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.

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

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

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

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

The Emergency

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

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

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

After the Emergency

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

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

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

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

Expansion of PILs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The decline of Parliament

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

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

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

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

SLPs and the judicialization of governance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Inefficiency within the Court

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kaitlyn Diana edited this piece]

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

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

A moral groundwork

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

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

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

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

The loss of morality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kaitlyn Diana edited this piece]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obliterating Obergefell v. Hodges

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

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

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

Setting the record straight on the 14th Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Birthright citizenship must end

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

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

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

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

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

I hope he has the constitution for it.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

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

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

Nathdwara became a unique centre, its rituals and traditions remaining virtually unchanged for over 300 years. Until recently it was in a time capsule, maintaining artistic traditions that had vanished from the Rajput courts. It was the archive for the styles and techniques of the courtly painting studios of Rajasthan as well as the home to its own unbroken artistic tradition for over three centuries. There were hundreds of artists from the Jangir and Adi Gaur castes dedicated to serving the temple and providing painted icons for the pilgrimage trade.

Until the seventeenth century Nathdwara (Door to the Lord) was only a remote dusty village called Sinhar in the state of Mewar. It soared to fame when Shrinathji and his followers, threatened by the rise to power of the iconoclastic Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb, fled Krishna’s sacred homeland of Braj and sought refuge in Rajasthan. It is said that the Maharana of Mewar with a retinue of 100,000 warriors went out to escort Shrinathji personally to his capital of Sesodias but that the bullock cart carrying Krishna became bogged down in the mud in the small village of Sinhar. It was taken as a sign that Shrinathji had selected this spot along the Banas River as a haven.

It is debatable whether the Vallabhacharis, so named for their guru Vallabhacharya (VS 1535-1587; 1478-1530 CE), fled the area out of fear of persecution or whether they made a judicious decision to resettle in Rajasthan. It is possible that the uncertainty caused by Aurangzeb’s threats reduced the pilgrimage trade and affected the temple revenue. The Shrinathji ki Prakatya Varta records that Aurangzeb’s messenger delivered an ultimatum to Vallabha’s grandsons that ‘either the fakir of Gokul show some miracle or leave the Mughal Empire. This rude warning must have come as a shock. Prior to Aurangzeb’s reign the Vallabhacharis had enjoyed Mughal favours and were protected by several firmans issued by Akbar and Shah Jahan that gave them grazing rights over the land stretching from Gokul to the whole district of Mahaban. In addition, they enjoyed the privilege of being exempt from taxation. It is debatable whether they fled or simply decided to reestablish the sect in the land of wealthy Rajasthani maharajas whom they had cultivated as devotees. E. Allen Richardson argues that Maharana Raj Singh of Udaipur, beginning in 1665, with the gift of the village of Asotiya in Mewar to two goswamis, was preparing a place for the Vallabha Sampraday and that Maharana Raj Singh foresaw the economic and social benefits of bringing the popular sect to Mewar.

Among the Vallabhacharis there is a story that explains the situation without tarnishing their relationship with the Mughals. On one of his missions, Vitthalnathji (VS 1572-1642; 1515-1585 CE), the son of Vallabhacharya, had visited Sinhar where he initiated into the sect one Ajabkurivar, the sister-in-law of the legendary Bhakti poetess Mirabai. Ajabkunvar became so passionately attached to Shrinathji that she asked him to visit her every night. Shrinathji granted her wish and came every evening, traversing hundreds of miles from Braj, to play with her his favourite parcheesi-like game of chaupar. Finally, seeing him red-eyed and exhausted from his travels, Ajabkunvar requested Shrinathji to settle in Mewar permanently. Shrinathji replied that it was not possible for him to do so now but that he would in the future after the time of Vallabhacharya and Vitthalnathji. In 1669 when the persecution grew acute, Vitthalnathji and Vallabhacharya had both passed away. It was time for the promise to be fulfilled. The bullock chariot carrying Shrinathji reached Sinhar in VS 1728 (1671 CE) and it came to rest beneath a pipal tree where Ajabkunvar’s house had been located. It was to be Shrinathji’s new home. Tradition holds that Shrinathji’s shrine is the only one in the sect with a tiled roof in imitation of Ajabkunvar’s house.

Interestingly the account of the move in the Shrinathji ki Prakatya Varta records none of the pomp that James Tod describes in his Annals of Rajasthan. According to Harirai (b. 1590), author of the Shrinathji ki Prakatya Varta, and a member of one of the thirty-six families that accompanied Shrinathji to Rajasthan, the move was done as quietly as possible. Perhaps it was the Maharana of Mewar who wanted to make a great show of Shrinathji’s arrival whereas the Vallabhacharis wanted only safety for their svarup.

No doubt the flight was a major disruption for the Vallabhacharya Sampraday. When the upheaval occurred in 1669, the sect had been established well over 150 years on Mount Govardhan, the location where Shrinathji first appeared, It was a shift not taken easily for this was Krishna’s birthplace, the playground for his lilas (sports) and most importantly the site of Shrinathji raising Mount Govardhan as an umbrella to protect his people from the punishing deluge sent by the storm god Indra. Even though the teenaged Tilakayat Damodarji (VS 1711-1760; 1654 -1703 CE) was supported by his uncles, Gopinathji and Balakrishnaji, it must have been an emotionally trying decision for him to make. The sect had strong roots in Braj.

After Shrinathji’s arrival in Sinhar a shrine was erected in VS 1728 (1671 CE) which was purposefully designed as a haveli (mansion) instead of the traditional shikara-style (towered) temple. The architect of the new temple built on the pattern of an aristocrat’s mansion was Gopaldas Ustad under the supervision of Hariraiji, the author of the Shrinathji ki Prakatya Varta. Every part of the new structure was to recall the sacred topography of Braj, Krishna’s homeland.

Today pilgrims throng the halls of the haveli for every ceremony, jostling each other to reach the Nij Mandir where Shrinathji resides. The viewing periods are short, and thousands seek his darshan (viewing). Although the seva (service) is done with the utmost respect the crush of pilgrims tries the patience of those attempting to feel at one with their Lord. Outside in the streets there is almost a carnival-like atmosphere. Entire lanes are dedicated to outfitting the private shrines of pilgrims. There are shops filled with embroidered fabrics to embellish the sacred chambers and glittery brocade dresses fashioned for every size and shape of image as well as a profusion of painted, printed and sculpted images of Shrinathji. Prasad, which is made in the haveli kitchens in great quantities, is available for purchase. There are piles of ghee-laden laddus, pots of thick sweet rabri and mounds of savoury besan sev—all Krishna’s favourites. Nathdwara fosters an entire industry dedicated to the worship of Shrinathji.

Since the founding of Nathdwara, artists have been drawn to this sacred place to fulfil the needs of the haveli and to provide pilgrims with painted devotional images for their shrines. While the other schools of Rajasthani painting have died out for lack of royal patronage, Nathdwara has continued, fed by the passionate desire of devotees to serve Shrinathji and to be one with their Lord.

[Niyogi Books has given Fair Observer permission to publish this excerpt from Nathdwara Paintings from the Anil Relia Collection: The Portal to Shrinathji, by Kalyan Krishna and Kay Talwar, Niyogi Books, 2021.]

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

The post Nathdwara Paintings from the Anil Relia Collection: The Portal to Shrinathji appeared first on Fair Observer.

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

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

Caught between empires

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

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

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

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

Lessons from the Commonwealth period

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

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

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

Shifting narratives westward

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

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

[Stephen Chilimidos edited this piece.]

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

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

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.

In recent years, the Northeast Region of Brazil has become the center of the country’s film production industry and has caught the attention of festivals worldwide, with some of the most important awards being given to Brazilian filmmakers over the last two decades. Is there a Northeast wave ready to make Brazilian cinema a new cultural soft power?

I spoke with some of the most important filmmakers in the region to get some answers.  Director Gabriel Mascaro told me,

At the end of last century, Northeast filmmakers got tired of aligning their work with the expectations of the Brazilian movie industry dominated by a carioca (Rio de Janeiro) look. That stimulated more independent and original productions, which connected with international filmographie’s expectations. Today, some TV and streaming companies have begun to wake up to this potential. Streaming bet on us and are getting good results.

Mascaro won the Special Jury Prize at the Venice Film Festival for his movie Neon Bull (2015), which also won the Platform Prize at the Toronto International Film Festival. Neon Bull tells the story of Iremar, who works for a rodeo in northeastern Brazil. He lives in the truck that transports the rodeo animals, where he dreams of a future as a tailor in the region’s booming clothing industry.

Far from Rio

Brazilian audiovisual production has been historically concentrated in major southeastern cities like São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. Rio is where TV Globo operates, the largest TV company in Latin America and among the world’s five biggest commercial television stations. For the last four decades, TV Globo has been exporting telenovelas to almost one hundred nations, making it one of Brazil’s most successful exporters of cultural soft power. The drama Escrava Isaura (Isaura the Slave) was distributed in 104 countries and watched by around 1 billion viewers in China alone.

However, in Brazilian cinema, the Northeast Region generates the most award-winning films globally. “There has always been a tradition of cinema in the Northeast, since the silent cinema of Recife, the capital of Pernambuco, of the 1920s. It also helps that great writers are from the region, like Gilberto Freyre. It’s not a surprise that Northeast cinema would explode in the world someday. Northeast filmmakers make their films with local colors, local music, local accents and strong cultures that leverage comedies and dramas. The great inheritance of the New Cinema movement is the decision to take risks with an inventive and pulsating cinema,” says Marcelo Gomes.

Gomez won the Cinema Prize of the French National Education System at the Cannes Film Festival in 2005 for his film Cinema, Aspirins and Vultures and the Silver Q-Hugo Award at the Chicago International Film Festival for Paloma (2022).

The 2005 film tells the story of two men who meet in Brazil’s arid northeastern backlands in 1942. One of the men is a German refugee who travels through cities as an aspirin salesman. The more recent 2022 film is the touching story of Paloma, a farmer who wants a traditional church wedding with her boyfriend Zé, but is refused by local priests because she is a transgender woman.

Paloma, directed by Marcelo Gomes. Used with permission.

Big box offices

Half a century ago, the New Cinema movement put Brazilian cinema on the world map for the first time, with movies that emphasized social inequality and intellectualism. Influenced by Italian neorealism and the French New Wave, it helped Brazilian filmmakers win the most important international awards.

Glauber Rocha won the Fipresci Prize at the Cannes Film Festival with Entranced Earth (1967) and Best Director at Cannes for Antonio das Mortes (1969). Nelson Pereira dos Santos won the Ocic Award at the Cannes Film Festival for Dry Lives (1964), based on the book by the Northeastern writer Graciliano Ramos. Lastly, Joaquim Pedro de Andrade won Best Film at the Mar del Plata International Film Festival for Macunaíma, a surreal comedy and social commentary about a lazy hero who leaves the backlands with his brothers.

However, none of these films from the New Cinema movement made waves with substantial audiences in Brazil. They were less popular because they were seen as too intellectual and superficial, unlike telenovelas.

“The explanation for this is exoticism. International festivals have a very reductant view about Brazil, like if we were zoo animals. Exoticism really matters. Stories about communities in the Northeast, indigenous, quilombolas (afro-Brazilian residents of quilombo settlements, first established by escaped slaves in Brazil) end up gaining great resonance. There’s also a certain historical guilt, a certain desire for reparation, for being colonialists for too long. There are also the stereotypes that we are less developed and very virulent. Movies with those aspects get more attention outside,” says Aly Muritiba.

Muritiba won Best Film at the Venice Film Festival for Private Desert (2021), about a suspended police officer who goes to the Northeast to meet a mysterious woman and falls in love with her, but then discovers that she is transgender. 

Rio de Janeiro is still the source of some of Brazil’s most successful box office hits. Central Station (1998), nominated for Best Foreign Film and Best Actress at the Academy Awards, was seen by 1.6 million people. City of God (2002) received four Academy Award nominations and was seen by 3.4 million viewers. Elite Squad (2007) won the Golden Berlin Bear in the Berlin International Film Festival and was seen by 2.4 million viewers. The sequel, Elite Squad 2: The Enemy Within, was seen by 11 million in theaters. Recently, Walter Salles’ I’m Still Here (2024) reached 2 million viewers and is in the running for Academy Award nominations. It tells the story of a congressman who was kidnapped and murdered during Brazil’s military dictatorship. All of these films were produced and set in Rio de Janeiro.

However, the numbers show the Northeast is fighting back. The region’s first phenomenon was A Dog’s Will (2000), based on a classic story by the northeastern writer Ariano Suassuna. It was a huge success as a TV show and a film, seen by 2.2 million people in theaters. On TV, productions located in and based on popular stories from the Northeast were distributed by TV Globo internationally.

Today is Maria’s Day (2005), nominated for best miniseries at the International Emmy Awards is one example. Another is Bacurau, directed by Juliano Dornelles and Kleber Mendonça Filho, it won the Jury Prize at the Cannes Film Festival. The film, extremely violent and erotic, is about a city where strange things happen after the death of the city’s matriarch. With clear similarities to New Cinema, but with commercial appeal, it was seen by almost eight hundred thousand in theaters. 

Recently, Prime Video’s New Bandits (2023), directed by Aly Muritiba and Fabio Mendonça, became an international hit. It was a Top 10 show in 49 countries, including 24 African countries, 9 Asian countries, Canada, Portugal and Brazil. It is one of the more recent shows produced in Brazil at this level of sophistication.

The show is a modern version of The Bandit (1953), about a man who terrorizes poor villages in the Northeast of Brazil. It was renewed for a second season and won the International Prize at the Cannes Film Festival.

A new cultural soft power?

Is the wave of Northeastern cinema a new Brazilian soft power? “Yes!” says Halder Gomes, a comedy director based in the region. “Northeast movies are desired and hoped for by international festival curators. They already know that the region is a hotbed of potent films. Northeast cinema is already a ‘commodity,’ in a good way, in international festivals.” Half a million viewers have seen the local Cine Holliúdy in theaters and O Shaolin do Sertão (2016) has been seen by over six hundred thousand in theaters.

Both productions generated sequels, spin-offs and TV versions for TV Globo and Netflix. “But I think there must have been a political will among the states of the region and the federal government to make the Northeast cinema a soft power. A will to expand, distribute, the same strategy the American government did with Hollywood in the 1940s and South Korea is doing today,” Aly Muritiba reminds us.

That may be true. But not even political will can turn a cultural product into soft power without genuine artistic talent behind it. Today, the Northeast of Brazil is a hub for great filmmaking.

Besides the filmmakers above, the region also gave the world Sergio Machado, winner of the Award of the Youth at the Cannes Film Festival with Lower City (2005); Claudio Assis, winner of the CICAE Award at the Berlin International Film Festival with Mango Yellow (2005); and Monique Gardenberg, whose TV version of her movie Ó pai, Ó was nominated for an international Emmy in 2009.

The region’s Karim Ainouz, nominated for Berlin’s Golden Berlin with his Futuro Beach (2014) and Cannes’ Palme d’Or and Queer Palm for Motel Destino (2024), tells stories set in the northeast state of Ceará in both films.

Brazil’s cultural products have exerted soft power in the past. Bossa Nova seduced the ears and hearts of the world beginning in the 1950s. In the 2000s, funk and trap became the new move. Brazil’s Carnival festival is still one of the most celebrated events in the world, attracting millions of tourists from across the globe.

However, all these cultural phenomena have been centered around Rio de Janeiro. Maybe now is the time for the stories and artists of the Northeast to shine brighter and become a new center for Brazil’s cultural soft power.

[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 Northeast Cinema Wave: A New Center of Soft Power for Brazil? 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.

Richard Head and Tony McClenaghan in their book, The Maharajas’ Paltans have said that the armed forces of Marwar were formed from the feudal contingents provided by Jagirdars (nobles) when needed, until Maharaja Vijay Singh’s reign (1753-1793). However, the growing power of these nobles and increasing menace of the Marathas led Maharaja Vijay Singh to raise a small force of his own, chiefly composed of the foreign mercenaries—Rohilas, Afghans, Nagas and Purbias. At the time when the Maratha power was in the ascendant and the Pindaris were ravaging India, the Jodhpur forces numbered some 12,000 men, of whom 4,000 were Jagirdar Sowars. The latter, were called out to aid in time of war, whilst the remainder were a mixed force including guns, cavalry and infantry. These mercenaries were more unscrupulous and less faithful than the indigenous force. Thus, the Marwar army degenerated into a heterogeneous, indisciplined and poorly equipped force till conclusion of the treaty of 1818, whereby the state was freed from all fear of external attack, the necessity of maintaining a large standing army for the defence of the Raj disappeared.

Some of these men were habitual consumers of opium, which they consumed just before going to war. The Rajputs always fed some to their horses as well, so as to make them immune to fear and to permit them to better endure the fatigue of battle. Opium, which made the warriors fearless and oblivious to danger and increased their force and courage tenfold, worked as a cure-all for their soul. This excessive consumption of opium at the time of war led to a habit of daily consumption. Sanctioned by its usage, comes the Rajput expression of ‘sharing of opium,’ to ratify a solemn engagement, an inviolable promise. (The consumption of opium was not illegal and it was consumed openly and distributed to users while on active service even during the Great War. This practice was, however, completely eradicated during the inter-war period of 1919 to 1939).

On 6 January 1818 a treaty was signed with the British at Delhi, thereby bringing the State fully under British protection. Under article 8 of the Treaty of 1818, the Jodhpur Maharaja was required to furnish a contingent of 1,500 horse for the service of the British Government whenever required. This proved unsatisfactory and it was revised on 07 December 1835 by substituting the payment of 1.15 Lakhs annually for the obligation to furnish a contingent of 1,500 Horse.

This sum was at first devoted to the formation and maintenance of a Corps known as the Jodhpur Legion Cavalry and stationed at Erinpura. Recruitment for this force started in January 1836 at Ajmer, but in November of the same year the force moved to Erinpura, about 78 miles south of Jodhpur. The Jodhpur Legion was a composite force of cavalry, infantry and artillery.

The Panjdeh incident in March 1885, when the Russians attacked an Afghan force on the North West Frontier, led to fear of an impending war with Russia. This led Viceroy Dufferin to announce on 17 November 1888, the scheme of Imperial Service Troops (IST) i.e., the troops held for the support of the Imperial interests. He asked the Indian Princes to locally recruit their troops, train and equip them at their own cost, to a standard of regular army, so as to be available to the Government of India in times of war. Great care was taken that these troops should be the real state troops and not resemble the old contingents of foreign mercenaries. It was hoped, incidentally, that these troops would furnish interesting and more active employment for young nobles and gentry to whom the life within the State might fail in affording a career, and to a certain extent it had these results.

[Niyogi Books has given Fair Observer permission to publish this excerpt from The Story of the Jodhpur Lancers: 1885-1952, by Mahendra Singh Jodha, Niyogi Books, 2018.]

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

The post The Story of the Jodhpur Lancers: 1885–1952 appeared first on Fair Observer.

No room for improvisation in the face of climate risks

In its report October 3, 2024 Greenpeace harshly criticized the French government’s plans to build two new EPR2 nuclear reactors in northwestern France near Dunkirk due to the risk of flooding. The new units are scheduled to be operational by 2040, but the problem lies in the site chosen for construction. The chosen site is located in a region already at risk of flooding and will become increasingly vulnerable as climate change worsens.

The Gravelines nuclear power plant is currently the most powerful in Western Europe, already consisting of six 900 MW reactors. The French state-owned energy company EDF has promised to build two more reactors at the same plant on an 11-meter-high platform to protect from flooding. According to EDF experts, the NPP project will sufficiently resist climate challenges until 2070. However, this is only the middle of the plant’s lifespan, which is expected to last 60 years until 2100. Its dismantling is scheduled for the middle of the next century, and EDF promises to “adapt” the project to current climate conditions every 10 years after 2070.

It sounds reckless, as the UN Environment Programme warns of a temperature rise of up to  +3.1°C in the coming decades, leading to sea level rise and a dramatic increase in extreme climate events. Have the French authorities already forgotten the devastating North Sea flood of 1953 and the numerous disasters in France in recent years? Even today, most of the area around the nuclear power plant is below sea level during high tides, and only protective structures built nearby, turning the NPP into a kind of “island,” have saved the region from disaster. Since 2022, the Gravelines Nuclear Power Station has been surrounded by a 3-kilometer-long protective wall, which costs EDF 35 million euros. How much more will EDF spend to ensure the nuclear plant’s safety, and what will happen if nature proves more potent than the fortifications built?

The EDF project documentation contains too many unanswered questions, which exist only thanks to Macron’s political patronage. The facts indicate that constructing new reactors poses an extreme danger to the local population and the environment. Nuclear power plants are vulnerable to climate change, and the rampant rush to revive the nuclear power industry should be stopped.

New Challenges for Macron’s Nuclear Renaissance

By announcing the revival of nuclear energy in the country, President Macron has formally taken a step toward reviving France’s economic, industrial and military power. However, the French economy is not yet ready to fully support such ambitious plans.

Macron’s ambitious plans to build 14 new nuclear power units will face a glaring shortage of qualified personnel. The French nuclear industry currently employs about 220 thousand people. To achieve Marcon’s objectives, the industry will need a significant influx of skilled workers, particularly in the workforce. By 2030, according to EDF estimates, their number needs to be at least doubled. The proposed construction timeline is also impressive. The first Gravelines unit with the EPR-2 reactor is expected to take only eight years to complete. It is worth mentioning the notorious Flamanville nuclear reactor in Normandy, which ended up costing 4 times its initial budget, reaching €13.2 billion, and was launched more than a decade behind schedule. 

The Loss of African Uranium Deposits

France is particularly concerned about the exploitation of uranium from Niger and the potential consequences of losing its supply. For more than four decades, the Orano company, owned by the French state by 45%, has been developing uranium in African countries. Niger is one of the three largest suppliers of this valuable natural resource to France. However, the recent revocation of Orano’s uranium mining license in Niger has cast doubt on France’s energy independence. Representatives of the new Nigerien authorities have stated that uranium has been used to supply Europe with electricity for decades. Still, West Africa remains one of the poorest countries in the world and has not benefited much from exports. Additionally, the economic risks for the French nuclear industry include uranium prices that have reached historical highs, primarily due to European countries’ search for new energy suppliers after 2022. 

According to Macron, promoting nuclear technologies in France should lead the country to complete independence from foreign energy supplies and secure France’s status as the flagship nuclear industry in the EU. The problem is that Macron knows it will not be up to him but to future generations of French politicians to address the problems mentioned above regarding his misleading nuclear policy. 

[Tara Yarwais 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 France’s New Nuclear Power Plant Is a Ticking Bomb 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.

The findings of the GUESSS India survey provide valuable insights into career aspirations, government support for startups, and suggestions for fostering a more supportive environment for future entrepreneurs. The implications of these findings are significant for policymakers, educators, and investors. By supporting this entrepreneurial movement, India could undergo transformative change and set an example of student-led growth for the global community.

Indian students stand out globally, demonstrating one of the highest levels of entrepreneurial ambition. As India’s startup ecosystem thrives, aided by government initiatives like Startup India and extensive support from academic institutions, the GUESSS report raises essential conversations for policymakers, educators, and stakeholders. Targeted strategies are needed to harness this entrepreneurial potential by closing critical gaps, improving accessibility, and building an environment where every aspiring entrepreneur can succeed.

Immediate career preferences: employment is primary, but entrepreneurship is on the rise

The GUESSS India 2023 report, the first survey in India, reveals that 69.7% of Indian students intend to pursue employment right after graduation, a statistic that mirrors global trends. Many students within this group aspire to join large corporations, public service, or academia, reflecting the value placed on job security and career stability early on. This preference aligns with the traditional education-to-employment path that has historically directed students toward stable jobs post-graduation.

However, a growing segment—about 14%—aims to jump directly into entrepreneurship. This new wave of students sees potential in creating their own businesses and contributing to India’s dynamic startup environment. With entrepreneurship becoming more attractive due to platforms like Shark Tank India and the success stories of Indian unicorns, students are increasingly inspired to build their ventures.

Five years after graduation, the number of students aiming to launch their businesses more than doubled, reaching 31.4%. Meanwhile, preference for traditional employment falls to 52.2%. This trend suggests an “employee-first, entrepreneur-later” mindset, where students view the corporate experience as valuable preparation for entrepreneurship. For policymakers and educational institutions, this deferred approach signals the need to create pathways that make entrepreneurship a feasible career choice right after graduation.

The role of government initiatives: startup India and incubators

Government initiatives, especially Startup India, have created a vast network of over 500 government-recognized incubators nationwide, fostering a supportive environment for young entrepreneurs. These incubators serve as critical resources, providing funding, mentorship, and hands-on business support to help students overcome early obstacles. In addition, programs like tax exemptions, simplified compliance, and prioritized procurement for government projects have helped student-led ventures thrive. 

Through initiatives like the National Innovation and Startup Policy (NISP) and the National Education Policy (NEP), the government encourages universities to include entrepreneurship in their curricula—for example, the Atal Innovation Mission funds numerous universities’ innovation labs and incubation centers. The Atmanirbhar Bharat and Make in India encourage student entrepreneurship by supporting ventures that foster national self-reliance and showcase Indian ingenuity. Expanding access to incubators, mentorship, and funding focused on young entrepreneurs will empower more students to transform their ambitions into businesses that enhance India’s economic resilience and international stature.

Challenges in achieving the entrepreneurial vision

Despite enthusiasm for entrepreneurship, challenges hinder the transition from intention to action. Currently, only 4.8% of Indian students manage active, revenue-generating businesses. This discrepancy suggests barriers to transforming startup ideas into functional businesses, requiring attention from institutions and policymakers. Furthermore, male students display higher entrepreneurial ambition than their female counterparts, highlighting the need for programs encouraging women entrepreneurs. Resource accessibility, especially incubators and funding, also varies across regions, posing additional challenges for students in rural or underserved areas. Addressing these regional disparities is crucial to ensuring equal entrepreneurial opportunities for all students.

Recommendations to unlock India’s entrepreneurial potential

The following actions are essential to maximize the entrepreneurial potential of India’s youth:

1. Expand Incubation Support: While India’s incubator network is growing, making these resources more accessible to students across regions, especially women entrepreneurs, would create a more inclusive ecosystem. Aligning these resources with student needs, particularly in non-urban areas, will foster a diverse and widespread entrepreneurial culture.

2. Enhance Entrepreneurial Education: Integrating entrepreneurship education across disciplines—not just in business schools—can foster a broader understanding of venture creation. Universities can also implement experiential programs that let students work on actual startup projects, bridging the gap between theory and practice.

3. Increase Government-Industry-Academia Collaboration: Collaborative programs among government agencies, private enterprises, and academic institutions can provide funding and mentorship, helping students gain valuable industry insights and connections crucial for entrepreneurial success.

4. Support Women Entrepreneurs: Mentorship programs and scholarships for female entrepreneurs can help close the gender gap in entrepreneurship. Female students can also benefit from connecting with female mentors and role models in business, inspiring more women to pursue entrepreneurial careers.

5. Promote a Startup Culture through Media and Events: Shows like Shark Tank India illustrate media’s impact on career ambitions. More events and initiatives celebrating young entrepreneurs can help create a culture where entrepreneurship is encouraged and celebrated.

India’s path forward: reflections from stakeholders

As India’s student entrepreneurship ecosystem grows, policymakers, educators, and industry leaders have a unique opportunity to shape a future where student-driven innovation fuels economic growth. Supporting the ambitions of young entrepreneurs benefits individuals and contributes to solving more significant economic issues, from job creation to technological advancement.

The GUESSS India 2023 Survey reveals a strong entrepreneurial drive among India’s youth. The challenge ahead is creating a comprehensive support system that removes obstacles and improves accessibility, enabling these entrepreneurial aspirations to become impactful realities. Through effective policies, enhanced educational frameworks, and collaborative initiatives, India can position itself as a global hub for student-led entrepreneurship.

[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 The 2023 GUESSS Survey on India’s Promising Youth Entrepreneurship 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 German traffic light coalition government of the Social Democrats, Free Democrats and Greens (respectively red, yellow and green) has fallen. So has the French minority government led by Michel Barnier of Les Republicains. Now, neither France nor Germany has a government or a budget. Note this has not happened before.

Social divisions and political polarization

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

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

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

European economies are in big trouble

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BRICS’s expansion

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

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

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

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

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

More members may bring complications

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

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

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

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

A wide spread

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

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

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

Why Pakistan was kept away

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

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

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

Do not overestimate BRICS’s pace

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

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

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

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

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

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

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.

According to her daughter Primavera, Hilde struggled in Bombay. At first she had no place to stay and slept on the therapy table in the consulting room of a South Indian doctor. There she met a young Parsi homeopath, Dr A.K. Boman-Behram. Wartime regulations required foreigners to register daily at the police station; the young doctor took Hilde there on his motorbike every single day. Romance flourished and they married in 1940. They lived in Queens Mansion in the Fort area where Hilde turned the large hall into her dance studio. Hilde’s first performance in India was at the Taj Mahal Hotel.

She soon began to absorb the vibrant forms of Indian classical dance and art, and to strike up friendships with other artists in the city such as Uday, Menaka, and Sachin Shankar. The dancer Ram Gopal taught at her studio. Magda Nachman, the Russian artist, was her closest friend. In 1941, two ballets (The Selfish Giant and Russian Fairy Tale) with music by Russian composers and with costumes by Nachman were presented by the Excelsior Theatre. They were written and choreographed by Holger using her female dance students, many of whom were Parsis.

Hilde’s dance studio was quintessentially cosmopolitan. An unconventional choreographer, she had her dancers perform under the open skies on the beach at Juhu with the waves rolling in the background and their orchestrated movements reflecting the rhythms of the cosmos. The young Parsi, Avan Billimoria, captured these performances in timeless photographs. The sea and the dancers, each mirroring the strength and energy of the other, the sun flashing on both—nature and art blending together by way of stunning movements sculpted in time. Hilde always stressed the line—the center of balance that passes through the center of the body. But the forms she created were always unconventional.

Hilde had met and admired Gandhi, treasuring till her last days the photograph he signed for her. On the fateful day of Gandhi’s assassination, Hilde recalls that she was directing a dress rehearsal and “a dreadful sadness came over all of us, Indians and Europeans” alike. The theatres shut down as the country mourned. Continuing communal riots in the country in the wake of the partition of India compelled Hilde and her family to leave for London, where she started the Hilde Holger School of Contemporary Dance.

However, there were new difficulties. In 1949, her son Darius was born with Down’s syndrome. Determined to help him live a meaningful life, she created a form of dance therapy for those with disabilities. Darius enjoyed music, played the drums, and contrary to expectations, lived to be almost 60. Primavera herself learnt dance initially from Hilde, performed in her productions, and designed costumes; she has worked in theatre and film, and also designed jewelry. She has made a film titled Hilde—Her Legacy on her mother’s fascinating journey.

Primavera directed me to one of her mother’s students, the charming Feroza Seervai, who grew up in a westernized milieu and whose husband H.M. Seervai was the Advocate General of Maharashtra. Feroza animatedly recollected how “Hilde taught free movement and the importance of the line in dance.” The artist Shiavax Chavda would sit in at the rehearsals, sketching. Feroza danced in several performances at the Excelsior and St. Xavier’s College Hall. Feroza recalled Hilde’s playful wit. On a trip to South India, when someone asked her where she was from, Hilde replied, “I’m made in Vienna!” So she was. But I cannot help thinking that perhaps she was made by Bombay too, and that figures like her hint at a different Bombay whose history is yet to be written.

[Niyogi Books has given Fair Observer permission to publish this excerpt from Jews and the Indian National Art Project, edited by Kenneth X. Robbins and Marvin Tokayer, Niyogi Books, 2015.]

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

The post Jews and the Indian National Art Project 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.

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

What is going on?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

History is rhyming but not repeating itself

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The rise and fall of Macron and the Fifth Republic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

Pursuit of partnerships

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

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

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

Benefits of Eastern European–Southeast Asian cooperation

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

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

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

Challenges and solutions

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

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

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

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

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

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

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

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.

Stereotypes actively ignore the reality of the Gulf region

The central flaw of the movie lies in its reliance on negative stereotypes. Saudi citizens are depicted in a manner that ignores the core values of hospitality, respect and cultural diversity that define much of Saudi society. This reductive representation not only mischaracterizes the Saudi people but also risks straining the diplomatic and economic ties between Saudi Arabia and India. For decades, Saudi Arabia has been a key partner to India, especially in providing employment opportunities for millions of Indian expatriates. However, Goat Life largely overlooks the positive contributions these expatriates offer Saudi society and the mutually beneficial relationships both countries have enjoyed in the Gulf.

The focus on negative experiences within Saudi Arabia is further complicated by the omission of success stories from the region. Many Indian professionals have built thriving careers in industries such as healthcare, technology and construction. Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 initiative, which has specifically invited Indian professionals to contribute to the Kingdom’s ambitious development projects, is completely disregarded in the film. Initiatives like the Musaned program, which safeguards the rights of domestic workers, are also ignored, painting an incomplete picture of life for Indian expatriates in the Gulf.

Important social issues continue to be ignored

This misrepresentation in the movie reflects a broader trend in Indian foreign policy in which flaws in allied nations are highlighted while domestic issues are underplayed. Indian cinema, in this case, seems to follow suit. The film’s exaggerated depiction of life in Saudi Arabia diverts attention from pressing societal challenges in India, such as exploitation, gender-based violence and systemic inequality. Notable cases like the Nirbhaya gang rape or the Kathua incident are stark reminders of real, tragic stories that exist within India’s borders — stories that deserve more attention in Indian cinema.

This selective narrative raises further questions when considering recent developments such as the Canadian government’s allegations against the state of India. Canada accused India of being involved in the killing of Canadian nationals on Canadian soil. Such serious accusations, which have significant geopolitical implications, are conspicuously absent from Indian cinema’s focus. Why are these pressing international issues not addressed with the same vigor in Indian films? 

The selective focus on external flaws while overlooking internal issues mirrors a pattern often observed in India’s diplomatic stance. By critiquing its allies through international platforms, India risks eroding the goodwill that has long defined its relationships with key partners like Saudi Arabia. At a time when global interconnectedness is essential, the portrayal of nations in films like Goat Life should aim for greater nuance and fairness. Similarly, Indian cinema has an opportunity to shed light on the real struggles faced within its own borders, amplifying voices that demand justice and reform.

[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 Goat Life: How Indian Cinema Neglects Social Issues 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.