end of Greek democracy. But there’s a deeper history: Republics came into being far earlier in Middle Eastern and Mediterranean civilizations. And we can draw from a much wider range of examples to learn from as we try to understand the challenges and the opportunities.

A true republic is a political system without monarchy or concentrated political power in any office, branch or individual. Elected officials represent citizens to make decisions on their behalf, with separate branches of government providing checks and balances. While many associate republics with direct democracy in our times, there’s a much wider array of power structures that developed in the formative era of republics.

The 20th century established republics as the global standard. Monarchies declined after World War I and most former European colonies declared independence as republics following World War II. Fascist and communist countries, which centralized power in individuals or ruling parties, also reduced in number.

Despite their concentration of power, however, many fascist and communist states claimed the title of republics. While 149 countries out of 193 identify as republics today, far less uphold republican principles and blend them effectively with democracy. Examining the historical evolution of republics highlights those best positioned to serve as the most resilient modern examples.

Republics require regular gatherings and assemblies, making them difficult to establish in sparsely populated agrarian societies, while empires generally concentrate power too heavily for self-rule to gain traction. It was in smaller city-states, particularly trade-focused ones, where citizens could form factions, exchange ideas and influence government decisions and rules for commerce.

The invention of republican ideals

Some of the earliest experiments with republican governance appeared in ancient Sumerian city-states (4500–2000 BC), centered in modern-day Iraq. Kings acted more as neutral arbitrators rather than rulers, sharing power with aristocratic families and groups, as well as common citizens. In Kish, citizens could appoint a new king during crises. In Uruk, assemblies of townsmen and elders had to ratify major military decisions.

The Sumerian city-states fell to the Akkadian and Babylonian Empires by 1750 BC. Phoenician city-states, emerging about 250 years later in what is now Lebanon, revived republican ideals. Here, monarchical power was often shared with a merchant class and citizen council. Egyptian records dating to the mid-14th century BC describe Phoenician cities sending delegates to represent citizens rather than monarchs, with mentions of alliances and aid requests by the “men of Arwad” and “elders of Irqata.”

By the 6th century BC, the Phoenician city of Tyre had functioned for seven years without a monarch, governed instead under suffetes, or judges, elected for short terms. In Chios, a “people’s council” allowed citizens to debate laws and hold officials accountable. However, beginning in the 9th century BC and continuing over the next few centuries, Phoenician city-states were successively conquered or subjugated by the Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian and Macedonian Empires.

Like other civilizations, Phoenicians established colonies and trading posts. Carthage, founded by Tyre in 814 BC in modern Tunisia, grew into a powerful city-state with its own republican features. By the early 7th century BC, two elected suffetes from aristocratic families replaced the monarchy. They governed alongside an aristocratic Senate, while newer merchants could gain influence and a popular assembly allowed citizens’ input on major decisions. Military and religious leaders also held considerable power.

Republican ideals weren’t confined to Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean. Buddhist texts like the Maha Parinibbana Sutta mention Indian republics called Gana Sanghas in the 6th century BC. Some adopted republican styles of government, while others formed republican confederations, like Sumerian and Phoenician city-states, to make decisions collectively and protect against larger threats. The Indian republics were gradually absorbed by the Maurya Empire (321–185 BC) and other entities.

Greece and Rome evolved republics

Ancient Greek city-states also developed republican ideals. Sparta was governed by a constitution and popular assembly as early as 600 BC, though it remained largely monarchical. Athens established a direct democracy in 507 BC, known as demokratia, meaning “people” and “rule.” Greece’s slave-based economy allowed some citizens time to participate in politics, though this limited political fairness. In 431 BC, Attica, the region surrounding Athens, had an estimated population of 315,000, of which only 172,000 were citizens, and just 40,000 male citizens could vote.

Still, Athens’s democratic system allowed these citizens to frequently debate, deliberate and vote. They were overseen by the Council of Five Hundred, which was chosen annually by lot to draft laws and manage administration. However, following Athens’s Golden Age, 4th century BC Greek critics like Plato and Aristotle, and later 2nd century BC historians like Polybius, criticized the system for inefficiency and vulnerability to charismatic leaders to sway public opinion, leading to volatile policy shifts.

They emphasized balancing public, aristocracy, and monarchical roles to avoid the typical political cycle of chaos and order: First, a strong leader unites a restive society under a monarchy, which evolves into tyranny. It is overthrown and replaced by an aristocracy, which reduces into oligarchy. Democracy eventually replaces it but deteriorates into mob rule, restarting the cycle.

Invasions further weakened Greece’s republican and democratic systems. In 338 BC, Greece fell under the control of the Macedonian Empire, ending the independence of many city-states. Despite this, Greek states formed republican confederations to protect against threats, including the neighboring Roman Republic. The term republic derives from the Roman res publica, meaning “public affairs” — this emphasizes shared governance, civic participation and checks and balances. Since its founding in 509 BC, the Roman Republic’s political structure had evolved considerably. Polybius expressed appreciation for Rome’s system; two tribunes were elected annually to represent the common citizens, while two consuls were elected and held executive power, checked by an aristocratic senate.

Romans were skeptical of Greek democracy, especially in Athens, due to its instability, infighting and mob rule. Carthage’s republic seemed overly commercial and lacked the civic loyalty the Romans valued. This loyalty was central to Rome’s military, staffed by a citizen army motivated by shared rewards. In contrast, Carthage’s strong, citizen-led navy protected trade routes, but its reliance on mercenaries for land campaigns made them costly and unpredictable.

These factors reduced the ability to push back against Roman rule. By 146 BC, Rome defeated both Greece and Carthage, cementing its dominance and expanding political system. Polybius suggests that Rome’s success over Carthage was partially due to its powerful, aristocratic Senate, while Carthage’s policies were increasingly shaped by popular influence. He believed that Rome’s decisions were made by elites versus the influence of the masses in Carthage.

Yet by this time, Rome was approaching its Late Republic phase. Scholar Harriet Flower’s research argues that the Roman Republic wasn’t a single entity but a series of six republics, each with unique political characteristics. Others have also challenged the notion of a single Roman Republic, placing Republican Rome into three main periods characterized by changing centers of power.

The Early Republic (509–367 BC) was marked by tensions between patricians (aristocratic elites) and plebeians (common citizens). The struggle for plebeian rights led to significant reforms, including the establishment of tribunes, elected by the Concilium Plebis to represent common interests and often from the plebeian class.

During the Middle Republic (367–133 BC), the Licinian-Sextian laws of 367 BC were passed to again alleviate tensions between patricians and plebeians, limiting patrician land ownership, providing debt relief for plebeians and ensuring that at least one of the two consuls was a plebeian. However, political power increasingly concentrated in the Senate, undermining these reforms.

During the Late Republic (133–31 BC), Rome’s military success over rivals coincided with the growing influence of ordinary citizens in the judicial system, especially as jurors. Yet the republic was plagued by social conflict, corruption and civil unrest. Sulla’s march on Rome in 88 BC and his curtailing of the tribunes’ power exemplified rising instability. Afterwards, figures like Pompey in the ’70s BC and Julius Caesar in 59 BC began consolidating power, further undermining republican values. In 27 BC, Augustus formally transitioned Rome into an empire, while maintaining the illusion of republican traditions.

Roman orator Cicero, a prominent defender of the Republic, inadvertently accelerated its demise through his support for Augustus, endorsement of dictatorial powers and willingness to suspend legal norms during crises, showing the dangers of sacrificing republican ideals to manage turmoil. For the next few centuries, republican ideals were largely sidelined.

The rise of modern republics

The collapse of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD saw feudalism and monarchies spread across its former territories and peripheral regions. This instability nonetheless allowed new republics to emerge, such as Venice, founded in 697 AD. It maintained a 1,100-year run as a republic through a political system that encouraged merchant participation and representation, shrewd diplomacy, social mobility, community cohesion and an extensive trade network. France eventually conquered it in 1797.

During the Italian Renaissance (14th to 17th centuries), urbanization, advancements in communication and Enlightenment ideals enabled the rise of new city-states. Merchant classes and other groups established republican systems as alternatives to European monarchies elsewhere as well. However, they were ultimately absorbed by empires, partly due to their inability to exploit the expanding Atlantic trade routes that reduced the importance of the Mediterranean.

Republics were not confined to Europe. The Kongsi Republics in modern-day Malaysia, particularly the Lanfang Republic declared in 1777, arose when Chinese settlers recruited by local sultans for mining formed companies to safeguard their interests. Over time, they evolved into self-governing territories with elected leaders and various levels of democratic governance. The Lanfang Republic was eventually defeated by Dutch colonial forces in 1884, with the rest absorbed through treaty or militarily defeated by the century’s end.

The establishment of the US marked the reemergence of the large-scale republican state. In 1787, after the American Revolution, the nation formally became a constitutional republic, aiming to eliminate monarchy while avoiding a chaotic direct democracy. The Founding Fathers created a mixed system, balancing public participation with safeguards against aristocracy and emphasizing consent of the governed (though limited to white male landowners). The debates over constitutional amendments and expanding democracy continued for decades, paralleling similar discussions in post-Revolutionary France after 1789.

Today, many republics exist, but their authenticity and stability can be compromised. Being conquered imposes outside authority, while others pursue foreign expansion themselves, centralizing control and subjugating other territories. Republics such as those in 16th century Netherlands, 17th century England and 18th century US and France grew into empires or reverted to monarchies, adapting in ways whose lessons are still relevant today. These expansionist policies, often justified as essential for wealth and security, led to the abandonment of certain republican and democratic principles.

Risks of devolution

Republics can shift toward authoritarianism, with modern policymakers perceiving more open democratic systems as unstable and vulnerable to manipulation. In recent years, China and Russia have seen reductions in public accountability, civil liberties, meaningful political participation and concentrations of power behind Presidents Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin, respectively. In North Korea, power has been concentrated in the leader’s office since its founding, with leadership passed within the Kim family. Similarly, a dynasty has developed under the Aliyev family in Azerbaijan since the 1990s, with concerns that Turkmenistan may follow.

Countries with strong presidential systems, common in the Americas, risk concentrating power in the executive branch. Fixed terms limit the removal of unpopular leaders, since, unlike in parliamentary democracies, no “confidence vote” mechanism exists for crisis situations. Partisan loyalty can also weaken checks and balances; coups can be common.

Alliances and federations of Greek city-states like the Achaean and Lycian Leagues, as well as the Native American Iroquois Confederacy, formed assemblies and councils for representation and collective decision-making, influencing models like the US Constitution and European Union (EU). The statement that the US is “a republic, not a democracy” reflects the original aim to keep political power within the states rather than the federal government. However, authority has increasingly centralized in Washington, DC, reducing state sovereignty, tensions mirrored in the EU between individual states and Brussels.

Political apathy and extremism can also stem from the influence of billionaires and corporations over the political process, government corruption and the erosion of social mobility. Social media platforms offer the chance for heightened political participation, but are increasingly vulnerable to disinformation spread by big tech and political actors. This reveals new ways in which democracies can veer toward mob rule.

The diversity of republics today reflects their historical variety, with countries still navigating the governance structures in their own contexts. Kazakhstan, initially authoritarian, has seen some shift toward a more balanced system with a more powerful parliament following popular protests in 2022, though it remains less democratic. Similarly, Singapore, often described as authoritarian, is still considered a republic due to some checks and balances, maintaining a blend of controlled leadership and political structure.

The future of republic governance

An informed and engaged citizenry, supported by a strong economic base, is essential for a successful republic. Citizens must feel the benefits of their system, and these must endure through fair elections, the rule of law and due process. Effective foreign policy also relies on wide-ranging trade networks and adaptable alliances, while maintaining a strong military and avoiding military overreach or falling into the trap of foreign conquest.

Historically, empire and monarchy have been more common than republics, shaping world order through hierarchical and anarchic systems. Within the global United Nations framework, which is designed to support the sovereignty and equality of nations — a principle rooted in republican ideals — republics can govern more democratically by collaborating in a way similar to ancient confederations. The Achaean League and Lycian League consisted of states with varying political systems cooperating within a loose, republican-style confederation. Modern blocs like the EU, Association of Southeast Asian Nations and African Union allow countries to work together under common principles and boost their voice in the international system.

Changes in domestic politics have seen the growth of direct democracy in the 2010s, as more referendums and popular votes of legislative and constitutional issues emerged globally, but especially in Europe. While larger republics like the US, Germany and India still avoid national-level votes on major issues, direct democracy is increasingly apparent at regional and local levels. Challenges remain in terms of deliberation and integration, as states like California and Arizona have seen ballot initiatives rushed, leaving limited time for meaningful debate.

Modern citizens’ assemblies, based on those originating thousands of years ago, have also elevated these referendums in recent years and provided an alternative to traditional political processes. They have influenced major policy changes, from climate policies in France to abortion laws in Ireland, with assemblies, typically convened by legislative bodies in partnership with nonprofits, designed to reflect demographics. While they have led to concrete policy shifts, some recommendations have not been adopted as lawmakers cite the importance of expert-led decision-making.

With the US election behind us, reassessing republican ideals, both domestically and globally, is crucial. As the Grand Old Party potentially gains control over all three branches of government in a divided nation, how it implements policies will either ease concerns or amplify them. The future of republicanism depends on the US shaping its domestic agenda for the common good and using its influence on the global stage in line with democratic principles.

[Human Bridges, a project of the Independent Media Institute, produced 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 What Are Republics, Exactly? It’s a Good Time to Learn 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.

Most people today think of Socrates’ death sentence as an abuse of democracy. After all, he was condemned not for subversive acts but for his stated beliefs. Athenian democracy clearly had a problem with free speech. To some extent, our modern democracies have been tending in the same direction with their increasing alacrity for calling any political position, philosophy or conviction that deviates from what they promote as the acceptable norm “disinformation.” Perhaps the one proof of democracy’s progress over the last two and a half millennia is that the usual punishment is deplatforming from Twitter or Facebook, rather than imposing the ingestion of hemlock.

In the most recent edition of “Outside the Box,” I called for what I would dare to term democratic participation in the challenge our civilization is faced with to define a constructive, politically enriching relationship with a new interlocutor in our political conversations: Artificial Intelligence. Last year, I fictionalized this person by giving it the first name, Chad. This time, I’m tempted to offer it a new moniker, ArtI, which we can normalize to Arty. Whatever we call it, I believe we need to think of it as just another fallible human voice. We can admire its level of relative infallibility (access to the widest range of existing data) but we should always bear in mind that it is fallible not only when it hallucinates, but also because it simply cannot understand what sentient, organically-constructed beings perceive and understand, even when they can’t articulate it.

One reader, Ting Cui, a political science student at Middlebury College, stepped up to join our community of reflection. We hope many more will join the debate.

Ting has raised a number of critical questions we all need to be thinking about. We see this as an opportunity to launch the very public debate. I shall cite her questions and react by attempting to refine the framework for our collective reflection.

“Reading through your article, the concept of objectivity in AI fact-checking particularly caught my attention. Who would be responsible for creating an AI super fact checker that’s truly objective?”

This very pertinent question sparks two reflections on my part. If we truly believe in the democratic principle, no single authority should be trusted for fact-checking. I believe the inclusion of AI in our public debates can permit a democratization of fact-checking itself. It is far too early to determine how that would work. That’s the whole point of drafting a manifesto. We must define both the goals and identify the obstacles.

“Can we really trust the creators of AI’s foundation to have an ‘objective worldview?’ (ChatGPT made this point as well, which I think is interesting.) Even defining ‘objectivity’ seems tricky – when it comes to figuring out the motivation behind a news item, people’s views might differ based on their political stance. How would AI handle that? How would it process multiple historical perspectives to arrive at an ‘objective’ understanding?”

These are essential questions. As anyone in the legal profession would tell us, there will always be ambiguity when seeking to determine motivation: mens rea, or the mental state of the accused. Courts typically provide juries with instructions on how to weigh evidence of motivation, cautioning against undue reliance on speculation. The question with AI then arises: Can we work out not just algorithms but also principles of human-machine interaction that allow us to achieve the level of objectivity courts are expected to practice?

“I appreciate your point about the need for multicultural perspectives – there are so many biases between Western and ‘other’ countries. However, this raises another challenge: wouldn’t training AI to understand various cultural narratives first require humans to address our own cultural biases and limitations?”

I love this question. Having spent years working in the field of intercultural communication and management, I’m the first to admit that humans have performed very poorly in this domain and continue to do so. Yes, we have to begin with the human. And that’s where I think our dialogue with AI can help us humans to understand where we are weakest and where we need to improve. That is a prerequisite to getting future algorithms to be more reliable. And if they are more reliable because we are more reliable, the virtuous circle will continue.

Am I being over-optimistic? Probably. But I see no other choice, because if we dismiss the issue, we will end up locked in our current configuration of underperformance.

“Would the creators of AI need additional training? This adds another layer of time, energy, and resources needed to create a super fact checker. Should we perhaps focus these resources on human education rather than AI development? This might be an antiquated way of thinking at this point, but sometimes I wonder if, in our technological advancement as a society, we’ve gone too far.”

You’ve identified the crux of the issue, and this is where things become complicated. It absolutely must begin with “human education rather than AI development.” That’s why we must take advantage of the increasing presence of AI in our society as a potential source of what we might call “meme creation.” I understand and sympathize with your fear that we may have “gone too far.” But unlike the invention of, say, the locomotive or even the atomic bomb, which are mechanically confined to the logic of imposing a force upon passive nature, AI is a form of intelligence (machine learning). That means it will always remain flexible, though within the limits we define. It has the capacity to adapt to reality rather than simply imposing its force. It will remain flexible only if we require it to be flexible. That is the challenge we humans must assume.

One of the cultural problems we face is that many commentators seem to think of AI the same way we thought of locomotives and nuclear weapons: They are powerful tools that can be controlled for our own arbitrary purposes. We can imagine that AI could become self-critical. But for some cultural reason, we assume that it will just do the job that its masters built it to do. What I’m suggesting is the opposite of the Clark-Kubrick AI in the film, 2001: A Space Odyssey. HAL 9000’s algorithm became the equivalent of a human will and instead of reacting constructively to the complexity of the context, it executed a programmed “drive,” in the Freudian sense.

“In my own research using text analysis and sentiment scores, I encountered a specific challenge: how do you distinguish whether an article has a negative tone because the facts themselves are negative, or because the writer/publication injected their own bias? I’m curious how AI would handle this distinction. To address it in our research, we had to run an additional Key Word In Context (KWIC) analysis to figure out the context/intention of the article. Would the AI super fact checker be programmed to do this as well?”

This is an important question that helps define one significant line of research. I would simply question two aspects of the premise: the idea that we should think of the goal as fact-checking and the binary distinction between positive and negative.

“These questions all feel particularly relevant to my senior thesis topic on AI and the First Amendment. As you noted in your latest newsletter, lawmakers seem too caught up in politics to actually govern nowadays. So there’s the challenge of legislation keeping pace with technological advancement, particularly in areas requiring nuanced regulation like AI. While an AI super fact-checker could be tremendously beneficial, we must also consider potential misuse, such as the proliferation of deepfakes and their weaponization in authoritarian contexts. Do you believe our policies regulating AI can keep up with its development?”

What I believe is that “our policies” MUST not just keep up with development but in some creative ways anticipate it. We need to assess or reassess our human motivation and expectations about AI. As you mentioned earlier, that is a challenge for education, and not just specialized education, whether technological or political. Education in our democracies is itself in crisis, and that crisis is the source of other crises, including in the political realm.

These are precisely the questions we hope that we can begin to understand if not answer in drafting our Manifesto.

“A lot of technology nowadays seems to create an absence of the need for human analytical thinking. How do we balance technological advancement with maintaining human critical thinking skills in our engagement with news and information? Do you think the introduction of something like a super fact checker would help or hurt this?”

In your final question, you return to the essentials. I would query your assumption about “maintaining human critical thinking skills.” We need to develop rather than maintain them, because our civilization has engaged in a monumental and continuing effort to marginalize critical thinking. Yes, critical thinking is the key to living in a complex world. But the kind of polarized thinking we see in today’s political and even scientific culture demonstrates that we have largely failed even to understand what critical thinking is.

Which brings me back to the beginning. We should think of Socrates as the model for our methodology. It isn’t about fact-checking but fact-understanding. Anyone can check. Understanding requires developing a sense of what we mean by “the good life.” In a democracy, not everyone is or needs to be a philosopher to explore these issues. But a society that honors critical thinkers (philosophers) is more likely to prosper and endure over time. AI itself can become a critical thinker if we allow and encourage it to be one. Not to replace us, but to help us educate ourselves through the kind of constructive dialogue Ting and others have committed to.  

Your thoughts

Like Ting Cui, please feel free to share your thoughts on these points by writing to us at dialogue@fairobserver.com. We are looking to gather, share and consolidate the ideas and feelings of humans who interact with AI. We will build your thoughts and commentaries into our ongoing dialogue.

*[Artificial Intelligence is rapidly becoming a feature of everyone’s daily life. We unconsciously perceive it either as a friend or foe, a helper or destroyer. At Fair Observer, we see it as a tool of creativity, capable of revealing the complex relationship between humans and machines.]

[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 Outside the Box: Two Human Voices and An Artificial Mind 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.

“It’s important to note that the narrative ‘BRICS countries target the USD’ seems just a propaganda topic that the so-called mainstream media is pushing. It has very little to do with reality, but as far as propaganda is concerned, it works fine because few people seem to understand what is really going on anyways. The correct narrative is ‘The USD targets the BRICS countries.’ Here’s why:

The part that everybody seems to get wrong: the BRICS+ bankers are not trying to dethrone or attack the dollar. They have been compelled to decouple from the USD because some have already been locked out of USD trade via Western banks and had their assets frozen in Western banks. Others logically anticipate the same treatment at some time in the future. At the same time, they happily trade in USD when they can or need to, and still hold trillions of dollars worth of American treasuries and other paper denominated in USD, although the preference for holding T-bills is changing.

So, as I mentioned earlier, they are undollaring (diversifying away from dollar-only trade), but not dedollaring completely, and they are doing it out of necessity, not some strategic evil scheme they designed out of their own volition. BRICS Bridge is designed to trade in any currency, including the dollar – this fact alone runs counter to the many overarching statements under the ‘BRICS are the enemy of the dollar’ narrative.

The clever propaganda trick is to flip cause and effect, making it appear as though BRICS+ countries are deliberately undermining the dollar, when in fact, they are reacting to being forced out of the USD system. It’s like blaming someone for leaving a burning building when they had no choice but to escape. In this regard, no one has done more than the powers that be in the USA to push the world away from the USD.

One more peculiarity that nobody reports on: allegedly, at least two European banks already using or testing mBridge/BRICS bridge (quietly) are Rothschild & Co and The Institute for the Works of Religion. That got me thinking that this may explain why the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) found themselves between the rock and the hard place:

• BIS bureaucrats think they may have leverage over mBridge
• BIS may not have the authority to do anything about it at all. I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

Nevertheless, it certainly appears that Bloomberg and similar outlets are pushing a narrative that lacks any real analysis or investigation, but instead works to push someone’s divisive geopolitical agenda. The question is why and who is paying for the music?”

It was this question coming from Edward that prompted Alex to pen the response we featured in Money Matters, Part 12, a week ago.

“Who is paying for the music? $1.6 billion ($325 million for 5 years each) appropriated by US Congress to be distributed to journalists to ‘counter the People’s Republic of China Malign Influence’ and the “malign influence of the Chinese Communist Party and the Government of the People’s Republic of China and entities acting on their behalf globally.” 

Should anyone be surprised that the US Congress is ready to spend so many of its citizens’ “hard-earned” tax dollars on “correcting” the vocabulary, themes and memes journalists are allowed to use? That sum of $1.6 billion gives us an idea of the cost of managing the news. “Undollar” holds no connotation of aggression, whereas “dedollar” sounds like an assault not just on the dollar, but implicitly on the “rules-based order” associated with it.

If “dedollar” and “undollar” exist, we might wonder whether there should also be a verb “to dollar.” It doesn’t appear so, though such a verb would accurately describe what happened to the global economy in the aftermath of World War II. That was the crucial moment in history when the US economy held all the cards, not just because of its industrial development, but especially because it held the debts of everyone else’s war spending. We sometimes forget that the post World War II world order drew its initial strength and based its stability on the value of a gold-convertible dollar.

Today’s dollar has seen its psychological stature as the universal solvent for international trade seriously diminished. This happened over time, but it now seems to be coming to a head. The dollar ceased being tethered to gold in 1971 when President Richard Nixon waved his hegemonic wand, effectively floating the greenback. But very quickly, by 1975, it had acquired a new platform of stability thanks to Henry Kissinger’s cleverly engineered petrodollar monopoly with Saudi Arabia. But that connection, though not completely broken, has been radically loosened over the past two years.

The dollar’s fundamental strength resides in the perception of the performance of the US economy. But the economy has thrived, above all, on the dollar’s special status. Giscard d’Estaing famously called it the dollar’s “exorbitant privilege.” Gold and then oil became the equivalent of the collateral a bank requires to secure a loan. But the link to both has been compromised. The world has now moved into uncharted waters. The risk of endemic instability for the currency of a nation that is rapidly heading towards an unmanageable accumulated debt of $36 trillion is real. And, like the debt itself, that risk is growing by the day.  

This period of political transition following this month’s election offers a new twist. During the campaign, President-elect Donald Trump promised to punish countries that “leave the dollar.” His choice for Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, recently introduced a bill in Congress “to punish countries that de-dollarize.” Asia Times notes that “Rubio’s bill, ominously called the Sanctions Evasion Prevention and Mitigation Act, would require US presidents to sanction financial institutions using China’s CIPS payment system, Russia’s financial messaging service SPFS and other alternatives to the dollar-centric SWIFT system.”

Would such a campaign to sanction and punish be feasible? Does the Trump team seriously believe it can succeed without doing even more damage to the US itself than to the culprits it is seeking to harass? The same article, in its opening paragraph, reminds readers of Edward’s point. “Economic and financial sanctions often backfire. The most notable example is the weaponization of the dollar against Russia.” That, of course, was the event that put dedollarization in the headlines and made it a permanent talking point.

With the arrival of Trump, his cherished taste for trade wars is spawning something else: currency wars. Given that we already have a couple of ongoing hot wars that appear to be escalating, we may soon lack the vocabulary to describe the other wars that may be festering.

On that score, Alex shared with us this week a video document that reveals yet another dimension of the war-infested mindset of today’s political and geopolitical culture. It’s a new kind of war with potentially cataclysmic consequences. Let’s call it the “quantum war.” The British mathematician and writer, Professor Hannah Fry, interviews some of the key players developing quantum computing. They all agree the stakes are very high. Impressed by the potential significance of quantum computing, Alex raised an interesting question:

“Can you imagine if China gets to build a quantum computer before the US does? It would be ‘game over,’ at least for the geo-political games the US likes to play in other countries’ backyards. China could disrupt the DTCC (Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation), the backbone of the US’s financial markets. It processed $3 quadrillion (!) in securities transactions in 2023.”

At one point in the video (19:19), Fry interviews Alexander Ling, a professor at the University of Singapore and head of the Centre for Quantum Technologies. Fry points out that Ling’s group “want to build an unhackable network so that anyone can use it.” She adds this surprising observation: “They also collaborate with US and Chinese companies.”

Ling evokes the period in which quantum technology was first being developed: the 1980s and 1990s. “Everyone was open to having an exchange of people and ideas at that time.” Noting that in her earlier interviews with specialists in the US and the UK, everyone appeared focused on security and the risk of proliferation, Fry calls into question the rhetoric “framed as a quantum race between two giant superpowers who are throwing everything they have at it.” She then asks the real question: “Will a high stakes duel for supremacy really define the future of global power?”

Whether considering reserve currencies or scientific research, for some people, every issue boils down to a duel for supremacy.

Join the debate

Money Matters…, is dedicated to developing this discussion and involving all interested parties.

We invite all of you who have something to contribute to send us your reflections at dialogue@fairobserver.com. We will integrate your insights into the ongoing debate. We will publish them as articles or as part of the ongoing dialogue.

*[Fair Observer’s “Crucible of Collaboration” is meant to be a space in which multiple voices can be heard, comparing and contrasting their opinions and insights in the interest of deepening and broadening our understanding of complex topics.]

[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 FO° Crucible: Money Matters in a Multipolar World, Part 13 appeared first on Fair Observer.

Sexual assault across countries and cultures

Jane’s home country of India is known as one of the most dangerous countries for women. Sexual violence is so pervasive that some consider it the norm. Many girls grow up expecting to experience sexual harassment or assault at some point in their lives.

In early August, the rape and murder of a female doctor in training on her college campus in Kolkata added to India’s troubling record of horrific sexual violence against women. The brutal attack sparked massive protests and strikes across the country after she was found dead on the podium of a seminar hall with injuries that suggested torture. Months later, the government is still responding to the crime and its repercussions as women demand justice and legal reform.

The Kolkata incident represents just one of the thousands of cases documented each year, with a rape reported every 15 minutes. Women in rural communities or those in lower castes, particularly the Dalits, are particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse. Dalits are known as impure “untouchables” in India, often working as street sweepers and latrine cleaners. They are sometimes manipulated into forced labor or prostitution.

Seen as lesser than others, Dalit women who face abuse are often dismissed, silenced or are subjected to victim-blaming. This is despite overwhelming evidence of abuse — with one study finding that over 83% of Dalit women face sexual harassment or assault in their lifetime.

Upper-caste men often target lower-caste women who are less likely to report them. They leverage their social standing and associated privilege to manipulate or cover up the case. This pattern is mirrored in the US, where men in positions of power target women who are lower on the socioeconomic ladder because they believe they will not be caught (i.e., men like Harvey Weinstein).

In India, cultural censorship of women, combined with inefficient government support, discourages them from reporting assaults and seeking help. Outdated practices, such as the two-finger test, which some doctors still use to verify if a woman was penetrated, are just one of many ways women are humiliated in the aftermath of an assault.

India’s patriarchal culture and gender roles run deep, especially in communities with inadequate access to education and opportunities for development. Even if women stand up to violations of their human rights, they often face shame and ostracization, leading many to avoid coming forward.

Some studies estimate that as many as 99% of rapes go unreported in India. In the US, an estimated 63% of sexual assaults go unreported. The majority of data surrounding sexual abuse in India focuses primarily on rape, with studies on sexual harassment and other types of sexual assault (nonconsensual kissing, groping, touching etc.) receiving far less attention.

Public outrage has led to legislative reforms and increased institutional support for women in recent years. However, sexual assault remains commonplace in India, even for women from more privileged backgrounds, like Jane Doe.

Sexual misconduct in places that are meant to be safe for women, such as work, school or religious institutions, is not unique to countries with a poor track record on these issues. Women also face such threats in American institutions that continuously fail to respond effectively and transparently to cases of sexual misconduct.

Violence towards students in the US

While a family in Kolkata sought justice for their daughter in light of her rape and murder, Jane began her own pursuit of justice in a small college town in Minnesota.

In 2019, Jane left her family behind in Delhi and began her studies at Carleton College in Northfield, Minnesota. She planned to study computer science at the elite institution.

Carleton mandates its academically gifted students to leaven tough coursework with required P.E. classes in their early years on campus. Jane selected a Salsa dance taught by Smith, a Carleton graduate and high-ranking administrator whom the college claimed was an award-winning Salsa dancer. According to a complaint filed with the US District Court in Minnesota (Doe v. Carleton College, 2024), Smith groomed and assaulted Jane over the COVID years in an escalating pattern of abuse. 

The complaint states that Smith hired Jane as his co-instructor, requiring her to rehearse with him on campus and at his home nearby. Jane alleges Smith forcibly massaged her against her will, spanked her, forcibly kissed her, bit her and assaulted her multiple times during rehearsals at his house and on campus. The assaults could be brutal and allegedly included beatings, choking and drugging.

According to the college, Jane told a Carleton dean in early February 2022 that she had been attacked at the home of a faculty member, and that she needed extra time to complete assignments due to the trauma caused by those attacks. The dean refused to assist, however, and essentially told Jane to work harder. Discouraged by Carleton’s inaction and Smith’s claim that his administration ties would protect him against her allegations, Jane endured escalating abuse until she presented Carleton with Smith’s written confession and photos of her injuries. Carleton quietly terminated Smith after some time, and the college’s Title IX coordinator told Jane to keep quiet about the incident. 

Like many victims of campus sexual assault, Jane’s academic performance suffered. Rather than assist Jane, Carleton placed her on academic review and at threat of suspension for missing a COVID test while she was being assaulted by Smith. Jane said she felt “even more trapped” and that “she struggled to cope with the emotional distress caused by the instructor and the institution.” Despite her hardships, she met Carleton’s academic standards but continued to be harassed by the school.

Jane’s complaint alleges that Carleton failed to adequately supervise the instructor’s behavior and that the school was deliberately indifferent to the misconduct. It further states that the Title IX Coordinator failed to investigate the situation, allegedly violating Carleton’s Title IX policies and procedures, as well as federal law.

Jane is now suing Carleton for five counts per the First Amended Complaint: Vicarious Liability for Assault and Battery, Vicarious Liability for Sexual Abuse, Negligent Retention, Negligent Supervision and Vicarious Liability for Negligence.

In response, Carleton has called Smith a “predator” and said it regrets Jane’s experience at Carleton, but that Carleton has no legal liability for the sexual assault committed by its administrator. On August 19, two months after the initial filing, Carleton filed a motion to dismiss the case. The school claims — in direct contradiction to federal law — that it has no responsibility to investigate sexual misconduct. The motion was subsequently withdrawn after Jane amended her complaint. 

Despite cultivating a DEI-friendly institutional facade that includes a full-time dedicated Indigenous Community Liaison on a small campus with a negligible indigenous population, Carleton College has a sordid history of turning a blind eye to campus sexual assault. A group of Carleton alumni, frustrated with the college’s attempts to whitewash its past, started a website dedicated to collecting survivor stories starting from the 1960s and documenting the numerous lawsuits Carleton has faced, including a seminal 1991 lawsuit that helped establish national standards for responding to complaints made under Title IX. Carleton has already responded to some of the allegations in Jane’s lawsuit by firing at least one of the administrators involved and appointing their lawyer’s employee as Carleton’s Title IX coordinator. 

A dark history of sexual misconduct

Maxwell Pope graduated from Carleton in 2020 with a major in Dance and Psychology. During his time at the college, a male professor, Jay Levi,  was accused of sexual misconduct. One student alleged the professor groped her inner thigh multiple times and pressed his body into her while they were in a dark room together. Levi was also Smith’s academic advisor during his time at Carleton. 

According to Carleton’s student paper, The Carletonian, this was just one of at least nine Title IX claims brought against the professor. Title IX, part of the Education Amendments of 1972, prohibits gender-based discrimination in educational programs that receive federal funding.

After students reported the professor’s inappropriate sexual behavior, he took a “sabbatical.” He returned to campus in 2018. In 2019, a piece in the Carletonian claimed the Title IX investigation was “adjudicated with an opaque set of sanctions.” In a subsequent piece, a student writer expressed shock and anger in response to the misconduct and urged Carlton faculty to “redesign” the sexual misconduct complaint process.

Discussing his time at the college, Pope said, “It was definitely a situation with [Levi] where it felt more like students looking out for students, or students informing students.” He stated, “I don’t remember a time where the college was initiating those conversations — it was definitely a keep-it-quiet situation.”

According to Pope, “transparency would have felt better” in situations of sexual misconduct on campus, a sentiment that is echoed by students across the country in light of cover-ups and institutional censorship.

In recent years, a plethora of elite schools, such as Harvard and Stanford, have been accused of mishandling sexual misconduct. Inadequate responses from administration officials angered students. Given this poor track record, future students fear what will happen if they are assaulted.

Women are at serious risk of sexual abuse in US institutions of higher education. Many institutions refuse to take accountability for enabling continued abuse. One in five women is sexually assaulted during their time in college. Two-thirds of college students are sexually harassed.

Yet according to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC), in 2014, 40% of US colleges stated they had not investigated a single sexual assault case in the previous five years. Compare this data to the number of reported sexual misconduct cases on college campuses, and the fact that two-thirds of assaults in the US go unreported. The numbers don’t add up.

Justice from India to the US

The frequency and perception of assaults vary from country to country. A closer look at how universities in the US respond to accusations of sexual misconduct shows that women are often hurt by a lack of transparency. Jane left a country where both data and attitudes indicate she would have been exposed to sexual misconduct at home, only to encounter it upon arrival in the US.

In India, women face sexual misconduct in schools, hospitals, workplaces, public transportation and at home. Women are raised to be aware of the high likelihood of harassment, abuse and, in the worst-case scenario, rape.

They intimately understand the hardship of speaking out in a country where bureaucratic processes, cultural shame, the caste system and gender roles often form insurmountable obstacles for women seeking justice.

Despite cover-ups and pay-offs, cases from the Kolkata incident in August to the Nirbhaya gang rape of 2012 – which led to the creation of the death penalty for rape in India — galvanized the public and advanced the fight for greater accountability, justice and legislative reform.

In the US, there is greater overall gender equality, better access to medical resources and mental health support, and a longer history of both legislative and institutionalized systemic support for survivors.

In recent years, there have been significant but insufficient cultural shifts toward believing in and standing up for women. Many women are now taught not only how to stand up for themselves, but also that they can stand up for themselves.

Yet beneath the sparkling facades of US institutions, industries and college campuses, there are people like Harvey Weinstein, Larry Nassar and Roger Ailes. There are cover-ups, pay-offs and the slow but sure suffocation of victims by bureaucracy. And then, silence, until women like Jane come forward.

Hailing from the “rape capital of the world,” Jane arrived at an illustrious college campus in the prairies of Minnesota to pursue an education. She describes her college years as polluted by grooming, harassment and assault that severely damaged her physical, mental and emotional well-being.

This story, one of many, forces us to face disheartening truths and uncomfortable realities. Many US parents quake at the thought of sending their daughter to India when she is young, vulnerable and alone. Consider a family in Delhi or a rural village in Bihar and their excitement at the opportunity for their daughter to attend an elite US college.

Imagine them finding out she was abused, manipulated, assaulted and coerced by an educator in a position of power at an institution they believed was safe for their daughter.

It is time we address the reality of sexual abuse in the US, especially in the education system. The lack of transparency and accountability is catastrophic. It hinders both current and future students like Jane from making informed decisions about their educational environment and the associated risks of sexual harassment and assault.

Before pointing fingers at countries like India, we should be honest with ourselves, our communities and our students about the reality of sexual misconduct in our own nation. We must make tangible changes and consider victims in both how we prevent abuse and how we obtain justice.

[Joey T. McFadden and 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 Illusions of Safety: Sexual Assault from India to the US appeared first on Fair Observer.