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.

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.

Labour’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, is now taking action. On October 30, she introduced a post-Brexit budget aimed at tackling Britain’s structural deficits while fostering economic growth. Reeves’s goal is to put the UK back on a steady financial path by raising revenues and directing funds toward essential services and infrastructure. Her budget includes £40 billion ($52 billion) in new tax measures alongside targeted investments. 

The budget reflects two competing priorities: increasing growth by stimulating investment and balancing government finances. The UK has been operating with persistent deficits, and the outgoing Conservative government left Labour with a £22 billion ($28 billion) overspend, adding pressure to address the country’s long-standing issues.

Key budget measures

Reeves’s budget introduces a series of tax increases aimed at generating revenue to meet Britain’s immediate fiscal needs. The UK Treasury collects roughly £800 billion ($1 trillion) annually, but economists estimate an additional £20-30 billion ($26-39 billion) is required to achieve a stable economy. Reeves’s budget takes steps to bridge this gap.

Significant tax changes include:

• National insurance contributions: Employers will see increased rates starting in April 2025.
• Capital gains tax: The lower rate will increase from 10% to 18%, while the higher rate moves from 20% to 24%.
• Private school fees: VAT will apply from January 2025, and these schools will lose business rates relief from April 2025.
• Stamp duty land surcharge: The rate on second homes will increase from 2% to 5%.
• Employment allowance: Relief for smaller companies will increase from £5,000 ($6,400) to £10,500 ($13,500)
• Private equity taxation: Tax on managers’ profit shares will rise from 28% to 32%.
• Corporate tax rate: The main rate will stay at 25% for businesses with profits over £250,000 ($320,000) until the next election.

On the spending side, Reeves allocated £22.6 billion ($29.1 billion) to the healthcare sector and £5 billion ($6.4 billion) to housing investment. She also secured funding to extend the High Speed 2 (HS2) railway to London Euston, enhancing transport connectivity across the country. This investment aims to promote growth by addressing years of underinvestment in essential infrastructure.

Will it work?

Britain’s budget deficit and low investment levels echo the issues faced across Europe, with the EU also struggling to maintain competitiveness. According to Mario Draghi’s recent report to the European Commission, the EU’s investment rate of 22% of GDP is insufficient for sustainable growth. The UK has an even lower investment rate, barely surpassing 20% over the past 50 years, often ranking lowest in the G7.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has responded to this investment gap by prioritizing wealth creation. Speaking at an international summit, Starmer emphasized the need to attract private investment to support industries where the UK has a competitive edge, such as creative services, legal and accounting sectors and luxury manufacturing. Starmer has appointed an entrepreneur as investment minister to ease business relations and streamline regulation. However, some business leaders are wary of the government’s new interventionist policies and increased payroll costs. Executives of listed companies have been selling shares at double the rate seen before Labour took office, reflecting concerns over rising wages, expanded employee rights, and growing administrative burdens.

The UK’s attempts to balance its welfare state with economic growth will serve as a test case for other European economies facing similar post-globalization challenges. While the United States benefits from cheap energy and a flexible labor market, European countries, including the UK, must find ways to compete on the global stage with limited resources. How Britain navigates this delicate balance will be closely watched across Europe. If successful, Reeves’s budget could provide a framework for European governments to address similar structural issues, particularly as the EU faces its own struggles to adapt to global economic shifts.

[Anton Schauble wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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: Rachel Reeves Delivers Important Post-Brexit Budget appeared first on Fair Observer.

The BRICS countries argue that the US and its allies have weaponized the global financial system. The dominance of the dollar, and to a lesser extent the euro, in international trade and finance allows the West to impose sanctions that impact countries’ economies deeply. For instance, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the US and its allies froze $282 billion of Russian assets held overseas and cut Russian banks off from SWIFT, a global system for cross-border payments. America also warned other countries’ banks of potential “secondary sanctions” if they supported Russia.

These actions have led several countries to reevaluate their reliance on the US dollar. Central banks around the world, especially in countries at odds with the US, are stockpiling gold and exploring alternatives to dollar-based transactions. BRICS members see this dependency on Western-controlled systems as risky and are eager to reduce it. China, in particular, views reliance on the dollar as a major security vulnerability.

The proposed solution: BRICS Bridge

To reduce dependency on Western financial systems, Russia proposed a new payment system called “BRICS Bridge.” This digital platform would allow BRICS countries to conduct cross-border payments through their central banks without relying on US-controlled networks like SWIFT. The concept borrows elements from a similar system, mBridge, which is partly overseen by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Switzerland, a prominent institution in the Western-led financial order. However, BRICS Bridge aims to challenge that order, offering a financial lifeline to countries facing Western sanctions and creating a more multipolar financial system.

Different visions of global influence

Russia and China are the main drivers behind the push for BRICS reforms, but their motivations differ. Russia seeks to create a sphere of influence that protects its interests and supports its allies through a flexible, transactional approach to international relations. This approach would allow countries to engage with Russia based on mutual benefits without subscribing to Western “normative” values, which Russia sees as biased.

China’s ambitions go further. Rather than just establishing an independent sphere, China wants to rewrite international rules, shaping a world order where multiple centers of power coexist, with China as a central authority. This would give China greater control over global trade, finance, and diplomacy, gradually replacing the US as the primary rulemaker.

Many countries in the Global South support BRICS because they see it as a pathway to a more flexible international environment where they can negotiate deals that directly benefit their economic growth. For example, India has reaped significant benefits from purchasing discounted Russian oil, prioritizing these economic gains despite the moral conflict posed by the ongoing war in Ukraine. In a multipolar world, countries in the Global South could avoid being tied down by Western rules and make independent decisions in their best interests.

However, this freedom comes with risks. Without a dominant Western power like the US to counterbalance rising powers, these smaller countries could find themselves vulnerable to regional giants, such as China, who may impose their will on them by force in the future.

The BRICS alliance reflects a growing dissatisfaction with the current global order. Critics argue that the US-led international system has become ineffective and no longer serves the interests of many countries, leading them to seek alternatives. However, BRICS itself has limitations. Despite its symbolic appeal, it has not achieved substantial progress on key issues like creating a global currency to rival the dollar or liberalizing global trade. The dollar remains dominant, and the influence of Western-led institutions persists.

Even if BRICS doesn’t have the power to immediately reshape the world, its existence signals a significant shift. Countries are increasingly interested in alternatives, showing that faith in the US-led system is waning. The BRICS alliance may lack the cohesion and power to fully realize its vision, but its popularity underscores a global desire for change.

[Anton Schauble wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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: Make Sense of BRICS Summit in Russia appeared first on Fair Observer.

Timeline of escalations

The first significant event in this recent escalation occurred on April 1. On that day, Israel bombed the Iranian consulate in Damascus, Syria’s capital. This strike killed multiple high-ranking Iranian officials. Israel was targeting Iran’s growing influence in Syria and the presence of its leaders close to Israeli borders.

Iran quickly retaliated. On April 13, Iranian allies in the Axis of Resistance captured the MSC Aries, a commercial ship linked to Israel. Iran also launched direct attacks on Israeli territory. The Axis of Resistance, which supports Iran in its regional aims, includes Shia groups like the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, the Popular Mobilization Forces, the Syrian government, and the Houthi movement in Yemen. It may also involve Palestinian militant groups such as Hamas.

In response, Israel conducted limited airstrikes on April 19. These strikes hit targets in both Syria and Iran, signaling Israel’s willingness to counter any action that could threaten its security. After this exchange, tensions cooled temporarily. Both sides proclaimed victory, and hostilities reverted to indirect, proxy conflict.

The fragile calm shattered on July 31. On that day, Israeli operatives carried out two major assassinations. The first was Fuad Shukr, a senior Hezbollah military commander, who was killed early that day. Shortly after, Ismail Haniyeh, the chairman of Hamas’s Political Bureau, was assassinated in Tehran. These targeted killings heightened tensions dramatically.

A few months later, Iran struck Israel directly. On October 1, Iran launched 181 ballistic missiles toward Israel, marking an escalation into open warfare. Israel’s response came nearly a month later.

In retaliation for Iran’s October 1 attack, Israel launched an extensive assault on Iranian targets on October 26. Dozens of Israeli warplanes traveled over 1,300 kilometers from their bases to target critical Iranian facilities. The strikes targeted Iranian air-defense systems, specifically S-300 radar and missile systems, as well as missile factories in three different provinces, including areas near Tehran.

Will Israel and Iran go to war?

Fair Observer’s sources suggest that Israeli leaders are planning further strikes. Potential targets could include Iranian oil terminals, missile sites, and nuclear facilities. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu might consider targeting Kharg Island, Iran’s primary oil terminal in the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz. Special forces from the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) may also conduct further targeted killings, specifically against key personnel in Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Iran has made clear that it wants to avoid a full-scale war with Israel or the United States. The US has played a significant role in trying to limit the scope of this conflict. American officials have issued warnings to both Iran and Israel, urging Iran to avoid any large-scale attacks on Israel while also advising Israel not to escalate the situation. However, the US no longer has as much leverage over Israel as it once did. Continued US military aid is not as vital, in Jerusalem’s view, as the destruction of Iran and Hezbollah’s ability to harm Israelis. They see Iran as weak and believe they must strike while they can.

Iran’s proxy forces, designed to provide a buffer around Iran and deter Israel, have shown limited effectiveness. These proxies can carry out attacks and spread fear, but they have been unable to inflict lasting damage on Israel, which has bolstered Israeli confidence. Despite occasional successful strikes, Iran’s allies cannot challenge Israel’s military defenses over an extended period. Iran’s regime knows that any sustained direct war would push it past the breaking point. Popular resentment against the regime for its repressive religious policies and poor handling of the economy is already high. If the Islamic Republic found itself on the losing end of a foreign war, it would topple.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu also has a precarious political situation. His coalition includes far-right members who advocate for reoccupying Gaza and restoring Israel’s biblical borders. He needs to maintain their political support in order to remain prime minister and avoid pending prosecution for corruption charges. Thus, Netanyahu needs to appeal to this faction, posturing himself as a strong leader capable of resisting Palestinian and Iranian threats. So, he is incentivized to be aggressive, whether or not it is in Israel’s long-term interests.

While Israel may enjoy short- to medium-term security through its aggressive actions, it faces long-term challenges. Its aggressive tack against Iran may push the Islamic Republic to develop a nuclear deterrent as its last defense given Israeli military superiority.

Further down the timeline, Israel faces a demographic risk. Its Muslim population now makes up more than 20% of its citizens, posing a challenge to Israel’s identity as a Jewish state. This trend could reshape Israel’s political landscape — as long as it remains a democracy — by gradually weakening the position of the Jewish majority.

Israeli leadership seems to think it can rescue the country from its precarious position by inflicting a sound defeat on enemies nearby and afar. It remains to be seen how far they will go and whether the gamble will pay off.

[Anton Schauble wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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: The Israel–Iran Conflict Is Getting More Dangerous appeared first on Fair Observer.

Why this report? Europeans are increasingly anxious about their future. Stagnating growth and a lack of innovation threaten the European way of life. As the global landscape shifts, Europe must adapt. Both the US and China have adopted protectionist measures and are aggressively promoting their domestic industries. Meanwhile, Europe has fallen behind. In 1995, European productivity was 95% that of the US; today, it stands at just 80%.

A significant part of Europe’s problem lies in its reliance on banks for corporate borrowing. In Europe, 75% of corporate loans come from banks, compared to just 25% in the US, which boasts deeper and more liquid capital markets. This gives the US a stronger growth engine. Europe lags behind in key sectors like artificial intelligence, electric vehicles, self-driving technology and other cutting-edge fields.

In response, Draghi’s report calls for a bold €800 billion “new industrial strategy for Europe.” This proposal represents a fundamental shift in economic policy and signals the end of the post-Cold War era of European economics. The report’s key recommendations include:

• A complete overhaul of investment funding in the EU.
• Relaxing competition rules to allow market consolidation in industries like telecommunications.
• Greater integration of capital markets and centralized market supervision.
• Joint procurement in defense.
• A new trade agenda for the EU.
• The creation of European Advanced Research Projects Agencies, following US models, to drive world-leading research.
• Raising investment by both the private and public sectors from 22% to 27% of GDP.

This marks a shift in the global economic zeitgeist. Industrial policy, long dismissed by free-market economists as inefficient, has become a central strategy for the US, China and now Europe. Countries like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam and India are also pursuing industrial strategies with some success. It has worked for Europe before, as the success of Airbus demonstrates. Draghi and his team aim to make Europe more competitive while keeping it distinctly European.

There are still some flies in the ointment. Will European nations be able to integrate sensitive sectors like defense, banking and telecommunications? Can the famously divided EU countries overcome their differences and work together? And the most pressing question: Can the EC actually spend the €800 billion that Draghi’s report proposes?

Besides, isn’t this just more of the same old story — a push for greater European integration that will inevitably be resisted? This time, the stakes are different. Europe faces a crisis of competitiveness unlike any before.

The European powers are simply no longer as influential as they used to be. Individual nations can no longer hope to negotiate trade deals on equal footing with powers like China. They must negotiate as a bloc.

The world has changed. France and Britain have lost their colonies. Technology has changed. Volkswagen cannot keep up with Tesla in the electric car space. Europeans are afraid of slipping off the cliff into irrelevance.

Recent developments have convinced Europeans their position is precarious. The Russian invasion of Ukraine, the failure to effectively integrate immigrants and the rise of far-right movements across Europe show that the European project itself is at risk, unless leaders can prove to their populaces that it can work for everyone.

This report, and the broader conversation it represents, could mark a pivotal moment in Europe’s future trajectory.

[Anton Schauble edited this piece.]

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: Mario Draghi Calls for a New European Industrial Policy appeared first on Fair Observer.

To many observers, Trump, with his idiosyncratic leadership style and childish sense of humor, may seem silly. But it is a mistake to think that he does not represent a serious movement in American culture. Trump is the distillation, and perhaps the last gasp, of the values that were once dominant among white Americans: white supremacy, anti-elitism and an isolationism which is founded on the idea that foreigners are untrustworthy and really just not worth dealing with.

These voters see a new America composed of immigrants from Latin America and Asia, as well as groups that have been here somewhat longer like Catholics and Jews, as a threat to the white, Protestant America that they belong to and that traces its roots back to English colonists like the Pilgrims and the Virginia Company. They fear that these “newcomers” will be less resistant to ideas like globalism and socialism which, to them, are anathema.

Never before, at least since World War II, have the anti-democratic and racist components of American society been so close to winning power and threatening the basis of American democracy. Never before, either, has Russia (and perhaps China and Iran) been so able to influence the conversation in the US through disinformation and psychological operations.

Why do whites feel so disaffected? Racism is a factor, but so is the increasing gap in wealth that has many working-class Americans in the interior of the country feeling excluded. Social mobility is low, and universities have become elitist — racially diverse, yes, but largely stocked by the children of the wealthy. Meanwhile, staffers drawn from this elite, and not elected politicians, are the ones who actually draft the laws. Perhaps understandably, rural voters feel like they have to “take their country back.”

Yet if the wealth gap is the problem, Trump is the wrong solution. Trump represents a kind of protectionism and mercantilism that seeks to perpetuate the economic status quo. Harris, on the other hand, wants to increase the dynamism of the economy by moderately redistributing wealth. Capitalistic economies like the US tend to do best when capital is more widely dispersed. It is economic ossification — not foreigners — that are the real threat to white, working-class voters.

[Anton Schauble edited this piece.]

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: Colossal and Historic American Election appeared first on Fair Observer.

Although they belong to different sects of Islam, Hezbollah has solidarity with fellow-Iranian-backed Islamist militant group Hamas. In the wake of the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel and the subsequent Israeli invasion of Gaza, Hezbollah has targeted Israel with rocket strikes. They succeeded in displacing 60,000 Israelis from their homes. Since Israel is small and much of it is uninhabitable desert, this interdiction of a significant part of the north is a serious threat.

On September 17 and 18, Israel upped the ante and conducted a stunning operation blowing up thousands of pagers and walkie-talkies used by Hezbollah. At least 37 people died and thousands were wounded. One of the wounded was the Iranian ambassador to Lebanon. When Hezbollah called a clandestine meeting of 15 elite officers on September 21, an Israeli air strike killed off all of them.

The attacks demonstrated just how pervasive Israeli intelligence’s penetration into Hezbollah’s command control and communications is. Israel appears to have disrupted Hezbollah’s ability to coordinate itself. The militant group has so far failed to mount an effective response. Hezbollah operatives have launched many missiles, but they’ve been uniformly unable to penetrate Israel’s Iron Dome air defense system.

The devastating strike has called into question Hezbollah’s legitimacy as the most powerful force in Lebanon. Will Hezbollah risk total destruction by fighting a full-scale war with Israel, or will they decide to take the strikes on the chin?

What is the way forward for Jerusalem?

The Israeli strikes were a historic tactical victory. But will Israel achieve strategic victory? The present situation recalls Israel’s devastating 1982 air assault on the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), then based in southern Lebanon. Israel succeeded in demolishing the PLO. But, in so doing, it created a power vacuum within a destabilized Lebanon that enabled Hezbollah to rise to dominance. Israel had replaced one Islamist group with another more radical one.

If history repeats itself, Jerusalem may not want to see what replaces Hezbollah. There is no telling what that would look like, but a post-Hezbollah Lebanese militia would likely be less technologically sophisticated and thus harder to infiltrate, as well as more desperate and thus potentially willing to use chemical weapons.

For Iran, the strikes are a wake-up call. Hezbollah was Iran’s insurance against Israel — the constant threat on Israel’s northern border deterred the Jewish state from being too aggressive against Iran. Now, Israel has shown this safety to be illusory and demonstrated that it is willing and able to kill Iranian leaders wherever they are, including in Iran itself.

If a hot war between Israel and Iran broke out, the Islamic Republic, which is already tottering due to internal strife, would probably topple. Still, victory might prove to be Pyrrhic for Israel. Since the start of its current engagement with Hamas, Israel has already seen its economy shrink by 20%. A larger war might leave Israel alive but just barely, impoverished and dependent on foreign protection.

[Anton Schauble edited this piece.]

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: Middle East Tense as Israel Now Hits Hezbollah Hard appeared first on Fair Observer.

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° Talks: The Truth About the Rape Case That Sent West Bengal Into a Tailspin appeared first on Fair Observer.

The Quad is a grouping of four major Indo-Pacific democracies: the United States, India, Japan and Australia. It was relaunched in 2017 to counterbalance China’s growing influence by promoting a free and open Indo-Pacific through cooperation in security, infrastructure and trade.

Despite this ambition, the Quad faces significant limitations. Critics argue it remains a “talking shop,” where dialogue seldom leads to concrete action. Additionally, some members have limited bilateral experience working together, which hampers effective collaboration.

South Korea was notably absent when Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe first conceived the Quad in 2007. Abe’s vision was geographically focused; he pictured a rhombus with its corners in Japan (north), Australia (south), the US (east) and India (west). The idea was to cover ground and secure critical shipping lanes. This left South Korea, located in the middle, outside the equation.

Yet, South Korea has considerable strengths. South Korea and Japan, are the only two economic powers in the region that can plausibly compete with China in building infrastructure rapidly and at scale. South Korea is also a strong defense partner of the US, with a technologically advanced military boasting half a million active personnel — ten times the size of Australia’s. Moreover, South Korea is a leader in global industries like shipbuilding, memory chips and electric vehicle batteries, making it not just a regional player but a global one. Most importantly and obviously, it is a vibrant democracy. For all these reasons, it merits membership in the Quad.

The broader context is the growing security threat posed by China, which seeks to control sea lanes in the East and South China Seas and use its economic power to influence its neighbors. While it makes sense for South Korea to join the Quad, it is unlikely to make provocative moves against China, its largest trading partner and greatest military threat, without a security guarantee from the US. Ultimately, the Quad (or Quint) seems destined to evolve into a military alliance.

[Anton Schauble wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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° Live: Can South Korea Be Useful to the Quad? appeared first on Fair Observer.

However, Trump took a hit in the polls when President Joe Biden withdrew from the race and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris as the new Democratic candidate. Harris’ replacement of Biden has fundamentally changed the dynamics of the election. A historical shift is happening before the country’s eyes.

Voter psychology is changing

The Marxist theory of base and superstructure can help define the shift. The base includes the modes of production that make up the structure of society. The superstructure refers to concepts not directly related to production — in other words, ideology and beliefs. Both the base and the superstructure continually bolster and maintain one another, and they are cyclically linked. 

Harris managed to raise $200 million within eight days of the announcement. She has campaigned on policies different from Biden’s platform. All of this is the base of the election season. The superstructure, on the other hand, manifests in the changing psychological aspects of the voter population based on demographics, geographics and candidate perception. 

With only 53% of the US population identifying as white — compared to the 89% at the country’s inception — the symbolism of Harris’ identity motivates different voter groups. She represents several minorities, as she is a black, South Asian-American female. It could be said that her popularity is reflective of democratization — leaders more representative of the voter population have a certain appeal.

Yet despite Harris’ success, Trump still remains popular among large demographics. Why? White, male and Christian populations have become increasingly aware of the shifting caste structure and their own loss of social power. Individuals within these demographics believe the identity of US society and government is at stake. Trump and his Republicans have taken advantage of this. They use racist attacks against Harris and her platform to appeal to the disenfranchised White voters. 

The Electoral College might be a hindrance for Harris

While Harris’ entrance into the campaign has already garnered immense support, that support comes from populations geographically centered in already-blue regions. Harris simply gained “Back the Blue” voters previously discouraged by Biden’s campaign. Swing states remain unclear in their support.

Even if Harris wins the popular vote, it doesn’t guarantee a win in the Electoral College. Presidential elections in the US aren’t decided by a national popular vote like they are in France. Rather, US elections are determined by a college of electors from each seat. Every state has as many votes as it has delegates (two senators plus however many representatives) in Congress. Because of this, some states have more votes than their population would suggest.

Wyoming is the most extreme case. It gets three electoral votes because it has two senators and one representative. Yet the state’s 581,000 residents — less than 0.2% of the US population — control all these votes. Thus, a vote in Wyoming is 36 times more influential than a vote in California, where 39 million people control just 54 electoral votes. This means a candidate can win a popular vote but lose the electoral vote, leading to the loss of the presidency.

In practice, most states are reliably red or blue. California will almost certainly elect Harris, and Texas will almost certainly elect Trump, canceling most of California’s influence out. Thus, only a few states where Democrats and Republicans are equally balanced are likely to influence the election. And these states may well have different priorities than the rest of the nation.

A number of these states — Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin — are in the “Rust Belt,” a former manufacturing zone hit hard by deindustrialization. Trump has been able to capitalize on the disaffection of these working-class voters in the past. It is thus little surprise that Harris has chosen Tim Walz, the Democratic governor of neighboring Minnesota who is popular among factory workers, to be her running mate.

Harris must reshape voter perception of the Democratic party

Narratives and assumptions attributed to a candidate can influence the electoral college as well as the popular vote. People’s perception of Harris has definitely improved the Democrats’ chances in swing states. This is especially true for policy-conscious voters who look at personal rights issues like women’s access to birth control and right to abortion. Harris has vocalized her support for policies that protect them, in line with the majority of Americans.

However, many voters fault Harris for the Biden administration’s poor handling of immigration. Biden had entrusted Harris with addressing the causes of illegal immigration. Illegal immigration, however, surged dramatically. In a televised interview, Harris spectacularly failed to explain herself to the audience, an embarrassment that caused her to retreat for some time from the public eye. As a presidential candidate, this reputation could hurt her chances in more conservative states, especially among laborers who are wary about being undercut by cheap labor from illegal immigrants willing to work below minimum wage.

Harris must change the narrative surrounding immigration, as well as the struggling US economy, if she wishes to secure the presidency. Simple demographics alone will not take any candidate into the White House. The future depends on both campaigns’ abilities to shape the public narrative.

[Cheyenne Torres wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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: New Twists and Turns in Astonishing US Presidential Election appeared first on Fair Observer.

There is no clear agreement on the Quad’s purpose. Is it a group of friends, or a security alliance? If it serves any purpose, it’s because these democracies, neighboring China, feel the need to unite. While wary of China, they claim not to be forming an alliance to contain it.

If that is the logic, excluding South Korea seems illogical. South Korea, sharing a border with North Korea and with China nearby, is more vulnerable than any Quad member.

Why is South Korea not in the Quad?

It’s important to note that the Quad is originally a Japanese concept. Former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe envisioned it as a platform for future economic cooperation. India, the US, and Australia were key trading partners for Japan, and protecting sea routes to them was essential. This required international cooperation.

From Japan’s perspective, this still makes sense. However, the broader purpose of the Quad has shifted. In 2017, the group “rebooted” and rebranded itself with the slogan “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” — opposing China’s attempts to claim the East and South China Seas as its territorial waters. But if that’s the goal, why exclude South Korea? Or, for that matter, countries like Vietnam and the Philippines, whose maritime sovereignty China threatens?

The AUKUS deal, which includes the US, UK, and Australia, further complicates things. It suggests the US and Australia are moving toward alliances based on cultural ties rather than democracy. Britain has little role in East Asia today, yet it was included while regional powers like France were not. However, Anglo unity doesn’t have to clash with democratic solidarity. The US and Australia could deepen ties with Asian democracies, and including South Korea in the Quad would be a vital step.

Why the Quad needs South Korea

South Korea is more than just one more adversary of China that could cooperate in military matters. Including South Korea is a matter of defining the Quad’s identity. If the grouping aims to be a significant regional actor, it needs to inspire a sense of purpose. Right now, it looks like a ragtag team with little justification beyond each actor’s personal interest. The Quad needs an identity. Democracy is the obvious defining characteristic of the grouping, but if that is the case, South Korea must be involved. If South Korea remain excluded, observers may wonder whether something other than democracy is the real criterion.

There some flies in the ointment, though. South Korea has strong security ties with the US but is economically dependent on China, its largest trading partner. Joining the Quad could strain this relationship, especially since China has a history of using economic pressure to influence political decisions. In 2017, China’s boycott over South Korea’s decision to host the US THAAD system heavily impacted South Korea’s economy.

Another issue is the historical animosity between South Korea and Japan, stemming from Japan’s 35-year occupation of Korea. Many Koreans still harbor resentment for Japan’s actions during World War II, though tensions have eased since Abe’s tenure.

South Korea is more physically threatened by China than any current Quad member. The threat of a Chinese or North Korean invasion overland is a real danger (and one that has already occured, during the Korean War). For Japan, an island nation, the possibility of a Chinese naval threat to the homeland remains somewhat more theoretical. So, South Korea may hesitate to take a strong stance on issues like maritime freedom. However, due to its ties with the US from the Korean War, South Korea is even more integrated into the US security network than Japan. Will it be willing to join an alliance likely seen by Beijing as anti-China?

For now, it’s unclear. But South Korea’s inclusion would make sense. Both South Korea and Japan have strong infrastructure development sectors and, together, could offer an alternative to China’s Belt and Road Initiative. What the Quad needs is a clear identity that other nations can buy into. Without this, it will inspire neither moral nor strategic trust.

[Anton Schauble wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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° Talks: Now Is the Time to Invite South Korea in and Turn Quad Into Quintet appeared first on Fair Observer.

In the early 2000s, the United States’ hegemonic position in the Middle East changed. The 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union eliminated the need to contain communist influence and decreased the urgency of refereeing regional disagreements or addressing the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

However, the Middle East came sharply into focus when the Sunni extremist group al-Qaeda orchestrated the 9/11 terrorist attacks on US soil, killing 2,977. The George W. Bush administration declared a “War on Terror,” training its guns not only on groups like al-Qaeda but also states like Baathist dictator Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Claiming that Saddam was hiding weapons of mass destruction, the US invaded Iraq in 2003 and toppled his regime.

With the invasion, the generally successful half-century of US foreign policy in the Middle East that had begun with the 1953 Iranian coup d’état came to a close. The US found itself mired in a destabilized Iraq, unable to pull out as the newly installed democratic government could not combat Islamist insurgencies on its own.

Disengagement and reengagement

The Barack Obama administration attempt to reduce Middle East involvement and “pivot towards Asia.” The rise of the brutal and initially successful Sunni terrorist group ISIS, the 2011 Arab Spring and the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War prevented the US from disengaging. Obama did make progress by striking a deal with Iran, agreeing to lift financial sanctions in exchange for the cessation of the Islamic republic’s nuclear program. However, Obama’s successor Donald Trump later scrapped the deal.

Despite these setbacks, the US succeeded in protecting its interests while attempting to resolve regional wars and the enduring Arab–Israeli conflict. The Trump administration brokered the Abraham Accords, in which Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) normalized ties with Israel. Morocco soon followed suit. Saudi Arabia also entered negotiations with Israel, but the prospect of normalization stalled following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel and the subsequent Israeli invasion of Gaza. Since the war broke out, the US has seen decreased popularity among Arab populations as they blamed the hegemonic power for backing up what they saw as Zionist aggression in Palestine. However, a bilateral security agreement between the US and Saudi Arabia remains possible.

In recent years, the US reduced its dependency on imported fuels by exploiting its own fossil fuel reserves. The US is rich in oil and natural gas, but they are usually in a form that requires more effort to extract than in the Middle East. Fracking and other technological advancements have helped close this gap. However, Saudi Arabia continues to be the biggest figure in oil production.

The region continues to evolve. Gone is the binary US–Soviet dynamic, and gone, too, is unipolar US preponderance. More independent actors like China, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the UAE now shape the region. China, heavily reliant on Middle Eastern oil, is increasing its economic and political presence.

Domestically, American attitudes toward the Middle East are also in flux. Younger Americans are growing more critical of Israel. Having grown up during the Iraq War, this generation is leery of US involvement in the region. For now, though, the US continues to prioritize regional stability, oil price stability and containment of Iranian influence in its Middle East policy.

[Tara Yarwais wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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° Talks: America’s New Fast-Changing Role in the Middle East Part 2 appeared first on Fair Observer.

These events have been alarming, and there is a legitimate fear that they could spark a wider war in the region. However, all parties have expressed a desire to avoid full-scale war. While tensions are high, a regional conflict involving Hezbollah, Israel and Iran — potentially drawing in the US and other nations — may be less imminent than it appears. These offensive actions might be part of a calculated strategy to signal boundaries and demonstrate power without crossing the line to broader conflict.

Perhaps the greater issue Israel faces is its growing internal tensions, particularly the widening rift between the far right and more moderate elements of the government. An arrest of 10 Israeli soldiers on July 29 for sexually assaulting Palestinian prisoners ignited heated protests. This has heightened concerns that Israel could be on the brink of internal conflict and destabilization.

Who did Israel assassinate, and why? 

Israel’s assassination of Fouad Shukur was reportedly in retaliation for a Hezbollah rocket attack that struck the occupied Golan Heights, tragically killing 12 children. Shukur was allegedly behind this attack. He had also been wanted in the US for decades due to his involvement in the 1983 bombing of a Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon, which killed 241 American service members. 

Assasinating the Hezbollah commander thus appears to be a more or less rational move. However, the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh seems less logical from a strategic perspective.

Haniyeh was killed when an Israeli rocket hit his official residence in Tehran while he was attending the swearing-in ceremony of Iran’s new president. Iran has long used Hezbollah as a proxy in its broader strategy against Israel. Haniyeh was the the head of Hamas’s political wing and widely known for his more moderate and cosmopolitan approach, compared to his counterparts. He was a central figure in the ongoing efforts to broker a ceasefire in Gaza. The killing of Haniyeh likely silenced a moderating voice within Hamas and could push his successor toward a harder, less compromising stance against Israel. 

Domestic political pressures, rather than military necessity, may have driven the assassination. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may have felt the need to strike Iran in order to assuage the far right and maintain domestic stability. 

There is a concern that events could escalate into a broader conflict in the Middle East, all parties have continuously expressed a desire to avoid full-scale war. Each side appears to be carefully navigating the situation, using targeted strikes and other “tit for tat” tactics to communicate their limits while avoiding escalation. For instance, when Iran launched 300 missiles and drones at Israel, they made it clear through backchannels that they were not seeking war. Israel responded in a similar manner, signaling its intent to avoid a broader conflict. 

Israel’s growing internal tensions

While external threats are significant, the growing rift between the far right and more moderate elements of the Israeli government poses a greater risk to the country’s stability. 

On July 29, Israel arrested 10 soldiers for the sexual assault and abuse of Palestinian prisoners. Following their arrest, far-right protesters stormed two military bases in Southern and Central Israel. Protests have continued into this month, with right-wing demonstrators effectively rallying for the right to rape and mistreat Palestinian detainees as they see fit. 

In this situation, Netanyahu has positioned himself as a moderate figure, and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant called for peace, emphasizing that no one is above the law. However, the far right remains defiant, rejecting these calls. The growing schism within Israel is becoming increasingly serious, raising concerns that the country could be on the verge of internal conflict — potentially even civil war.

The big issue for Israel may be the internal struggle between its more secular, democratic heritage and the rise of ultra-Orthodox factions. This internal struggle is harder to see than the immediate external conflicts but potentially even more destabilizing in the long run.

[Ting Cui wrote the first draft of this piece] 

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: Warm Middle East Is Now Getting Boiling Hot appeared first on Fair Observer.

So is the Republican candidate, former US President Trump, the only option to stop the violence? Trump has prominently campaigned on his strong support for Israel. Whether this is for tactical or genuine purposes is unclear. In his first term, his government took the most pro-Israel approach of any administration. He took the initiative to relocate the US embassy to Jerusalem. Furthermore, he provided financial incentives to Morocco, the United Arab Emirates and other nations to normalize their relations with Israel. 

However, future developments in regard to Trump’s Israel policy are difficult to predict. Rumors even suggest that Trump and Netanyahu have a strained relationship. If this is true, Trump’s unpredictability might lead him to exert tough pressure on the Israeli government in order to reshape himself into a peacemaker. Conversely, Biden has shown a reluctance to invest significant political capital in applying serious pressure on Israel. 

Israel also suffers from the West’s inaction

Lack of a firm US policy may not bode well for Israelis and Palestinians. Following the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, there was a global consensus that a two-state solution was the only political perspective imaginable. For various reasons, a one-state solution appears highly undesirable — and a solution involving ethnic cleansing, of course, would be even less desirable. Thus, the least problematic solution is a two-state solution. 

A few problems arise here, primarily the question of what must be done with Israeli settlers in Palestine. In a recent study, settlers were asked under what conditions they would be willing to leave their homes, which are considered illegal under international law. Approximately 80% of settlers indicated that they would have no issue relocating to the other side. They only stay for economic reasons. Among the approximately 20% who did not agree, only a small proportion expressed a willingness to resort to unlawful means, such as violence, to defend their communities.

If the Israeli leaders understood this issue, they would do the opposite of what they appear to be doing: arming the settlers. Thus, the true intentions of the Israeli government in Gaza and in the West Bank are being questioned. Is the objective to liberate the hostages and destroy Hamas? Or is there a more sinister intent? These are important questions to answer, especially as Israel faces serious, existential consequences as a result of the war. 

Recently, the Population and Immigration Authority released statistics indicating that approximately 550,000 individuals have left Israel since October 7. The majority of these individuals appear to be high-tech entrepreneurs who may have sought safer environments such as California or Berlin for their operations. Because of this, there has been a dramatic economic impact on Israel with a 20–25% loss in GDP. It would be in Israel’s interest to end the bloodshed promptly and to facilitate the restart of the economy.

Uncertainty has become the world order

It is in the interest of the West and Israel to find a solution. However, the West is currently suffering from a lack of the ability to apply and enforce serious measures against violations of international law. In discussions about a rules-based international order and the primacy of international law, the US appears inconsistent. The US criticizes other actors for breaching international laws and imposes stringent sanctions. Why not Israel?

This inconsistency provides a rationale for authoritarian regimes and non-democratic governments to justify their own human rights violations. Iranians point out that the Israeli bombing of their embassy in Damascus has gone without condemnation from Western countries. They argue that if Iran had bombed an Israeli embassy anywhere in the world, the international reaction would have been severe. 

It would be in the interest of the West to join forces and develop a comprehensible strategy for the future. Yet, following the latest NATO Summit, it appears that the US aims to create conflict with the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). This stance seems contrary to the interests of Germany and other European nations that have dynamic economic and trade relationships with China. It is contrary to US interests as well. Such a move indicates the need for a reassessment of the global role of the US.

However, international measures are also falling short of solutions. The EU, like the US, is facing uncertainty after elections. France’s elections in particular have shown that people are not ready to accept every policy that filters down from the top. It seems like government committees, rather than the people, are making all the serious decisions. There is a clash between the personalities running governments and the common people. Uncertainty has become reality.

In this period of uncertainty, it is highly unlikely that significant decisions will be made. The recent BRICS summit — which will be followed by another in October — indicates that, at least until the US election, other regions of the world are reorganizing at a pace faster than anticipated. The US must tackle its foreign policy issues if it wishes to stay at the top of the world order.

[Tanisha Desai wrote the first draft of this piece.]

[Cheyenne Torres edited this piece.]

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° Talks: Can the US Handle an International System Under Enormous Strain? appeared first on Fair Observer.

Stemming from the 1984 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. National Resources Defense Council, Inc., the Chevron deference doctrine required US courts defer to the administration’s interpretation of ambiguous laws. This means that myriads of closed cases are now open for litigation as individuals and corporations across the country can and likely will seek to challenge old administrative decisions.

How did Chevron deference work?

When Congress makes laws, it cannot possibly predict every set of circumstances to which the law may be applied. This means that, when applying laws, the federal bureaucracy — which ultimately answers to the president — has to use its best judgment to apply the law in ambiguous instances. Agencies like the Department of Labor, the Securities and Exchange Commission and even the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employ not only lawyers but subject matter experts to help them make these decisions. 

In 1981, the National Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, successfully challenged the validity of the EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act in the District of Columbia circuit court. Chevron Corporation, an oil and gas firm, appealed the ruling. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Chevron and the EPA’s interpretation. The Court reasoned that administrative agencies would be crippled if federal courts constantly questioned their regulations and overturned their decision. So, the Court stipulated that, as long as an agency follows a plausible interpretation of the law, federal courts are not to contradict it.

Originally, conservatives welcomed the decision, because the outcome favored their interests in fossil fuels. The principle on which Chevron was based was not, at the time, a partisan issue, and few observers expected the decision to be very significant. However, in succeeding years Chevron took on a life of its own. Federal courts cited the decision thousands of times.

Conservatives complained that Chevron was making it difficult for private parties to challenge any action of the bureaucracy. They also accused Democrats of deliberately passing ambiguous laws so that their allies in the administration could use “interpretation” to push liberal agendas.

Cases are tailored to attack specific laws

The United States is a common law jurisdiction — a trait which it inherited from England. In the common law tradition, courts cannot simply intervene to reinterpret the law when asked to do so. They must wait for a case to arise in which an injured party requires relief and granting that relief requires reinterpreting the law. Lawyers know this, and over the years they have developed the art of intentionally crafting a case so that the courts will need to reinterpret the law as desired. Loper Bright was one such case; it was designed to run afoul of Chevron.

Loper Bright Enterprises, a herring fishery, was required by law to keep a third-party monitor on every boat to prevent overfishing. The government had been paying the monitors, but the money ran out; the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), a branch of the Commerce Department thus instituted a new rule to shift the sudden burden: the fisheries themselves would have to pay the monitors’ salary. This caused an uproar amongst the herring fishermen. Their own salaries depended on the catch; sometimes, fish were scarce. But the monitors received a flat fee, regardless of the catch. Often, the monitor was the best-paid person on the boat, even including the captain.

Loper Bright sued Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, claiming the NMFS was misinterpreting the law. Naturally, the initial court dismissed the suit, citing Chevron. Loper Bright appealed up to the Supreme Court. Loper Bright found a ready audience in a Court packed with conservative textualists who disliked the idea of bureaucracies loosely applying the law. The court took the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as requiring courts to use their own interpretation of the law when ruling cases. In a 6-3 decision split along ideological lines, the Court ruled in Loper Bright’s favor, overturning Chevron.

The consequences of overturning Chevron

The Loper Bright decision was not retroactive, which means it did not disestablish the past rulings in favor of the administrative state. However, dissenting justices pointed out that another recent case, Corner Post Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, allows litigants to bypass the six-year statute of limitations for civil suits. This means that all 40 years of Chevron-based decisions may now be thrown into question.

This will have extensive ramifications for the administrative state. There is likely to be a feeding frenzy of lawsuits within the coming years seeking to overturn any number of administrative rules. At present, there is no telling what the outcome will be, which policies will be overturned and how. For now, many are hopeful that this will result in a sharp curtailing of administrative power.

[Cheyenne Torres wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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° Talks: SCOTUS Creates Tantalizing Opportunities to Overturn 40-Year-Old Rules appeared first on Fair Observer.

Politics in France have been coming to a boil. The past elections symbolize the lessons people have drawn from the fact that there is a more substantial influence of the extreme right, including Germany and Austria. French President Emmanuel Macron called for snap elections after the European Union Parliament elections. This move concerned many, seemed counterintuitive and provided further momentum toward the National Rally candidate, Marine Le Pen. On the other hand, there is hope that the next election will be different.

Surging right wing

Germany and Austria are other countries where the extreme right surged in the most recent European parliamentary election. Right now, the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats), a center-right political group, holds a majority of the seats with 188 out of 720 total seats. However, the far-right, represented in Germany by Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), has been on the rise. AfD is the strongest in East Germany and among new voters. It finished second, with 15.9% of the national vote, behind the Christian Democratic Union of Germany and the Christian Social Union of Bavaria (CDU/CSU).

In Austria, the Freedom Party has seen a similar rise in popularity. Austria will hold its regular parliamentary elections in September.

It is helpful, however, to take a step back and avoid drawing strict comparisons between different nations’ political situations. The media has been permanently interested in the far right challenging the center. This obscured the meaning of the center, with the media distorting perceptions of political alignment. If Le Pen were an American, she would be to the left of the democratic party. She advocates for social programs and supports the working class, something that no accepted party in the US is willing to do. Yet the media creates the perception that she is far-right and that the far right is therefore on the rise in France.

Since World War II, France has had a very solid right wing which consolidated around Charles de Gaulle. Francois Mitterand emerged after World War II and formed France’s left wing. Mitterand increased greatly in electoral appeal. He nationalized all big banks and major industries. Until 2017, France expected either the socialist party or a rightwing party more or less in the Gaullist tradition to rule, but that is when France started shifting to legitimizing the far right as an alternative to the two establishment wings of the ruling political spectrum: the socialists and the traditional post-Gaullist right. 

How united is Europe?

The EU Parliament elections are not just a single election; they are 27 national parallel elections. A question that many may ask “Are people voting for the whole of Europe or just their country?” This is what makes elections so difficult on a European level. For example, people in Bratislava will not be interested in issues such as those of the Social Democratic Party in Austria. Voters will focus on the issues and problems of their own countries. This has created an identity problem in Europe.  Europeans are more focused on their national identity and national issues rather than being united as Europeans with European problems. 

The European project must move forward. Countries that trade with each other should not go to war. Europe has progressed in the past decades. When traveling in Europe, people once had to stop at border checkpoints, but now people can drive straight through. Europe also adopted the Euro in 1999, providing a universal currency for Europe. This has allowed for swift and easy transactions and removed the need to calculate exchange rates.

The gradual rise of far-right parties and the challenges to the political center have sparked intense debates about the nature of political alignment and the identity of the electorate. The issue of European unity remains a complex and pressing concern, as national interests often overshadow the broader European agenda. Despite the challenges, hope still exists for a more united and prosperous Europe. 

[Liam Roman wrote this first draft of this piece.]

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° Talks: Can Europe Vote Itself Out of Its Crisis? appeared first on Fair Observer.

To understand the role the US plays in the Middle East today, we need to look at history. In the aftermath of World War II, America turned to the region mainly due to its strategic interest in the Middle East’s vast energy resources, particularly oil. On February 19, 1945, President Roosevelt met with King Abdulaziz bin Abdul Rahman al Saud (better known in the West as Ibn Saud) aboard the USS Quincy on the Great Bitter Lake in Egypt. Despite the colorful pageantry, including the slaughtering of goats for a feast, the central focus of the talks was disposition of the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees following World War II and the future relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia, with a notable absence of direct discussions about oil.

Britain’s losing gamble in Iran

Meanwhile, the British, previously dominant in the Middle East, made a critical miscalculation regarding Saudi Arabia’s mineral potential. The British underestimated Saudi oil reserves. The Americans, adopting a more persistent approach, eventually struck oil in the eastern part of the country. This discovery solidified the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States and US oil interests, marking the beginning of an enduring alliance. This partnership involved US oil companies drilling for oil in Saudi Arabia, with an even split in profits.

The British, with a historical interest in preserving its global empire, particularly in India and the Middle East, had a vested interest in maintaining its strong influence in the region, most notably Egypt and Iran. However, their misjudgment of Saudi Arabia’s oil reserves created a strategic setback, contributing to the evolution of the Middle East’s power dynamics.

As a result, the British focused on the oil in Iran; however, they had a different relationship with the Iranians. The British attempted to maintain control in Egypt and Iran but faced setbacks. The Anglo-Persian Oil Company, Ltd., (today known as BP), stood at the center of international tension. Under Prime Minister Mohammed Mosadegh, the Iranians sought to nationalize the oil company, which Britain vigorously opposed. The US encouraged the two parties to look to the US–Saudi partnership as a model. Yet both sides stubbornly refused and held on inflexibly. Along with Mossadegh’s obstinance, British and later American concerns about the direction of the Mossadegh government in its relationship with the Soviet Union led to the deposition of the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran and the reinstatement of the absolute monarchy. Years later, the CIA admitted to America’s part in backing the coup to rid Iran of its Prime Minister.

Discontentment with the new regime and anti-Western sentiment eventually led to the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Islamists expelled Western interests from the country and set Iran as the foremost anti-Western power in the region, which it remains to this day.

Washington takes up the banner from London

As the 1950s wore on, US influence on the world stage and participation in Middle East politics continued to grow, taking on the role of peacekeeper. When Israel, France and the UK attempted to invade Egypt in 1956 to gain canal control, the US publicly condemned the plan, leading to the breakdown of the attempted attack. This marked a break between the European colonial powers with the US, which paradoxically found itself on the same side of the dispute as the Soviet Union, which that same year had invaded Hungary..

Yet the stage had been set. 1956 marked a turning point in the global balance of power. No longer would Paris and London dictate the terms of engagement, but two new and formally anti-colonial superpowers — the US and the Soviet Union — would shape the international system. For the succeeding three and a half decades, the Middle East, like the rest of the world, would become a Cold War chessboard.

[Tara Yarwais wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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° Talks: America’s New Fast-Changing Role in the Middle East, Part 1 appeared first on Fair Observer.

What innovation India does have is driven by entrepreneurs wanting to create startup companies. These are uncommon, as graduates often seek employment at existing corporations out of school. Additionally, Indians confuse innovation with incubation. Many so-called “innovation centers” — collaborative hubs where groups exchange ideas and develop projects together — are really incubation centers, designed to aid the formation of startup companies.

Innovation is a teachable skill set that, unfortunately, the Indian education system does not encourage at any level. The current system focuses too heavily on information retention and rigid testing. Young minds should learn to be curious, ask questions and invent new ideas.

Fortunately, a new movement is emerging to improve India’s higher education: the maker space movement. It challenges students to design with their hands. The nationwide spread of maker spaces — collaborative work spaces in schools and public facilities, which provide professional tools and technology — offers Indian students a chance to experiment and invent. Its goal is to kindle an innovative spirit within them.

Maker Bhavan Foundation wants to fix India’s innovation

Maker Bhavan Foundation (MBF), founded by Director Hemant Kanakia and managed by President Ruyintan Mehta, is dedicated to reforming engineering education nationwide. It does so by teaching Indian student engineers creativity, teamwork, communication and problem-solving skills.

MBF is based on Kanakia’s experiences at India’s IIT Bombay and the United States’s Stanford University. He observed that Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) were frozen in their pedagogy — the method and practice of teaching — unlike outside organizations like Stanford. The latter school has evolved and now emphasizes experiential over theoretical learning.

Indian institutions, on the other hand, teach theoretically instead of experientially. Thus, Indian graduates rarely have the practical skills to build technological devices and systems out of school. Many make great theoreticians but lackluster engineers.

MBF’s vision is to boost the education level by focusing on the top and middle tier of adult students. It modernizes the pedagogy so students work in teams, create things and develop an inventive spirit. MBF boosts its students’ confidence and teaches them a judgment of practicality through the building process.

Kanakia started the foundation at IIT Bombay in 2017. He had a dialogue with the IT officer in charge of technical education at the central government’s Ministry of Education. He was so enthusiastic that he started a similar mission called Atal Tinkering Lab, which provides the same service for children across a thousand Indian schools.

Mehta hopes to spread MBF’s movement to 50 higher education institutions covering over 250,000 students in the next five to six years. He desires to make India a land of deep thinkers who brainstorm, invent and work with their hands. In his words, MBF is about “learning by doing” and “learning by using.”

Tinkerers’ Labs and LEAP encourage creativity

MBF’s first and most important initiative is Tinkerers’ Labs. This comprises student-managed maker spaces that are open all day, every day. The labs enable students to experiment and exercise their imaginations. They can build prototypes of whatever they desire using a variety of sophisticated machines — 3D printers, laser cutters, vinyl cutters and more. This experiential education system pushes them to convert concepts into tangible, potentially workable products of engineering.

The intended goal is for students to find solutions for India-specific problems. For example, if a student’s family member had asthma, they might choose to build an inhaler tailored to the local conditions.

In the past few years, Tinkerers’ Labs has collaborated with another educational program: Learn Engineering by Activity with Products (LEAP). This project-based program helps students learn similar patterns of engineering, but operates in South Indian colleges that lack IIT facilities.

LEAP’s prototyping process goes like this: First-year students reverse-engineer products and craft small prototypes. Second-years receive mentoring to create more substantial prototypes. Third-years work on industry-provided problems, where their projects get progressively more complex. Fourth-years are instructed to go find a socially relevant problem and build a solution for it.

Over 10,000 students from more than 11 higher education institutions have flexed their creativity at Tinkerers’ Labs.

Invention Factory gets students building

Tinkerers’ Labs is not MBF’s only initiative. Invention Factory is a six-week intensive summer program developed in the US at The Cooper Union, which MBF has brought to India. In this program, undergraduate students from across India work in pairs to build prototypes for innovative inventions.

They first learn to pitch their ideas; concepts can only advance to the next stage once they are accepted by 75% of the participants and faculty. They then develop a working prototype and continually improve it. At the end of the six weeks, they pitch their creation to a panel of judges, who award the students first, second or third prize.

One notable team visited a local farm and asked farmers about the difficulties of mango picking. There is a 15% wastage, they learned, when plucking the fruit off its tree. They observed the standard-use picker and devised an improvement for it. The team’s simple instrument saved labor by both picking and packaging the fruits. As 45% of all mangoes are produced in India, this was indeed a solution to an India-specific problem.

Of the ideas prototyped at Invention Factory, to date, 104 have been patented in the US and India. Several of them had such great utility value that commercial companies approached the student teams, hoping to license or adapt their inventions.

MBF is working to develop an industry associate program, so it can place top students in industries where they can continue their work. This combats the issue of graduates discarding innovative pursuits in favor of immediate employment.

MBF funding: donors, corporations and eventually the government

MBF is a US-based nonprofit organization that Kanakia kickstarted with his own fortune. His work predominantly attracted passionate IIT workers who inspired donors to support the organization. US donors contribute 90% of its funds.

Mehta aims to get future funding from Indian companies through Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). By law, Indian companies must spend 2% of their net profits on CSR — so companies could choose to spend their 2% funding MBF. So far, however, they have not.

Regardless, Mehta is confident that Tinkerers’ Labs and Invention Factory will attract Indian funds. These programs bring in industry leaders as judges, who are amazed by the students and consider supporting the organization.

MBF is currently in the “friends and family” phase. Its ambitions have expanded over the years, so the group needs to leverage the money that it has put in itself with a corporate sponsorship, like CSR.

MBF has not sought government funds, but Kanakia intends to change that in the next stage. The Indian government is good at allocating money but not monitoring its outcome or ensuring its continued success. It would want to send a minimum of 500 crore rupees (over $59 million).

It is easier to define a program as a public-private partnership; both sides chip in funds while the private portion manages the program. That’s the direction MBF will likely take with Tinkerers’ Labs and Invention Factory. But, no matter who funds it, MBF will continue to support the experiential learning and creative endeavors of young Indians.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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° Talks: Make Sense of the Maker Space Movement in India appeared first on Fair Observer.

The trip was a strategic move and a successful one. Russia’s artillery-heavy style of warfare blows through materiel fast, and it needs all of the suppliers it can get, including North Korea. in In the past year, North Korea has supplied Russia with an estimated 5 million artillery shells, which is approximately a year and a half’s worth of war supplies. North Korea also agreed to send a large number of laborers to Russia. 

The trip was also a pointed response to the United States’ reversal of its policy forbidding Ukraine from using US-manufactured weapons to attack Russian territory.

What does the trip say about Russia’s status in the world?

The Russian–North Korean alignment creates further implications for the United States’ tensions with China and the general region in Southeast and Southern Asia. Putin’s trip showed that it is not a “Han tributary” and instead its own power in the region, independent of Chinese influence. It also showed Russia can help the “Global South” acquire resources and support from powerful states without pressure to abide by the democratic and humanitarian norms established by the US.

The important thing for these nations is finding who will fill their gasoline tanks in the most economical way. And the answer, right now, is Russia. If Russia only had principles to offer, these developing nations would not pay too much mind to it. Putin’s trip crystallizes the global normative order Russia is seeking: a transactional model of international relations.

The real winner of this shift is India, with a world-class technological sector and masses of cheap labor, although it will need to “get its act together” as Vietnam is also highly attractive form manufacturing. The loser is China. Even though Beijing also seeks to undo the US-led “normative” international order, on the economic front, it may lose ground to its competitors in the Global South due to its higher labor costs.

In truth, however, Moscow does not have a free hand. Putin’s strategy will be a success only as long as China believes tolerating Russia is preferable to pulling the plug on their relationship. If Chinese President Xi Jinping decides that Putin’s maneuvers create unacceptable problems between China and the US and globally, then China will exert pressure and Russia will have to back down. Russia may be a fortress economy with a formidable supply of fossil fuels, but it cannot do without the economic heft of its much more populous southern neighbor.

At the same time, Russia and China both command a significant amount of soft power. We saw this in the June 2024 Ukraine peace summit held in Bürgenstock, Switzerland: No emerging economy present in the conference sided with Ukraine. In fact, most of the world is sitting back and watching the Russia–Ukraine war because, even three decades after the fall of the Soviet Union, Moscow still has significant power in the Global South in a way China doesn’t. For its own part, China is locked in a symbiotic relationship with Russia that is much more complicated than simple comparisons of power will suggest.

Handling a troublesome partner will prove to be a thorny task for Xi.

[Lucas Gonçalves wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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: Russia Has Kicked Off a New Charm Offensive appeared first on Fair Observer.

For example, in Germany, the ruling social democratic party was annihilated with only 13.9% of the popular vote. The Conservative Christian Democratic Union won with 30%. In a shocking turn of events, the far-right alternative party Alternative für Deutschland (AFD) came in second with 15.9%. Even though the far-right didn’t win outright, in the former East Germany region, the AFD increased their vote share from 5% to 16% among voters younger than 24. The result is a good litmus test to measure just how far Europe is sliding to the right. 

An attempt to break the far-right fever

France has also become an example of the far-right frenzy. During the elections, the far-right party Rassemblement National (RN) won 32% of the vote. That’s more than double the vote share current French president Emmanuel Macron’s centrist party received. Created in 1972 by the reactionary Jean-Marie Le Pen, the party is now led by his daughter Marine, who has moderated it somewhat. Although she curtailed the neo-fascist elements within the party, RN remains a nationalist, populist party focused on extremely strict immigration controls.

RN has already left its mark on the French market. Bondholders are wary because RN economic policies are weak and promise spending. France could very well be facing potential instability. Fearing this, Macron called for a snap election. He hoped to break the far-right fever dominating his country. If people were made to vote again, he reasoned, they may remeasure the RN. 

If the RN won, RN’s Jordan Bardella would have been declared France’s next prime minister. Because the French constitution allows the head of government to be from a different party than the head of state, Macron would face a fractured and unstable political situation. However, France appears to have avoided disaster for the moment. Leftist and centrist candidates were able to cooperate, dropping out in each other’s favor when one held the edge. In the final result, RN came merely in third place. However, they had still increased their vote share significantly.

Why is this happening?

During the Cold War, there wasn’t a call for concern regarding the far-right — most countries were more concerned about the rise of communism. Now, however, a mass reaction against uncontrolled immigration has contributed to the rise of the far-right. France, for example, needed North African immigrants for factory work. However, these immigrant workers were never integrated into the society and culture. This created a significant “us vs. them” chasm. Europeans feared immigrants would threaten their “pure” society.

The biggest issue, therefore, lies in assimilation. A new population or culture is viewed as exotic up until it reaches 10% of the dominant population. As soon as it reaches that point, the population is suddenly viewed as disruptive and is rejected from the dominant society. It also takes about three generations for an immigrant family to fully integrate. That’s a long time. Something needs to be done about integration and immigration quicker.

The far-right has chosen to point their fingers in the direction of immigration as the cause of sociological issues. In actuality, the blame lies with the political elites who have failed to formulate proper immigration policies. A modern fault line runs through politics: Politicians rely too heavily on spin and not enough on real problems to receive votes. The lack of leadership in acknowledging present problems, most notably immigration, has led to a rise in populist, far-right leaders. 

With the rise in inflation, cost of living, and unemployment, people turn to scapegoats to blame. They have found an easy one in immigration issues. So when a charismatic, populist leader comes along promising an end to such issues, it’s only natural that the voter population will begin to turn right.

As this trend continues, there will be a strengthening of nationalism. Such a rise gives way to a decline in protectionism and multilateralism. A new world order is asserting itself, and it seems like European social democracy is increasingly discredited.

[Cheyenne Torres wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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: Volatile Europe Catches New Election Fever appeared first on Fair Observer.

Hezbollah has also threatened to implicate the southwestern Greek side of Cyprus in the conflict due to an agreement Greece has with Israel. These events all come at a time when Israel is divided and many Israeli government officials have lost faith in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Israel and Hezbollah have a long history of conflict 

In 1982, Israel’s conservative leaders thought that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was creating unbearable problems. There were terrorist attacks from Lebanon. Israel invaded Lebanon to push the PLO away from the border and destroy them. The Israelis very quickly took control of southern Lebanon and they fundamentally destroyed the PLO there. Since then, for the last four decades, the Iran-backed Hezbollah has replaced it.

Approximate areas of Hezbollah influence in 2006. Via Orthuberra on Wikipedia (CC BY-SA 3.0).

In 2006, Israel thought that Hezbollah was causing too many problems and went to war with Hezbollah. This war emerged as a mixed military success, but, as states learn time and time again, a military cannot fix political and social problems on its own. The 2006 war strengthened Hezbollah, and Hezbollah’s ally Iran came to back Hamas against Israel as well.

For years now, there has been tit-for-tat testing and point-making going back and forth between the two sides. Israel strikes a Hezbollah command building, killing some of Hezbollah’s leaders; Hezbollah responds by sending a commando into Israeli territory; Israeli forces killed him. The frequency of incidents like these has increased dramatically since the October 2023 breakout of war between Israel and Hamas.

[Liam Roman wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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: Hezbollah and Israel Tensions Continue to Worsen appeared first on Fair Observer.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has dissolved his war cabinet due to the departure of two former generals, Benny Gantz and Gadi Eisenkot. The other reason why Netanyahu dissolved the war cabinet is he wants to reassert himself as number one or “supremo” who calls the shots.

Olmert speculates that the policy Netanyahu is enacting is based on his understanding of public opinion polls and expectations from his base. It is becoming apparent that Netanyahu’s base is starting to come back to him. The public opinion polls in Israel could get slightly less than an election. This is becoming a possible trend, and it shows that Netanyahu is starting to pick up votes that he lost to the right wing because he appeared weak.

Hezbollah is ready to rumble

How does all of this affect what is happening on the ground in Gaza? Israel’s assault on the southern city of Rafah is progressing, but the overall format of the situation is still the same. Time is not on Israel’s side. The more fighting goes on, the more pressures will build, and unexpected situations can develop.

Israel risks fighting a two-front war if it does not end its war with Hamas. To the north, in Lebanon, the Shia militant group Hezbollah looms over the border. Israel heavily outguns Hezbollah and defeated them in a 2006 war, but it never succeeded in destroying the group. Hezbollah has maintained its readiness to go to war with Israel. Hezbollah is a close ally of Iran, Israel’s most powerful and implacable adversary.

Israel and Hezbollah have exchanged limited attacks across the border already. Both Lebanon and Israel have had to evacuate citizens in near the border. Israel has tried to kill as many local Hezbollah commanders as possible, and has see much success, but not enough to deter the threat. They have since started to go after specific targets beyond the south of Lebanon. So far, Hezbollah has not backed down.

Iran has been building Hezbollah up in preparation for their big war with Israel. Iran’s message to Hezbollah has been, “We are building you up for the big war with Israel for another time. Don’t waste your opportunity on something that is not important.” Tehran does not seem to want Hezbollah to enter an all-out war over Gaza, but it appears willing to let Hezbollah keep up the threat of one while harassing Israel’s northern border.

Hezbollah is the most powerful armed faction in Lebanon and has long functioned as a quasi-government in the territories it controls. However, the militant group is no longer a defender of Lebanon’s territorial integrity. Instead, it appears willing to compromise Lebanon’s security in order to punish Israel. Its leaders see it as the power that will be used against Israel whenever they do something in Gaza or wherever else. So far, they have exercised this power only in limited strikes.

There may come the day when Israel says enough is enough in the north, and they have the ability to cause immeasurable destruction. 

[Liam Roman wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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° Talks: Divided Israel Faces New Hezbollah Threats and Rising US Tensions appeared first on Fair Observer.

Traditionally, the role of the diplomat has been to promote peace by keeping political leaders informed. Diplomats serve not only as their government’s voice but as its eyes and ears in world capitals. They speak with important leaders, assess the mood and motivations of their host country and relay their assessments back home. These assessments are vital for giving political leaders the options they need to best manage relations and avoid or end war.

In the era of modern warfare, however, things have changed. The West is involved in two ongoing wars in Ukraine and Gaza. In these conflicts, governments increasingly rely on intelligence services and military intelligence to provide assessments and recommend policy options. This trend has reached a tipping point that has now endowed intelligence services with greater influence in defining policy than diplomats. Political leaders have largely sidelined diplomats, relegating them to the role of mouthpieces who announce decisions they have already made in consultation with intelligence.

This is a dangerous trend. An intelligence analyst is not a substitute for a diplomat. Diplomats bring a unique and invaluable perspective to the table. They seek to comprehend not only their nation’s interests but also the complex web of interests of all actors involved. Effective diplomats develop an acute understanding of the concept of indivisible security, which is to say, the security and interests of all of the actors involved. While intelligence and the military focus on security alone, diplomats have the task of bringing into the equation essential political, historical, cultural and religious aspects, making their role pivotal in shaping policy options.

The legacy of Cold War tensions

The issues in Israel have become a diplomat’s nightmare. Diplomats have been crying for a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine, but nothing has come of their repeated attempts. Part of the issue with a two-state solution is that no major political capital has been willing to invest in finding and implementing a solution.

Russia is the other major problem that diplomats must now deal with. Ruch maintains that the war in Ukraine could potentially have been avoided, well before the Russian invasion. When Vladimir Putin became president in 2000, US President Bill Clinton was finishing up his second term. Putin met with Clinton and suggested the idea of Russia joining NATO. Clinton appeared favorable to the suggestion, but later that same day, when the two met again, Clinton explained that his people told him Russia’s joining NATO was not possible.

Europeans have debated the question of pan-European security for decades. Moscow advocated but never implemented ot. French President Macron at various times before, and even after the Russian invasion he was favorable to a solution based on this principle, but to no effect. 

The issues with Russia have always been present, and this is because the mentality of the Cold War never disappeared. The West perceived the Soviets as a threat to the West because they came with a totally different model of society. After the Cold War, the US and the Soviets needed to reach some kind of mutual understanding, if only to prevent a nuclear holocaust, which the world came close to experiencing during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. The most important of these agreements was the ABM Treaty of 1972. George W. Bush scrapped this treaty in the early 2000s at the same time he was launching new wars in the Middle East.

Since those events, mistrust has become a dominant factor in the relationship between Washington and Moscow.

[Jean-Daniel Ruch’s latest book, Crimes, Hate, Tremors: From One Cold War to the Other, in Pursuit of Peace and Justice, is now available on Amazon.]

[Liam Roman wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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° Talks: The Evolving Role of Diplomats in a New World Order appeared first on Fair Observer.

Crash course: India’s Parliamentary Democracy

India’s democratic system mimics that of Westminster, with a bicameral parliament. The upper house is known as the Rajya Sabha, the house of the states. It consists of members of parliament elected by state legislatures, with each member serving six years. The lower house, known as the Lok Sabha, the house of the people, is formed via general election. This is where most of the legislative action takes place.

While many consider India’s democratic system to be remarkably stable, there are a few unique elements within the system that pose challenges of their own. Two of these differences are worth noting. The first is the anti-defection law, passed in 1985, which prohibits members of parliament from defecting to another party. While originally created as a stabilization mechanism, the anti-defection law has in actuality led to greater dysfunction and power imbalances. 

The second significant element is the immense power that the executive branch holds. The executive decides when to summon and prorogue parliament, and acts in place of the legislature when parliament is not in session. Generally, parliament convenes three times a year, with longer prorogation periods. These two functions in particular allow the executive to dominate India’s parliamentary democracy. 

However, the parliamentary system is not the only unique aspect of India’s government. India’s constitution is extraordinarily long, having been amended over 100 times and consisting of 448 articles. The American constitution has only seven. India’s constitution is by far the longest constitution of any independent state, and it is the second-longest constitution in use anywhere, after Alabama’s. As democracy was a new experiment for India, the length of the constitution was an attempt at providing more structure and stability to ensure the system survived.

The first amendment to India’s constitution allowed the government to restrict freedom of speech and expression, which had been granted in the original constitution. This amendment was introduced by India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, who was unable to handle the backlash he received during his time in office. The inclusion of this amendment in the constitution allowed Nehru’s government to crack down on sedition in the media and public sphere, a tactic which many accuse India’s current prime minister of leveraging. 

Democratic backsliding and authoritarianism

Although India is the world’s largest democracy, and a remarkably reliable one at that, contentious themes from Modi’s time in office have brought up concerns of democratic backsliding in India. Some claim Modi has authoritarian tendencies and is actively leading India down an anti-democratic path, especially in light of his government’s sometimes violent harassment of journalists and activists. 

While Modi’s government has indeed levied legislation to clamp down on critics, tame media, and influence discourse, he is certainly not unique in this aspect. These political tactics have been in use long before his time. However, Modi tends to be more autocratic in his demeanor and approach to politics, which is where much of the criticism stems from. 

That being said, Modi has been widely successful thus far within the bounds of the current constitution. Thus, it seems unlikely he will propose any constitutional changes in the near future. The system has worked for him in the past and will likely continue to do so.

Additionally, the democratic system in India is not necessarily weaker or more unstable than it has been historically. For example, multiparty coalitions were a significant challenge in the early 1990s, as excessive diversity limited the effectiveness and power of the parties. In India, the current political landscape is much more a result of power politics and how they shape governments than it is representative of democratic backsliding. Even given incidents where Modi has suppressed of free speech, concerns regarding true democratic backsliding are largely unfounded.

Modi’s failures and triumphs

While Modi’s image has been tarnished by many, the prime minister has done a significant amount to promote domestic development and improve India’s standing in the world. There has been tremendous investment in infrastructure, vast subsidies to boost development in certain sectors, a dedication to improving public facilities and providing access to energy resources in rural communities, and positive economic growth. 

The job market, which has remained largely stagnant, is one area which Modi seems to overlook. However, there are significant obstacles standing in the way that cannot necessarily be attributed to him. While these challenges should certainly be addressed in the coming years, it does not seem to be a significant platform issue for Modi at this point in time. 

Modi’s recent reelection secures his spot in the pantheon of greats as he enters his third consecutive term. While this development certainly cements his power in some aspects, political landscapes change quickly and longevity is not guaranteed. Despite these shifting and at times contentious climates, India’s democracy is alive and well and the future remains bright.

[Emma Johnson wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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° Talks: Make Sense of India’s Big, Young Democracy appeared first on Fair Observer.

In just a decade, the internet morphed from an army research project into the birthplace of emails; soon afterward, a whole ecosystem of online services flourished, crashed in the year 2000, and reproliferated afterward into everything from social media like Twitter and Facebook to shopping services like Amazon. Following that trajectory, the metaverse takes current advancements one step further: breaking the fourth wall and translating the real world into a virtual simulation. Enabling virtual concerts, 3D video games, personalized avatars and even virtual economies.

Dirk Lueth is the co-founder and CEO of Upland, a virtual property trading game structured around Monopoly, using real-life buildings. In creating Upland, Lueth pursues “The Magic Triangle”, an ecosystem of the metaverse, blockchain and AI. The metaverse enables virtual interactions, while blockchain validates real assets for digital commerce, and AI generates a virtual setting. 

In addition to property trading, over 2,000 entrepreneurs, or “metaventures”, run their virtual shops in Upland. Players can purchase virtual goods for their avatars, generating a digital economy. In the future, Upland plans to incorporate physical items into these shops.

Where are we going with this new technology?

Naturally, questions and anxiety arise whenever technology opens up new possibilities. Many worry that the metaverse may distract from the real world. But the metaverse doesn’t just have to be an enclosed space; it can integrate with the real world, allowing people to interact with their physical surroundings in an enhanced — or augmented — way. In other words, the metaverse is portable. Users don’t have to sit in front of a computer.

In 2016, the mobile game Pokémon GO was a viral hit that sent users outside. That summer, parks filled with kids walking and enjoying fresh air with their friends while they collected and battled virtual creatures. Rather than passive media consumption, the metaverse can enable mutual interactions where users engage socially and can exercise critical thinking. As Lueth puts succinctly, “You go from scrolling to strolling.”

Still, even with the benefit of exercise, prolonged screen time will cause strain. Scientist and technologist Bill Softky warned about screen addiction, damage to the eyes and brain, and social media fixation.

Related Reading

10 Physics Reasons Why Screens Are Bad for Humans

Nausea can be another side effect of virtual reality. Your senses of sight and hearing tell you that you are moving while your senses of balance and touch tell you that you are still. The disconnect does not sit well physiologically. However, while we suffer, younger generations who grew up with virtual reality headsets have already adapted. They’re immune to the nausea because they don’t find the sensory experience unusual. 

The Metaverse in the Next Ten Years

In a virtual environment, education can become a more interactive process. You can visit the Taj Mahal, a much more authentic experience in 3D, than reading about it or looking at a photograph. This new form of learning can extend socially as well: Users across the world can meet over similar interests, exchanging cultural and creative expressions.

We have yet to scratch the surface of the possibilities. Many new spaces will open up. Plausibly, the new technology will render many jobs obsolete, but at the same time the Magic Triangle will create new roles. The opportunities might not be familiar now, but they will reveal themselves with timely demand. Thirty years ago, few people knew what coders were. Now, the trade employs millions. 

Lueth predicts that, in ten years, the metaverse will be fully integrated into society, the way that video conferencing is now. The metaverse will likely be considered a convenience, rather than an abstract “technology.”

Another factor is greater personalization. Currently, every platform — Facebook, Google, Microsoft — determines how the user experience will unfold. The metaverse can enable a more user-centric rather than platform-centric approach. “You own your data,” Lueth describes. “You own your identity, and your digital asset. You can take those assets from one world to another.”

[Jamie Leung wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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° Talks: Make Sense of the Metaverse, Its Promise and Peril appeared first on Fair Observer.

Who is Benny Gantz?

Gantz is a career military officer and served as commander-in-chief of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) until 2015. In 2018, he entered politics, forming the new Israel Resilience party. The new party did relatively well, establishing Gantz as an important figure in the center-left. Over time, Gantz shifted closer to the center or even slightly toward the center-right.

In 2023, after the Israel–Hamas war broke out, Gantz joined the new war cabinet alongside Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, a member of Netanyahu’s Likud party. Gantz’s fellow party member Gadi Eisenkot, who had also served as commander-in-chief of the IDF, and Likud member Ron Dermer served as observers.

Gantz joined the war cabinet for a mixture of patriotic and political reasons. He told his supporters that he would serve as the sane man in the room, ensuring that Israel’s war effort be conducted competently and acting as a counterbalance to the extreme right-wing parties that Netanyahu relies on for political support. He also hoped to gain political prominence by placing himself firmly in the center of Israeli political life. For a while, the gamble paid off for him — Gantz’s approval ratings shot up in the first months after the war. However, as the war dragged on and Israeli citizens realized that Gantz didn’t have as much influence over Netanyahu as he had promised, his ratings slumped.

Netanyahu’s hawkish approach to the war proved to be too much for Gantz to bear. He tendered his resignation, citing Netanyahu’s unwillingness to listen to his fellow ministers. A critic could observe that Gantz was wrong to think Netanyahu would listen from the start.

Gantz leaves Gallant behind in the war cabinet. The defense minister had served as a balancing person in the three-member war cabinet. Although a member of Netanyahu’s Likud party, he often joined Gantz in attempting to reign Netanyahu in. Gantz even called on Gallant to realize the untenability of his position and resign along with him. Yet Gallant has stayed on. However, he seems to be resisting Netanyahu at every turn.

Aside from Gallant, the vast majority of the Likud members of parliament support their leader Netanyahu. The prime minister’s personal brand now overshadows Israel’s national conservative party. Netanyahu’s other supporters in parliament are religious Haredi Jewish parties and radical right-wing Zionists like Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir. Ben-Gvir is a West Bank settler and has called for Jewish settlement in Gaza. Whenever the war effort faces a setback and Netanyahu loses face, it is Ben-Gvir who picks up disaffected right-wing votes. Yet Netanyahu is a shrewd political player and, so far, remains the key man. Neither the Haredis nor the extreme Zionists can govern without the Likud leader.

Why did Gantz resign?

For the time being, Netanyahu remains firmly in power. He does not need the support of his centrist fellow minister Gantz. Yet in his departure, Gantz voiced concerns that resonate in many parts of Israel.

Above all, Gantz complained that the war has been going on too long. It is not clear that there is any military necessity for Israel to continue its invasion of Gaza. The IDF are unlikely to subdue Hamas to any greater extent than they already have. Netanyahu is dragging the war on for his own personal selfish reasons. In 2019, Netanyahu was indicted on corruption charges. As long as the war continues, there will not be elections and he will remain prime minister. Until then, he will very conveniently not face prosecution. So, it is in Netanyahu’s interest to delay as long as possible.

Gantz’s second chief criticism is that Netanyahu brooks no compromise regarding the postwar governance of Gaza. All agree that Hamas will have no role, but many moderates and the US want the Palestinian Authority (PA), which currently administers the West Bank, to govern after the IDF withdraws. Openness towards this option would secure the support of many Arab states and make a peace settlement far more feasible. Yet Netanyahu will not budge. The right wing of his coalition sees any step towards PA sovereignty in Gaza as a step towards PA sovereignty in the West Bank — and Ben-Gvir will not be turning in the keys to his residence in Hebron any time soon.

So, Gantz has given up on talking to a wall. Indeed, Netanyahu no longer seems to have any plan except to wait and see.

What is he waiting for? A more favorable administration in Washington following the US presidential election this November? A sudden change of heart in Riyadh, with the Saudi monarchy offering normalization without the promise of Arab governance in Gaza? A collapse of Hamas? None of these things are likely to help him even if they did happen. Yet, he has no better options than to wait.

Netanyahu is not a fool. He is a competent political player. But he is better at playing political games and staying in power than he is at grand strategy and achieving Israel’s long term goals. For now, the ship of the State of Israel seems more or less rudderless.

Will US–Israel relations now sour?

Without the moderating presence of Gantz, one may ask whether Jerusalem will now have even more trouble talking to Washington.

US President Joe Biden is an ardent supporter of Israel. He has even described himself as a Zionist. Yet this Democrat does not get along well with the Likud leader. In the past, Netanyahu has made no secret of his preference for Republicans, either.

In recent months, tensions between Biden and Netanyahu have skyrocketed. Biden is growing impatient with Netanyahu’s refusal of to accept ceasefire. Netanyahu is growing impatient with the White House telling him what to do.

Yet, despite Netanyahu’s seemingly impossible situation, it is Biden who has more to lose. The US president is playing a dangerous game. While Arab Americans and other Democratic constituents have voiced their displeasure with US support for Israel, polling reveals that an even greater number of Democrats blame Biden for not supporting Israel enough. They are disgruntled that the White House appears to have taken a turn against the Jewish State.

The US is home to the second-largest population of Jews in the world. Jewish Americans traditionally vote Democrat and are a well-organized interest group. Large Jewish populations in Phoenix, Las Vegas, Atlanta and Philadelphia might express their displeasure by staying home in November. This could tip the crucial swing states of Arizona, Nevada, Georgia and Pennsylvania in Republican candidate Donald Trump’s favor and possibly lose Biden the election. Already, moderate Democrats like Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman and West Virginia senator Joe Manchin are beginning to break ranks with the president. Biden may no longer have the political freedom to put pressure on Israel.

The war serves none of America’s interests. It will not subdue Hamas, nor will it lead to a rapprochement between Israel and Iraq. Rapprochement between Israel and Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, will likely occur de facto with or without the war. Meanwhile, the war is destabilizing the Middle East and enflaming Islamist and anti-Western sentiment around the world. So, America’s interest is to end the war as quickly as possible. As things stand in Jerusalem, however, it is not clear that Washington will have any success.

[Anton Schauble wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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° Talks: Benny Gantz Goes: Make Sense of Israel’s New Crisis appeared first on Fair Observer.

The UK’s political playing field has been in a state of increasing disarray since the Brexit referendum in 2016. Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron called this referendum, expecting the Remain campaign to lose. He resigned after voters returned the opposite result. The Conservatives subsequently saw first Theresa May take up the banner, then Boris Johnson, then Liz Truss (who lasted just seven weeks!) and finally Sunak.

From these Tories to Labour Party leader Keir Starmer, the UK has seen quite an assortment of different flavors of spin politicians. The UK has traditionally produced politicians of high caliber from the legendary Winston Churchill to more recent greats like Margaret Thatcher. The latter-day talent pool seems much shallower. So, where is the UK headed this July?

Close up of the candidates: All around depressing

Keeping with trends of the last century, the upcoming election will be a face-off between the Labour Party and the Conservatives. Voters will have two wildly uninspiring candidates to choose between.

While Starmer may indeed appeal to a wider audience through his careful, measured approach to politics, his lack of conviction points to an altogether noncommittal, wishy-washy attitude. Standing in the shadow of Tony Blair, the Labour leader seems content leaving his party and the general public in varying states of confusion and uncertainty as to what he actually hopes to achieve in office and how he plans to go about it. While ambiguity is damaging enough, Starmer makes his own case worse by being, to put it plainly, dull. 

Sunak has a similar Achilles heel. His lack of conviction has lost him favor both within his own party and with the general public in recent months. While Sunak may be an overachiever historically, serving as head boy at Winchester College and quickly climbing the political ladder to the position of prime minister, it seems he had what it took to get into office — but not much more. Sunak’s performance hasn’t been an unmitigated disaster: He has met his inflation target, kept the economy (relatively) stable and made small steps toward reducing illegal immigration. However, he has failed to meet the majority of the promises he made to voters and unfortunately lacks the personality to carry him through the headwinds. 

“King of Brexit” Boris Johnson, on the other hand, excelled in the personality department — ​​if only due to the fact that he at least had one. While Johnson may not have been the most principled or pragmatic prime minister behind the scenes, he certainly knew how to make a statement, galvanize the troops and throw a good party. In politics, that counts for something. 

Shortages in the charisma department could be damaging for both Sunak and Starmer when the votes come in this July, and unfortunately for the both of them, reputation isn’t the only thing these candidates should be worried about as they race toward the finish line.

The shifting status quo

Sunak and Starmer are weak characters who will rely on policy agendas, not personality, to carry their campaigns. The public, though, seems to have grown tired of listening.

Social cohesion in the UK is at a low ebb. The fabric of British society is fraying at the seams as the nation experiences economic difficulties, polarizing social classes and the immigrant/native divide.

A strong leader with clear principles could perhaps rise above this division and draw Brits together. But now is a time of stagnation and uncertainty, not strong leaders. Without a passionate candidate to rally behind, the UK will continue down the slippery slope of dysfunction. Transactional, coalition-type politics may be down the road for Westminster.

Once the ruler of a good portion of the world, this island nation now seems dead in the water. If the UK hopes to regain a position of importance in the global order, it must find a way to overcome its political malaise. Only then will Britain finally make it off the bench and back into the game.

[Emma Johnson wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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: Rishi Sunak Takes Post-Brexit UK to the Polls appeared first on Fair Observer.

There is no indication of foul play at work here. It seems the crash was caused by a combination of bad decision-making by the pilot, dismal weather conditions and a poorly maintained helicopter. The craft was a Bell 212 model from the 1960s, so it needed to be well maintained to operate for all these years, which US sanctions have made difficult.

Raisi’s sudden death raises pertinent questions about Iran’s future. He was set to succeed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the top dog in Iran’s theocratic state. Raisi’s premature demise raises the question of succession. Who will be Khamenei’s successor now, and who will succeed Raisi as president? There is another follow-up question: How will these new leaders shape Iran, the Middle East and the rest of the world?

More repression in store ahead

Raisi was a murderous leader. In 1988, at the end of Iran’s war with Iraq, he sentenced over 5,000 people — political prisoners, militants and more — to death. In 2022, massive protests broke out over Kurdish Iranian Mahsa Amini’s death in custody. This young woman was arrested and fatally beaten for failing to observe Islamic headscarf laws. The former president authorized security to use lethal force to quash the outcry, killing over 500 protesters. Raisi’s propensity for bloodshed made many Iranians loathe him.

Though he was colorless and uncreative, Raisi was ruthless. Furthermore, he was a doctrinaire upholder of Islamic theology and a faithful servant of the regime. Thus, he was a good fit to be the next Supreme Leader. Khamenei is now 85 years old, and the question of succession is in the air. A few plausible successors have emerged. They are theologians or political figures. Importantly, Khamenei’s son, Mojtaba, is also in the fray.

Despite his violent past, Raisi was a bulwark against the total dominance of the increasingly aggressive Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The IRGC is the praetorian guard of the revolutionary regime and is now the most powerful institution in Iran. Dangerously, the IRGC is demanding a more assertive policy in the Middle East. Without Raisi to hold the organization back, the IRGC is likely to claim more power — probably all of it — in the state and the economy.

The next generation of potential leaders holds more conservative and anti-Western views than Raisi’s generation, which rose to power in Iran’s 1979 Revolution. Raisi, the ruling ayatollahs and the IRGC recognized that most of Iranian society repudiates the regime’s conservative theological tenets and repressive restrictions. To keep the regime’s hold on power, the next Iranian president will probably tighten these restrictions, crushing any form of dissent and engaging in foreign aggression to appeal to Iranian patriotism.

An Iran more hostile to the West

In his international political career, Raisi pursued “resistance diplomacy.” While Iran was hostile to the West, particularly the US, it sought the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal and rapprochement. US President Donald Trump undid this by withdrawing from the JCPOA in 2018 and imposing further sanctions.

This development led Raisi to conclude that rapprochement would not be beneficial for Iran. He restarted the Iranian nuclear weapons program in 2021, bringing the country’s first nuclear weapon closer to reality. Yet his government still signaled to the US and Israel that Iran did not want regional war.

Tensions flared up from time to time with sporadic attacks and assassinations. These further increased on October 7, 2023 when Hamas, the militant Islamist Palestinian group, launched a devastating attack on Israelis. On April 1, 2024, an Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus, the capital of Syria, killed top IRGC officers. In retaliation, Iran officially attacked Israeli territory for the first time in history, deploying 300 missiles and drones. Though Israeli forces intercepted and destroyed most of these weapons, Iran proved it could strike Israel. Intercepting the Iranian weapons also cost Israel and the US billions of dollars, while it only cost Iran millions to launch them.

Before his death, Raisi initiated closer relations with Russia and China, two of the US’s greatest adversaries. His coming successor is likely to continue this outreach. This is a strategic disaster for the West and creates a more dangerous Middle East.

What governmental changes lie in Iran’s future?

The Iranian president is a figurehead and the Supreme Leader holds all real power. So, it barely matters who is elected the next president. Further, the IRGC will increase its already determinative power. In the near future, it may ascend the throne openly and rule Iran directly as a thugocracy. This control will bring forth a leader who will likely be worse for the world than Raisi and Khamenei. The only countries that will not be negatively impacted by such a development are Russia, China and North Korea.

As stated earlier, the new Iranian government will probably become more oppressive. It is likely to enforce an even stricter interpretation of Islamic law on Iranian society. This will make the country more miserable and the Middle East more menacing. The government is also likely to continue the policies of “death to Israel” and “death to America.” This would involve more aggressive actions to expand Iranian influence in the Middle East via Iran’s regional surrogates: Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen as well as various Shia groups in Iraq and Syria. Finally, the new Iranian government will move closer to developing a nuclear weapon.

Raisi was cruel, but the next generation of leaders are more merciless. Raisi’s generation is slowly dying out, ushering in a younger, even more radical set of leaders. No matter how bad things are, they can always get worse. It looks like they will soon.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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: Iran’s President Falls Out of the Sky appeared first on Fair Observer.

The DPP’s main rival is the Chinese nationalist Kuomintang party. The Kuomintang once ruled mainland China but evacuated to the island of Taiwan in 1949 after losing the Chinese Civil War to Mao Zedong’s Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The Kuomintang claimed to be the rightful government of the entire Republic of China (RoC) and vowed one day to return to the mainland. To this day, the official name of Taiwan is still “Republic of China.”

The Kuomintang established an authoritarian rule over their new island home which lasted for decades. During the 1980s and 1990s, however, Taiwan democratized. Unlike the CCP-ruled mainland, Taiwan today boasts a robust multiparty democracy.

The Kuomintang has long since abandoned dreams of rescuing the mainland from communism by force. Still, they see themselves as Chinese, hope one day to achieve a peaceful reunification of China and seek to maintain cordial relations with the mainland.

In contrast, the DPP believes that Taiwan and China are two separate nations. In the mainstream DPP view, the Republic of China is Taiwan, an independent nation distinct from mainland China. They favor closer ties with Washington and seek to distance Taipei from Beijing. Thus, Zhongnanhai views the DPP, and Lai in particular, with hostility.

Taiwan’s new president is weaker

Lai identifies himself as a “pragmatic worker for Taiwanese independence.” In his May 20, 2024 inauguration speech, Lai demonstrated a departure from Tsai’s approach, signaling a more assertive stance on Taiwanese sovereignty.

Beijing saw Lai’s speech as a provocation and, three days later, launched two days of intensive military exercises around Taiwan. These maneuvers, labeled by the Chinese military as “strong punishment” for Taiwan’s “separatist acts,” marked a significant escalation in cross-strait tensions. The exercises were not limited to the vicinity of Taiwan’s main island but extended to target Taipei-controlled islands such as Kinmen, Matsu, Wuqiu, and Dongyin for the first time. These islands lie close to the Chinese coast, according to maps released by China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA). The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) distrusts Lai and is using these exercises to send Lai a clear signal. 

Despite Beijing’s firm stance, immediate escalation appears unlikely. Although the DPP kept control of the presidency in this year’s elections, it lost its majority in the legislature. The Kuomintang now controls three more seats than the DPP does. Thus, Beijing perceives Lai as potentially wielding less influence than Tsai.

Lai is clearly weaker than his predecessor. He took the presidency with 40% of the vote; in 2016 and 2020, Tsai had dominated with 56% and 57%, respectively.

With the DPP losing its majority in the Legislative Yuan, Lai confronts significant challenges in advancing his agenda. In May, the Kuomintang joined with the third party, the Taiwan People’s Party, to pass a controversial reform bill. This legislation significantly enhances the Legislative Yuan’s authority to oversee the executive; to interrogate officials, military figures and citizens; and to demand documentation. Tens of thousands of protestors filled the streets of Taipei, calling the reforms unconstitutional. Lawmakers engaged in scuffles on the Legislative Yuan floor. Amid incidents of inter-party violence on the street, Taiwan’s future political trajectory remains uncertain.

[Ting Cui wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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: Taiwan-China Tensions Increase as New Taiwanese President Takes Charge appeared first on Fair Observer.

This year’s election is historic for J&K, as it is the first national election since the revocation of Article 370, a constitutional provision that granted the territory significant autonomy from Delhi.

What is Article 370?

When India attained its independence on August 15, 1947, the area today comprising Jammu and Kashmir, along with Ladakh and other areas administered by China and Pakistan, was a separate kingdom. Kashmir’s king, Hari Singh, intended to rule independently. However, Pakistan saw the Muslim-majority kingdom as its natural territory and attempted to incorporate it by force. In response, Singh opted to sign an instrument of accession with the Dominion of India, allowing Indian troops to enter Kashmir’s capital, Srinagar. 

Under the terms of the instrument of accession, the government of India controlled defense, external affairs and communications, while Jammu & Kashmir would control all other sectors. The newly independent India codified this arrangement by adopting Article 370 to its constitution. The measure also granted temporary special status to the territory and allowed it to have its own flag and constitution.

As an Indian state under Article 370, J&K suffered from a violent insurgency for almost 30 years. Islamist militias resented Indian rule and sought secession. The violence deterred economic activity, especially tourism, which this picturesque mountainous region relies on heavily. A powerful local elite monopolised what resources there were and left most of the population.

What has changed since the termination of Article 370?

In 2019, the Modi government terminated Article 370. The state was split into two union territories, Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. The change was a breath of fresh air for Kashmir. It broke the stranglehold of the local elite and allowed law enforcement to crack down on Islamist militias. Since then, the lives of ordinary Kashmiris have changed dramatically. The union territory has seen almost no large-scale incident of lawlessness since 2019. Tourists are returning, and the biggest problem for many resorts is not having enough space for all of the visitors. Development projects are now moving at a fast pace. For example, in 2022, J&K inaugurated the Chenab Bridge, the world’s highest rail bridge.

Now that they are richer, people are also happier. The ongoing Israel–Hamas war, which has seen so much destruction in Gaza, has enflamed anger among Muslims worldwide. Kashmiri Muslims are no exception. Yet, this anger has not translated into action against the Indian state. People seem to be content with the current arrangement.

How will the 2024 elections go in Kashmir?

One might have expected the BJP to capitalise politically on all this success in the union territory. Yet, although the administration has made great progress over the last five years, the BJP party apparatus has not kept pace. The nationally dominant party did not set up adequate machinery to push its messages and whip up votes. It seems to have entered the 2024 election in J&K largely unprepared. In three constituencies — Anantnag-Rajouri, Srinagar and Baramulla — the BJP did not even bother to field candidates.

The three parliamentary constituencies belong to areas that have traditionally opposed the Indian state. The BJP may have concluded that while anti-Delhi sentiment has gone latent, it may not have entirely disappeared. So, instead of fielding candidates, it tried to put its support behind local parties it deemed acceptable. Yet the move seems more like an afterthought than a bona fide strategy.

Still, J&K is now at a potential inflection point. Kashmiris, Muslims, Hindus and others alike, have the ability to put the past behind them and change their voting patterns by moving away from old sectarian lines to focus on issues that matter for the union territory as a whole. Tomorrow, we will see if this process has begun.

[Aniruddh Rajendran wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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° Talks: Spotlight on Kashmir — When Will We Witness Voter Realignment? appeared first on Fair Observer.

For most of its history since independence in 1947, India has been ruled by the Indian National Congress (INC) party. Leadership of the party passed from father to daughter to son to son’s widow to grandson as the INC has dominated Indian politics for 40 years. During the rule of the Nehru dynasty, India maintained close relations with the Soviet Union and followed socialist policies, without the bloody purges of its big brother. 

The INC first lost power in 1977 and opposition parties came to power in coalitions but the grand old party of Indian politics could always stage a comeback. In 2014, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) triumphed and the INC-led coalition lost power. Since then, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has presided over a blossoming economy and is still exceedingly popular. The BJP is now the dominant party in the country like the INC.

Modi is widely expected to win the 2024 election. If he does, he will become only the second prime minister in Indian history to win three elections. Jawaharlal Nehru did so in 1951–1952, 1957 and 1962. Given the BJP’s likely victory, what can we expect from a third Modi term?

What to expect from Modi III

The Modi government will probably take steps to address slow job generation, especially in the manufacturing sector. In the past, poor physical and power infrastructure limited India’s ability to boost this sector. Today, the roadblocks are high cost of capital, labor and land. Another challenge facing the Modi government is the poor civic management of India’s cities. Presently, Indian cities are difficult to live in due to congested roads, crazy high air pollution and a lack of clean drinking water.

The Modi government would also have to tread carefully in its relations with foreign partners. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recently blamed India for the assassination of a Canadian citizen in British Columbia. Similarly, the US believes that India was involved in an attempt to murder an American citizen. In India’s eyes, the two assassinated gentlemen were Sikh terrorists advocating the dismemberment of the Indian state. Both immigrated from India, the Canadian on a false passport.

Despite the diplomatic tiff, Washington and Ottawa are keen to maintain close ties with Delhi. They want to bring together all democracies in the Asia-Pacific to create a united front against China. However, India is more diffident about the West. Modi may keep the US at arm’s length, instead engaging closely with middle powers on bilateral terms. The government may also prefer a transactional foreign policy rather than a values-based one.

India’s troubled neighborhood

China is India’s northern neighbor and is indeed a threat.China disputes Indian territory in the Himalayas and has seized Aksai Chin, which India claims as part of Ladakh. India may no longer be able to rely on trade deals and economic relations to keep the peace with China.  India needs to reassess its defense architecture to deal with China.

Myanmar is currently in the midst of a civil war. In the past, militias based in Myanmar have caused trouble in the northeastern Indian states of Manipur and Nagaland. India may need to fortify its border to prevent the spillover of the Myanmarese civil war into India.

Nepal, which traditionally has close ties with India, is now trying to balance relationships with both India and China. India’s challenge is to keep Nepal firmly in its sphere of influence and prevent the expansion of Chinese influence in a country where the local communist party has become quite powerful.

Maldives recently asked India to remove its 89 soldiers and support staff. The country is growing increasingly Islamist and hostile to India. China will be all too happy to step into the vacuum but Maldives is in India’s sphere of influence. As in Nepal, India will compete with China for influence in Maldives.

Finally, relations between India and Pakistan have been deteriorating due to Islamabad’s sponsorship of cross-border terrorism. As Pakistan’s economy goes into free fall, Modi may have the opportunity to improve relations by securing a Pakistani pledge to discontinue these operations.

Modi certainly has his work cut out for him. Rising to these challenges will be crucial for the success of his third term.

[Aniruddh Rajendran wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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° Talks: Geopolitical Guru on the State of Indian Democracy, Part 2 appeared first on Fair Observer.

India has been a democracy since its independence from Great Britain in 1947. Its constitution, which came into effect on January 26, 1950, is the world’s longest and draws inspiration from Britain, Ireland and the US. 

Fundamentally, India’s system of government is based on the British Westminster model. The Parliament of India has two houses, the Rajya Sabha (House of the States) and the Lok Sabha (House of the People). The former is elected by state legislatures and is the upper house while the latter is elected directly by the people. The prime minister of India must command the support of the majority of the members of parliament (MPs) in the Lok Sabha just as the British prime minister has to command a majority in the House of Commons.

Sometimes, one party has commanded a full parliamentary majority. At other times, the largest party formed government by forging a coalition. Sometimes, larger parties support smaller parties but did not join the government. In this “outside support” tactic, the smaller parties’ leaders become prime ministers or state chief ministers. This experiment is unique to India.

How does a party “win” the Lok Sabha elections?

India is a large, vibrant, rambunctious democracy. After independence, numerous observers predicted that this poor, inexperienced country would fall into authoritarianism. India defied them all. Even under the Indira Gandhi government — India’s closest experience with Soviet-inspired one-party rule — multiparty elections continued.

Related Reading

Reasons Why India’s Big Democracy Is Dynamic

This vast nation is divided into 543 constituencies, each of which elects one Member of Parliament (MP) to the Lok Sabha. To become prime minister, a leader must have the support of 272 MPs. Thus, either one party must win 272 seats or it must find enough coalition partners to make up the magic number.

Like British parliamentary constituencies and US congressional districts, Indian constituencies use the first-past-the-post system. In this system, there is only one round of voting, and the candidate with the greatest number of votes wins, regardless of whether the candidate secures 50% of the votes. This means that if many parties fight for one seat, the candidate who gets the highest votes wins. The victor just needs one vote more than the runner-up. In 2019, the BJP won a thumping majority by winning 37.36% of the national vote. Every winning party has fallen short of the 50% vote share, including the fabled post-independence Jawaharlal Nehru-led Indian National Congress (INC).

India’s elections are largely freely and fair. In the past, violence was common during elections, as was voter intimidation. Booth capturing, a practice where goons of candidates captured voting booths and stuffed ballot boxes, was part and parcel of Indian elections. No longer is such behavior acceptable to a much more informed and assertive electorate.

The Election Commission is autonomous. It takes charge when elections are announced. Many polling booths are set up in constituencies so that people can vote in their own neighborhoods. Workers from all political parties are present at polling booths. They check both the voter list and the integrity of the process. In contrast to earlier times, when one person could stamp many votes, electronic voting machines (EVMs) have to reset each time after someone votes. In the 1990s, T.N. Seshan brought in reforms that have made elections a lot fairer than in the past.

Those who cast doubt on EVMs forget that even Indira Gandhi did not find it easy to tamper elections. The size and scale of the Indian electorate make it very difficult for anyone to rig the elections. Even in 1977, Indira Gandhi lost the elections even though she had imposed the “Emergency” and was a de facto dictator.

Indian elections are a lot cleaner than before

Many in the Indian opposition are seeking answers that explain their poor performance. They might be convinced that they merit more votes. In India, politicians tend to have big egos and cannot accept that either their performance or positioning might be lacking. So, they conjure up conspiracy theories to explain poor election results.

In part, Modi’s ascent is thanks to Seshan’s reforms and the EVMs. In the poorer parts of the country, people did not even turn up to vote. They were afraid of retribution. The Election Commission deployed police forces from other states to conduct elections, and this boosted confidence in the election process.

This increased confidence has allowed leaders like Modi and Arvind Kejriwal, the leader of the relatively new Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), to emerge. Aam aadmi literally means “the common man.” Both the BJP and the AAP have leveraged technology and, like new businesses, have demonstrated more energy than the legacy business of the INC.

Since the start of Indian democracy, black money has played a role in the elections. A colorful and powerful politician remarked a few decades ago that elections were all about money, muscle power and mass appeal. The second of the two factors has declined, but the first still matters. Now, candidates are no longer giving money in sacks to journalists, student leaders, mullahs, temple priests et al. 

These intermediaries no longer matter. They cannot turn out the vote for any party. So, they do not get any money. Today, parties spend money on private jets, helicopters and hotel rooms during political campaigns. Just like the US, money is the oxygen every party and candidate needs to campaign. Unlike the US, this money comes in the form of cash. Businesses with cash such as real estate firms, lotteries and liquor chains paid political parties “off the record, on the QT and very hush-hush.”

That is why electoral bonds came into being. The argument for these bonds was that they would formalize campaign finance. They would be anonymous so that businesses would be safe from retribution for donating to one political party. Yet the Supreme Court struck down this measure. The argument of the court is that companies buying these bonds secretly casts a doubt on the integrity of the election process. Indians have a right to know who is financing their parties.

The role of money in politics has led to allegations of crony capitalism. Businessmen back politicians who then favor them in a quid pro quo. In manufacturing, real estate and many other businesses, this shadow system prevails. In India, the capitalist class participates in the political process and spreads their bets. India does not quite have the Southeast Asian-style crony capitalism that we see in countries like Indonesia. Indian politics is far more fragmented.

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° Talks: Geopolitical Guru on the State of Indian Democracy, Part 1 appeared first on Fair Observer.

In the case of South Africa v. Israel, which began on December 29, 2023, the International Court of Justice  is considering the charge of genocide against Israel. The ICC case is instead about war crimes. Prosecutors are held to an extremely high standard when proving genocide. They must prove that the accused consciously intended to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, either partially or totally. High death tolls do not suffice as evidence of genocide. Prosecutors have to prove genocidal intent, which is difficult.

Khan has focused not on the deaths caused by Israel’s ongoing invasion of Gaza but on the Israeli blockade of the territory. He alleges that Israel adopted starvation as a weapon of war, which is illegal under international humanitarian law. This is much easier to prove. 

Indeed, many far-right Israeli leaders made statements during the opening stages of the war that they intended to starve Hamas out of Gaza. Since this was just after the October 7, 2023, massacre of Israeli civilians, one could argue that this was bluster, not intent. But the panel may not agree. It is likely that they will be satisfied that criminal intent is sufficiently plausible and issue the warrants.

Will the world take the ICC seriously?

Arresting Netanyahu would be a serious step, even for the ICC. The court doesn’t usually arrest sitting prime ministers. Furthermore, Uhuru Kenyatta humiliated the court by winning the Kenyan presidency while under ICC prosecution.

The US and Germany have strongly protested against the requested warrants. They object to the ICC equating Israel and Hamas. The US has even threatened to personally sanction the judges. In contrast, France has expressed support for the prosecution.

Critics around the world have also raised suspicions about Khan. He is British, but he is of Pakistani Pashtun descent and an Ahmadi Muslim. Khan has no history of antisemitism, but this will not stop his critics from making the accusation anyway — not only in Israel and the US but even in places like India and the UK. Religion has emerged as a faultline in international relations again.

Nonetheless, the ICC’s judgment still holds water. Its warrants will be enforceable across the 124 parties to the Rome Statute, covering most of Europe, Africa, the Americas (though not the US), Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand.

How will the warrants affect Israel?

Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute, and Netanyahu will not be in handcuffs any time soon. But Netanyahu is a world traveler, and an ICC warrant would severely hamper his diplomatic journeys. Last summer, an ICC warrant forced Russian President Vladimir Putin to sit out the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) summit in Johannesburg. Netanyahu would be similarly caged in.

More importantly, this development is a diplomatic disaster for Israel. Israel has always seen itself as a stalwart member of the international community. Israeli leaders champion their nation as the only democracy in the Middle East. The war and the terrible humanitarian situation in Gaza have damaged Israel’s reputation immensely. Now, the rebuke from an honored institution of humanitarian law is a new low.

Hamas is not a state, so the warrants are not as big of a problem for them. The militant group, long labeled terrorist by many states, is used to being portrayed as criminal. Just being associated with Hamas is a blow for Israel. International critics have called Israel an “apartheid state” for years. The proposed warrants now give them the ammunition to call Israel, however unjustly, a “terrorist state.”

After Israel’s, America’s reputation is the most exposed. The beleaguered world hegemon has suffered a lot of embarrassment lately — think of the Capitol Hill insurrection on January 6, the hasty 2022 evacuation from Afghanistan and the ongoing war in Ukraine where Russia increasingly has the upper hand. Now, unconditional US support for Israel is being held to further scorn both outside and inside the country. In fact, the US may have to reconsider the moral blank check it has given Israel so far. This isn’t the Cold War anymore when it arguably made sense to support unsavory anticommunist leaders to push back against a global Soviet menace. Today, if America wants to be the world’s moral leader, it has to keep its hands clean.

Can Israel pull out of this war?

Israel is a small country dependent on the cooperation of the international community. While it has a strong economy and a potent military, Israel cannot afford to be isolated. Israeli leaders must find a way to wrap up the war in Gaza before their country suffers too much reputational damage.

Minister without portfolio Benny Gantz, leader of the centrist National Unity party, has given Netanyahu a June 8 deadline to come up with a plan for Gaza. Even Gallant has been calling for an exit strategy. Netanyahu has been kicking this can down the road for months, probably because eliminating Hamas is a nearly impossible task.

Israel has two options. It may either attempt to occupy Gaza directly, or it must set up some kind of government that can stabilize Gaza after it pulls out. Even Israel’s closest allies would balk at occupying Gaza.

An occupation is not really militarily feasible. Already, Israel has had to redeploy troops to sectors in northern Gaza, which Israeli leaders had previously declared clear of militants. The US faced the same problem in Iraq. The US solution was to occupy problem sectors indefinitely but Israel does not have either the military or financial resources for deploying troops indefinitely.

So, Israel must find some way to solve its Hamas problem in Gaza and do so quickly. Hezbollah, an Islamist militant group in Lebanon, is a perpetual threat to the north. If Hezbollah fighters attacked while Israeli troops were still tied up in Gaza, Israel would be trapped in an unsustainable two-front war.

The grim reality is that there will be no progress toward a stable solution until Netanyahu signals that he is willing to hold serious talks about Palestinian statehood. Note that he has never done so before and has been implacably opposed to a two-state solution.

As the war goes on, factors that could aid peace are weakening. At the beginning of the conflict, many onlookers suggested the possibility of an interim government led by the Arab League or powerful Arab states like Saudi Arabia and the UAE. These rich Gulf states have the cash to rebuild Gaza’s economy but the outrage on the Arab street against Israel makes it impossible for Arab leaders to engage with their Israeli counterparts. Arab leaders fear revolt from their own people for selling out to the hated crusader state.

The US would doubtless have a role to play in any end to conflict in Gaza. However, the Americans will want to see the first stages of a democratic transition if they get involved. Gaza will have to hold elections. This opens another can of worms though. What happens if Hamas wins? The Muslim Brotherhood, which gave birth to Hamas, won democratic elections after the 2011 Egyptian uprisings. Hamas itself won the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections. Should Israel really cede power back to Hamas after fighting a costly war to remove it?

Besides, it’s not clear who would even set up Gazan democracy. The Gulf states are absolute monarchies and have no institutional experience of democracy. Israel or the US are unlikely to try their hand at state-building because, as Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrate, it is risky, protracted and expensive.

No war ever goes the way leaders think it will. Netanyahu thought that he could destroy Hamas, pack up and go home. In the summer of 1914, Kaiser Wilhelm II told his German troops that they would be home “before the leaves fall from the trees.” These unfortunate Germans would be home only five autumns later, minus two million of their countrymen.

At the outset of the Gaza war, US President Joe Biden warned Netanyahu: “Don’t do what we did.” Don’t get stuck in an invasion with no exit strategy like the US did in Iraq.

Netanyahu didn’t listen.

[Anton Schauble wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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° Talks: The ICC Arrest Warrant for Netanyahu Is Devastating appeared first on Fair Observer.

On April 14, Iran retaliated with a large airstrike of 330 missiles and drones targeted across Israel. This marks the first time Iran has directly struck Israeli territory. Israel came into being in 1948 and has faced attacks from its Arab neighbors in the past. In a historic development, the Arab states have stood by Israel while Iran has attacked the Jewish state.

On April 19, Israel responded with a small missile strike in Natanz, which is in Iran’s central Esfahan province. The attack targeted an airbase close to nuclear facilities.

Iran has not retaliated against this latest strike. For the moment things seem to be calm. However, there is no telling whether this latest escalation will be the end of hostilities between the two Middle Eastern powers.

Fair Observer Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh spoke with retired CIA operations officer Glenn Carle and distinguished US diplomat Gary Grappo who retired as the Envoy and Head of Mission of the Office of the Quartet Representative in Jerusalem.

At that time, Tony Blair occupied this position after he left 10 Downing Street. Blair had success in bringing peace to Northern Ireland but his magic did not quite work with Israelis and Palestinians. Relations between the two had deteriorated by then and Blair himself was damaged goods after the 2003 Iraq War.

Carle played a key role in the War on Terror and has a deep understanding of radical Islamist terrorism. Likewise, few experts and analysts know the Middle East as well as Grappo who was also the US Ambassador to Oman. Singh is no expert on the region but has studied it with avid interest, is an astute analyst of geopolitics and an insightful interlocutor.

Iran shows that it can strike Israel if it wants to

Iran struck Israel with 330 drones and missiles. Many were outdated and slow-flying pieces (or even duds). Unsurprisingly, they fell easy prey to Israeli air defenses. International media were quick to report that Israel and its US, British and French allies successfully shot down 99% of the incoming weapons. 

While technically true, this soundbite misses an important fact. Iran used most of these missiles and drones as decoys. Shooting down these Iranian weapons cost the allies an arm and a leg. More worryingly, Iran struck all the Israeli targets it had identified, signaling its ability to hit any part of Israel anytime. This “swarm attack” tactic may be a harbinger of things to come in modern Middle Eastern warfare.

While Iran achieved tactical success, Israel’s security architecture proved resilient. Its Western allies came to its aid and so did its Arab neighbors. If the Arab states’ tacit support for Israel were not so solid, the situation would be a lot more volatile.

More than two weeks have passed without further incident. For now, the situation seems to be stable. However, Iran and Israel have now crossed a line that they cannot un-cross. What has long been a shadow war or a regional cold war — involving cyberattacks, honey traps, assassinations et al. — has now turned into a hot war.  This is the first time that Iranians and Jews have fought one another since ancient times. 

Despite the fireworks, there are no reported casualties as yet. Iran had broadcasted its attack days in advance, giving Israel time to prepare. In addition, they targeted military assets, not populated areas. The Iranian attack sought to avenge their honor and signal to Israel that Tehran would strike back in a more aggressive manner going forward.

Encouragingly, all sides have pulled back from all-out war. They have let off some steam, and deft diplomacy behind the scenes has prevented the escalation of conflict in the region as well as saved the global economy from another oil shock.

Still, both sides can make mistakes and random incidents can trigger conflict. No one predicted the assassination of Austrian heir apparent, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, that led to World War I. Likewise, a stray Hezbollah missile striking an Israeli village could spark a war.

Indeed, Hezbollah and the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have been exchanging strikes across the Israel–Lebanon border. This conflict has already threatened to break out into war more than once. At the beginning of the Israel–Hamas war, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu wanted to mount a preemptive strike against Hezbollah. Only with difficulty did the US persuade him not to. The resulting two-front war against both Hamas and Hezbollah would have dragged Israel’s ally Uncle Sam into the conflict.

Hezbollah is Iran’s oldest and dearest ally in the Levant. The two powers share the Twelver Shia Muslim faith. Iran views its other Arab partners, like Hamas (which is Sunni) and the Houthis (which belong to a different Shia sect), as pawns. They may be expended to gain Tehran an advantage. Hezbollah is not a pawn but a queen on Iran’s geopolitical chessboard. Tehran would not risk Hezbollah’s destruction unless there was an existential threat to the Iranian state.

Hezbollah does not all-out want war either. This Shia militia still remembers the savage beating the IDF gave them in the 2006 Israel–Lebanon war. Although Hezbollah survived that conflict, its leaders have no desire to see another war devastate southern Lebanon and damage their dominance in Beirut.

Still, unless Israel and Iran somehow decide to live and let live, the tit for tat will continue, and a serious incident can easily happen. To prevent this scenario, the two sides must negotiate. But they cannot do so without a trustworthy mediator that can credibly speak for each side’s interests. Neither the UN nor the US is capable of doing so, and it is not clear who this mediator could be.

Hawks are in charge from Tehran to Jerusalem as US campuses erupt

While things are calm for a moment, the prospects for peace look poor.

Iran struck Israel in revenge for IRGC officers. This echoes similar events in 2020. On January 3, the US assassinated Major General Qasem Soleimani, head of the Quds Force. Iran took revenge by striking an American airbase in Iraq, injuring more than 100 US soldiers. Like the April 2024 attack, Iran was striking its adversary directly for the first time, and for the same reason: to defend the honor of the IRGC.

This suggests a disturbing possibility. Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei does not want war. Yet he has twice compromised, allowed direct attacks and risked war. At least as far as war policy goes, the Supreme Leader may no longer be in the driver’s seat. The hardline IRGC seems to be directing things.

Hardliners are also running the show in Israel. Israel has a unicameral legislature elected by proportional representation. This creates a fragmented multiparty system. The main political parties need the support of small extremist parties to form a coalition government. These extremists can easily make or break a coalition, giving these small parties outsized influence. Any coalition leader would be beholden to extremist allies in the Knesset (Israeli parliament). Bibi is especially beholden because he is desperately clinging to power. He is accused of corruption and has pending proceedings in court. When Bibi’s prime ministership ends, so will his immunity from prosecution and he might end up in jail.

Bibi, who is already a right-wing Zionist himself, relies for support on far-right leaders like Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir. These religious Zionists still harbor the hope of incorporating all of Palestine into the Jewish state. Israel thus finds itself led by a cadre of nationalists with an extreme, even messianic commitment to the war.

Unfortunately, Israel has committed itself to the impossible. It has found that, despite its first-class intelligence capability and its overwhelming superiority in firepower, the IDF cannot achieve its stated war goal of destroying Hamas. Israel has failed to learn a lesson that Iraq bitterly taught the United States earlier in this century: armies are only good for destroying other armies or cities or other physical targets. However, they cannot build a society, change minds or even contain extremism.

After seven months of brutal fighting, the IDFhas failed to destroy Hamas or liberate the hostages this extremist militia kidnapped on October 7, 2023. Yet the Jewish state is fanatically devoted to fighting a brutal war, regardless of the cost. So, the IDF has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza, and degraded the lives of over two million people..

While most Israelis despise Netanyahu, a majority still support the war effort. Most are not right-wing extremists, yet they do not seem to understand how their ongoing war is unwinnable. The longer the war goes on, the more Palestinian resentment rises. Reports of abuse against Arab civilians in the West Bank, where reservists perform primarily law-and-order duties, are increasingly frequent. Note that most of these IDF reservists are secular Jews, not religious Haredis (a community of Orthodox Jews). Clearly, anti-Arab sentiment in Israel is on the rise. 

Israel’s actions have led to public outrage not only in the Muslim world but also the West. Attitudes are shifting in the international community and particularly within the US, which has long been Israel’s guardian angel. Protests have broken out in US college campuses, reminding many of the upheaval in 1978. 

Some student protests have turned violent, with fistfights between protesters and counter-protestors. Many protesters are wearing Palestinian keffiyehs — black and white cloth head coverings — and some have even waved Hamas flags. Protesters have dramatically occupied university buildings and police have entered campuses to make mass arrests.

Importantly, these incidents are just the tip of the iceberg. Many young Democrats harbor a deep animosity for Israel, which they perceive as a white imperialist project, and have unprecedented solidarity with Palestinians. Many of these young Democrats come from Arab or Muslim backgrounds, and do not feel the instinctive sympathy with Israel that many Americans have felt for decades. Even white Americans who are the children of Baby Boomers increasingly see Israel as an apartheid state that has grabbed the land of dark-skinned Palestinians and continues to exploit them.

US President Joe Bide is a Democrat and now faces a revolt within his own party. He is avowedly pro-Israel and has even described himself as a Zionist. While pro-Palestinian Democrats are unlikely to nominate a rival candidate, many of them feel betrayed by Biden and will not vote for him again in November. This could tip the scales in favor of the Republican frontrunner Donald Trump whom Biden replaced as president. In 1968, similar college campus protests in support of the civil rights movement and against the Vietnam War harmed the Democratic campaign of Hubert Humphrey and clinched the election for Republican candidate Richard Nixon.

What would it take to resolve the conflict?

With hardliners in charge of Israel and Iran, it is hard to imagine what negotiations would look like. Any peace settlement would require Israel to have a credible Palestinian interlocutor, a role which neither the terrorist Hamas nor the hopelessly corrupt Fatah, which governs the West Bank, can play.

Yet negotiations will be necessary for any sort of lasting solution. Israel’s failure to destroy Hamas has proven that a one-sided Israeli solution is not feasible. Indeed, the IDF has already partly withdrawn from Gaza and peace talks have intensified.

There are ways to end this conflict. If Hamas released all the remaining hostages, that would take the wind out of Israel’s war sails. Hamas’s allies like Hezbollah and the Houthis say that they will stand down in case of a ceasefire. While we cannot take the statements of these two Iran-backed Shia militias at face value, there is good reason to believe they might be telling the truth.

Ultimately, Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands and poor treatment of Palestinians fuels Arab and Iranian hostility towards the Jewish state. If Israel were to grant Palestinians a state, such bitter hatred for Israel would not exist. Israel’s relentless nibbling of the West Bank and blockade of Gaza is the raison d’être for the rise of extremist groups arrayed against the Jewish state. A two-state solution — towards which a ceasefire would be a necessary first step — would resolve decades-long Israeli-Palestinian tension.

In this conflict, no one’s hands are clean. Both Palestine and Israel have passed up chances for peace before. In 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian National Authority President Yasser Arafat came closest to peace at the Camp David Summit with US President Bill Clinton. Yet Arafat ultimately refused all proposals and began the Second Intifada (uprising) later that year. Israelis perceived this as a slap in the face after what they say as a generous offer of peace. Yet, in the following years, Bibi himself scuttled the possibility of a two-state solution. Notably, Israel committed a strategic blunder by covertly supporting Hamas to undercut Fatah. In hindsight, this move was spectacularly shortsighted.

For now, those in charge in Israel need the war to continue. The Israeli far right will not contemplate a two-state solution because it would involve renouncing forever their ambition to unite all of Eretz Yisrael (Land of Israel). Perversely, Iran and its extremist allies need the conflict to continue too in order to justify their pavlovian hatred of Israel. It also helps the mullahs to retain their vice-like grip on power by whipping up public support by taking on Israel. The existence of a Palestinian state, giving Palestinians both a physical and symbolic home, would undercut hardliners in both Jerusalem and Tehran.

The peace process cannot begin until Israelis take back their country from the ilk of Bibi, Smotrich and Ben-Gvir — no small feat in Israel’s proportional system. Yet even then, only heroic leaders on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides, capable of forcing their own peoples to give up on cherished aspirations and agree to a realistic deal, could possibly conclude a peace agreement and find a solution to a so-far intractable problem.

[Anton Schauble wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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° Live: Make Sense of the New Israel–Iran Clash appeared first on Fair Observer.

This year, Schaffer returned by visiting the cities of Uzhhorod and Lviv. This trip was safer, yet more psychologically draining than the first. In 2023, morale was high. Ukrainians were confident. Now, the fatigue is palpable. Constant attacks on civilian infrastructure wound and kill people as Western support trickles in slowly . 

This is the Kremlin’s strategy, and it’s succeeding. Momentum is clearly on Russia’s side, and the longer the campaign lasts, the further Ukrainian morale sinks.

Will Russia win? What could this victory mean for Europe?

NATO vs. Russian expansionism

It’s unlikely Russia can fully occupy Ukraine. Russia can’t win by suffocating Ukrainian morale until they stop resisting — and Ukrainians know a loss would bring death, destruction and rape.

No one knows now exactly what a Russian victory could bring. Political scientist John Mearsheimer argues that Russia is not expansionist and it will stop after it secures the territory it now holds. Others say that Russia intends to overrun Ukraine entirely and that it will bring its conquest to other countries next. This would usher in a perilous era for Central and Eastern Europe.

Mearsheimer argues that Russia acted to achieve one political aim: preventing NATO from expanding further eastward. Russia sees its near abroad as a defensive bulwark against potential NATO military invasion. The United States reacted similarly in the 1960s when Soviet Union tried to advance into Cuba.

Hypothetically, Russia could achieve certain goals and then freeze the conflict. But to do that, it would have to control what it believes is now its sovereign territory, namely four Ukrainian oblasts of Kherson, Luhansk, Donetsk and Zaporizhia. Russia organized sham referenda to annex these areas. As long as these oblasts remain partly outside of Russia’s grasp, negotiation seems unlikely. Likewise, on the Ukrainian side, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy cannot negotiate a peace that would involve the surrender of national territory. This would violate Ukraine’s constitution.

Mearsheimer is right that the positioning of NATO missiles in Ukraine would be an existential threat to Russia that the federation would necessarily have to stop. But this could have been achieved through negotiation and reasonable planning. Instead, Russia denied Ukrainian statehood and began gobbing up pieces of it. Far from carrying out a defensive action, the Kremlin used the purported threat of NATO to justify its violation of international law.

The European divide

The Russia–Ukraine War is the first large-scale conflict in Europe since the fall of Berlin in 1945. French President Emmanuel Macron tried making peace with Putin in 2022, but now he’s asking for Western troops in -Ukraine. Once a dove, he’s now become a hawk. In his view, if Ukraine falls, others will follow.

Despite this, Europe will not get tougher with Russia. There are too many sovereign states with too many different approaches for that to happen. This is a hybrid war — a war that combines conventional and irregular warfare. A narrative battle rages inside each country in tandem with the deadly campaign in Ukraine.

Many countries are noticing this extra dimension. The last two years have brought a fundamental shift in thought: If Europe can’t defend the Ukrainians who are fighting for the EU’s values, how can it protect those principles? Europe’s security structure was destroyed on February 24, 2022; its freedom, values and democratic way of life are in jeopardy. Further, Europe cannot rely on NATO’s Article 5 to defend itself. The US will not necessarily interve to defend Europe in the event of a limited engagement in eastern Poland or the Baltics, which Russia could plausibly try. If Article 42.7 of the Treaty of Lisbon — the EU’s mutual defense clause — is not to be a dead letter, Europe must have an independent defensive capability.

This viewpoint has divided Europe. Many Europeans lack the will to fight, believing the threat to be exaggerated. Italy and Spain are far from Russia and protected by high mountains; the idea of Russian tanks threatening these southerly nations sounds like science fiction.

France and Germany have always shared the Great European Plain — easy to drive tanks across — with Russia and so perceive the possibility of war, however remote, as more realistic. Yet both nations are internally split on Russia. France has a semi-presidential system where Macron can dictate policy, but many in the National Assembly do not share his  hawkish views.

On the other side, Germany has a parliamentary system where three parties form the government coalition: the Social Democratic Party, the Green Party and the Liberals. There are hawkish Social Democrats, dovish Liberals and both tendencies in the Green Party. It’s difficult for these parties to compromise when debating a common policy.

On February 27, 2022, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz delivered the famous Zeitenwende (“Watershed”) speech in the Bundestag. He announced a change to the country’s security and foreign policy, upping defense spending significantly. Germany was to take an active role as a member of NATO. Yet Germany doesn’t want to get involved in this war. Unlike France, it has a large, resource-hungry manufacturing industry — and no nuclear plants to power it. This makes Germany much more dependant than France on Russian fossil fuels. War means that energy costs skyrocket, growth plummets and industry suffers. Already, Germans are saying that they’re the real losers of the war.

Danube regional affairs

Along with Ukraine and Germany, Europe’s Danube region consists of Austria, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania and Moldova. As Ukraine’s neighbors, these countries would be directly affected if Russia occupied its entirety.

In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has taken a questionable, pro-Russian attitude. Traditionally, Hungarians are suspicious of Russia, with dark memories of Soviet tanks rolling into Budapest to crush the Hungarian uprising against Bolshevism in 1956. Yet Orbán’s social contract with the Hungarian people relies on growth that cheap Russian gas fuels. Hungary has notoriously made a long-term contract with Russia’s Gazprom energy corporation. Meanwhile, Budapest vetos EU measures to aid Ukraine. The country’s stance seems rooted in business, not ideology.

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico resigned from power in 2018 over a political crisis: Journalist Ján Kuciak and his fiancée, Martina Kušnírová, nearly exposed a financial flow running through the government, but were silenced mafia-style. Now, Fico regained the people’s favor by using their frustration with the war; he was re-elected in 2023. He blames his country’s high inflation on the war and the war on anti-Russian Western policy.

Just outside the Danube region, Poland is also divided on how to should position itself. Supporters of the nationalist Law and Justice party are less hawkish on Russia. Yet Law and Justice is no longer in power as of 2023. Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s new government marks a return to upholding European values and feels that, if Europe does not stop Russia at the Donets, they will soon have to do so at the Bug.

Poland is a hotspot because, if it feels threatened and insufficiently protected by NATO, it may decide to develop its own nuclear weapons. Indeed, Europe needs a nuclear deterrent independent from that of the US. This war has caused Europe to see that it must stand on its own two feet, invest in military production and prepare to defend itself. If Russia makes a move, the Yanks may not be coming.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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° Talks: Where Is Ukraine Headed Now? What Does Europe Think? appeared first on Fair Observer.

Modeled after Great Britain’s Westminster system, India is a parliamentary democracy. After all, Westminster ruled India for nearly two centuries — indirectly through the East India Company from 1757 to 1858 and then directly from 1858 to 1947 when India achieved its independence. This year, from May to June, citizens will vote for members of parliament (MPs) in the lower house, called the Lok Sabha. Parties are contesting 543 seats, and the leader who commands 272 MPs (a 50% + 1 majority) will become prime minister. The results are set to be announced on June 4.

Electoral map of India. Via ExactlyIndeed on Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0).

Who are the key players in the Indian elections?

Prime Minister Narendra Modi of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has been in office since 2014 and is likely to win a historic third term. The BJP is a right-leaning nationalist party which opponents call Hindi fascists or Hindu supremacists. These critics allege, often with much exaggeration, how minorities feel threatened in India. In particular, Muslims are said to be under siege. Notably, Modi is India’s first backward-class prime minister — a set of communities deemed to be historically disadvantaged because of India’s inequitable caste system — and is popular both amongst India’s middle class and its poor.

Even opponents praise Modi for targeted welfare programs. He has distributed free food grains to a staggering 813.5 million people. His government gives low-income women a monthly stipend of 1,200.50 rupees (approximately $16) and also provides cheap sanitary napkins for better menstrual health. The Modi government has built sanitation systems, provided piped clean water and delivered cooking gas cylinders throughout India. Naturally, poor women tend to vote for the Modi-led BJP.

Related Reading

Why Women Support Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi

Modi’s main contender is the left-leaning Indian National Congress (INC), which once led the freedom struggle. The INC has a rich history and was once democratic but now has become a dynastic fiefdom of the Nehru dynasty. Jawaharlal Nehru was India’s first prime minister and the son of a famous INC leader Motilal Nehru. He was a Fabian socialist who looked up to the Soviet Union but kept his distance from Moscow. Nehru’s daughter Indira Gandhi (no relation to Mahatma Gandhi) jumped enthusiastically into bed with the Soviets and amended the constitution to declare India a socialist country. Indira’s grandson Rahul now is the leader of the INC, and he is running on a populist leftist platform, promising freebies to the public such as monthly cash transfers, increased subsidies, more government jobs and generous pensions.

There are other opposition parties in addition to the INC. They are often regional parties, but they tend to be more dynamic than the INC. The new Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) rules Punjab and Delhi. In the southern state of Tamil Nadu, which elects 39 MPs to the Lok Sabha, the established Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) is in power led by M.K. Stalin (who is neither a love child nor relative of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin).

The border state of West Bengal elects 42 MPs to the Lok Sabha. This state is the western half of the historical Bengal, which was partitioned between India and Pakistan in 1947. (East Bengal eventually declared independence 1971 and became Bangladesh.) Today, Mamata Banerjee, who left the INC when the Nehru family failed to give this regional satrap her due, rules West Bengal.

What are their records and what lies ahead?

The Modi government has done a great job building infrastructure. They are constructing roads, ports and railway lines day and night. Nitin Gadkari has been an exceptional minister of road transport and highways. Many middle-class Indians want him, instead of Modi, to be prime minister.

The Modi government has also built digital infrastructure. It has reduced the infamous leakage in government welfare programs. Rajiv Gandhi, Rahul’s father, once admitted that only 15% of the disbursed amount reached the intended beneficiaries. By implementing a national identity card scheme, opening bank accounts for hundreds of millions and delivering benefits directly to their accounts, the Modi-led BJP government has reduced theft dramatically. Hence, Modi has a reputation for competence and the BJP has replaced the INC as the dominant party in Indian politics.

Yet Modi has made some wrong calls too. In 2016, he imposed demonetization — withdrawal of high-denomination currency notes — with no notice. This destroyed small businesses around the country and, in part, caused the unemployment crisis that India is suffering today. He practices what one of the two authors has called Modi’s policies Sanatan socialism.

Related Reading

India Enters the Era of Sanatan Socialism

Modi has made business and entrepreneurship a lot easier in this historically socialist economy. However, he still relies heavily on the bureaucracy, particularly the colonial, corrupt and spectacularly incompetent Indian Administrative Service (IAS). Policymaking continues to be haphazard, and the IAS still remains arbitrary. Businesses suffer because of a lack of policy certainty as well excessive regulation.

In fact, even members of the BJP and its parent organization, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), complain about Modi’s excessive centralization of power. Some BJP and RSS leaders go so far as to say that Modi is Indira Gandhi “true son” because of his absolutist tendencies. They even complain that Modi runs an IAS government with mere outside support from the BJP and the RSS.

Related Reading

Narendra Modi Is the New Indira Gandhi, Only Much Worse

For all his faults, Modi is still more free-market than opposition party leaders. The INC is promising Latin American-style populism to voters, which would derail growth and could even bankrupt the government. So, Modi is benefiting from what Indian political analysts call the “there is no alternative” (TINA) factor.

[Gwyneth Campbell wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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: Indian Elections — Mammoth and Unparalleled appeared first on Fair Observer.

For a long time, House Republicans prevented aid going to war-torn Ukraine. They either did not want to transfer any money, could not agree on the amount or wanted to tie the Ukrainian vote to other issues such as border control. But now, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has finally shepherded a bill with Democratic support that gives Ukraine $95 billion in aid. The bill passed the House on April 20, 2024, and the Senate approved it on April 23.

This aid package is significant, but is it too late? What are the consequences of this aid?

Ukraine should thwart Russian offensive but Putin will still remain in charge

The aid package cannot reverse the tens of thousands of casualties Ukraine has suffered, nor will it save the territory it has lost so far to the Russian armed forces. Yet it might save the country from still more dire consequences. Ukraine was losing territory and its complete collapse to Russia was probable. Now with this US package and equal European aid, Ukraine has a shot at avoiding that grisly fate.

Without the aid, NATO would have taken a crippling blow and US–European strategic relations would have suffered with Europe would have been left on its own to fund Ukraine. Ukraine, as we know it, would almost certainly have been destroyed.

Another potential consequence would have been the confirmation of Russian imperium in Central Europe and the Baltic states. If Russia successfully toppled Ukraine, it seems likely that Moldova, Georgia and the Baltic states would be in extreme danger. Poland, especially, would have had to think long and hard about its response. It would probably try to develop a nuclear weapon, which would not help global stability.

Failure to pass the package may have confirmed and strengthened what people derisively view as the Russia–China–Iran axis. The three countries view their alliance as a defensive one against US imperium.

So, what happens now? With disaster presumably averted, there will probably be a period of stasis. Then, Russia will likely launch a major series of offensives in June or earlier. However, these are unlikely to achieve much success. It is difficult to say if peace negotiations are now more likely to happen in 2025. But US aid makes such a future possible.

The Russia–Ukraine War is causing suffering akin to World War I’s trench warfare. Modern technology has made offensives more difficult than ever, because nothing can be hidden on the battlefield. So, a potential Russian offensive is unlikely to succeed.

Yet this is unlikely to affect Russian President Vladimir Putin. He and his assistants excel at projecting the image of authority, strength, stability and control. When dealing with a dictator, those things are true until they aren’t. For now, Putin will persist as Russia’s ruler. Note that Russia is more motivated than the US to win the war, its economy is doing well while the Ukrainian economy has cratered and European allies might be losing the will to continue the fight.

US aid bolsters Europe and deters China but Russia remains ascendant

Thanks to the aid package, US relations with Europe will improve. The US has also bolstered its centrality in international relations. Thus, the normative system and the stability it brings might still hold.

Europe remains a key player in global affairs, but it cannot defend itself. The US subsidizes Europe’s security through NATO. Pax Americana — a state of relative international peace typically overseen by the US — guarantees peace in Europe, but Europe would need to assemble its defenses to increase its international influence. Even if Europe moves decisively, it will take a decade to build defense capabilities under the best of circumstances.

There are implications for Asia as well. Russia has struggled to defeat a much smaller neighbor with which it shares a border. China has surely paid attention to that fact. Invading Taiwan would be an amphibious exercise and thus even more difficult. China had hoped the US might balk in the event of a Chinese military invasion to bring Taiwan into its One China system. But the US has shown a surprising ability to sustain a beleaguered country that will surely give China pause.

The Russian economy is doing fairly well. The country’s big challenge was capital flight — a large-scale exodus of financial assets and capital from a nation due to political or economic instability. Russia sold commodities — particularly oil and gas, but also nickel, copper and other metals —  but the money that came into Russia would immediately flow out to yachts in Monaco and football clubs like Chelsea and Arsenal in England. Just as World War II was good for the US economy, so is the Russia-Ukraine War good for Russia’s.

Related Reading

The Myth of Economic Armageddon: The Truth About Western Sanctions on Russia

Furthermore, from the paranoid Russian perspective, the expansion of NATO is an existential threat. The government seems to believe that if Ukraine were to join NATO, Russia would face a disaster equivalent to the Mongol invasion. Russia’s fighting ability has not weakened and its forces are on the ascendant in the battlefield.

In contrast, the Ukrainian economy contracted by an estimated 35% in 2023. Economic and military aid is keeping the country together. At some point, this aid might not be forthcoming. Russia is striving to capitalize on its enemy’s feeble condition. Pro-Putin candidates are on the rise in Europe as Slovakia, Hungary and Serbia demonstrate.

Yet Russia is unlikely to claim massive swathes of Western Europe or even western Ukraine. Likewise, Ukraine is unlikely to win back territory that Russia now controls. A frozen conflict looms for the near future.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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: US Congress Gives Ukraine Sizable, if Not Timely, Aid appeared first on Fair Observer.

Israel’s counter-response hit Natanz, in Iran’s central Esfahan province. However, both sides seem to be dialing down the rhetoric for now. Iran declared Israel’s strikes as ineffective and said it saw no reason for a second retaliation. While the tit-for-tat exchange between Iran and Israel may have let off enough steam to prevent an all-out war, the situation remains dangerous. Deep undercurrents drive the current turmoil and have heavy ramifications.

Regional politics are on a dangerous precipice

After suffering negative headlines for months, Israel has won back some international sympathy due to the Iranian attack. However, the Israeli political system is now fundamentally unstable. Prime Minister Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu’s war leadership has proved ineffective, and his political position is precarious. 

Though the administration is in paralysis, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) are still the top dogs in the region. Their attack on Damascus almost eliminated the entire leadership of the IRGC. In addition, the Arab Sunni states surrounding Israel helped shoot down Iran’s missiles and drones.

Iran’s attack shows both their strengths and limitations. They have indeed hit Israel. Though international media were quick to report that 99% of the missiles and drones were destroyed, most of these were outdated tech that Iran used as decoys. The 1% that made it through included serious missiles that successfully struck their targets. However, this capability alone will do Iran little good. The Islamic Republic has no allies in the region except for non-state entities like Hezbollah, the Houthis and Hamas. Not one Arab state supported their attack on Israel.

However, the attack is useful for domestic purposes. Iran’s mullahs use the Israel–Hamas war as a tool to increase their public support. Handily, this saber-rattling against Israel also wins Iran greater popularity on the Arab street and boosts its power in the Middle East.

This anti-Israel sentiment makes the region more volatile. It comes at a time when the Israeli political system is weak and the IDF, their much-vaunted prowess, have been unable to achieve either of their war goals: rescuing the hostages and destroying Hamas. 

Although support for Bibi has dipped, the majority of Israelis is still in favor of the current military operation. At the same time, brutality by IDF soldiers in the West Bank has actually increased the popularity of Hamas in that moth-eaten Palestinian territory. In Gaza, Hamas is still in charge. There’s no sign the violence that began thanks to the terrible terrorist attacks of October 7 will decrease any time soon.

Things could very easily get a lot worse

The ramifications of the region’s political unrest have reached the US. Mass protests have erupted in college campuses over President Joe Biden’s support for Israel. Young people believe that Israel is conducting genocide and the US is complicit in this crime. So, they are up in arms against Biden.

Related Reading

Do You Think the Startling Columbia Protests Were Peaceful?

If public opinion has turned against Israel in American college campuses, imagine what it must be like in Arab countries. Many Western observers rejoice at the fact that Arab countries oppose Iran and tacitly, though not overtly, support Israel. Yet there is a fly in the ointment. The Arab palace and the Arab street do not see eye to eye on Israel.

In fact, many Arabs see their rulers as traitors who are selling out like Judas for the proverbial thirty pieces of silver. There is a real risk of a second Arab uprising. Should Arab mullahs gain power like their Iranian counterparts in the not-too-distant future, Israel would find governments arguably even more hostile than Iran’s in their near neighborhood. It goes without saying that this would inflame tensions in the Middle East even further.

[Cheyenne Torres wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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: Conflict in the Middle East Is Now Dangerous appeared first on Fair Observer.

In order to pass the new immigration bill, Macron negotiated with the far-right majority in the French Senate. Shockingly, he agreed with many of the extreme conservative amendments added to the bill by Marine Le Pen’s party, National Rally. Consequently, the immigration bill has passed successfully.

The National Rally began in the 1960s as the militant, racist, fascist National Front created by Marine’s father, Jean-Marie Le Pen. Many of its ideals remain the same. Thus, Macron’s deal with the party has caused a great political upheaval in France. So far, no ruling president has worked with this far-right party. Now, all of a sudden, Macron and the far right have struck an alliance on immigration. Why has the French president switched teams? The answer lies in the concentration of power in Élysée Palace — the French president’s official residence —and Macron’s narcissistic opportunism.

French elections are not like American ones

Every five years, France goes to the polls and elects presidents and legislators. Earlier the presidential term was seven years. This allowed for a midterm legislative election and often led to cohabitation. This term referred to the phenomenon in which the president and the prime minister, who enjoyed a legislative majority, belonged to opposing parties. This curtailed the power of even charismatic presidents like François Mitterand and Jacques Chirac.

Cohabitation often led to gridlock, so the French now have five-year terms for both the president and the legislators. This constitutional change has concentrated further power in the hands of the president.

In 2022, Emmanuel Macron was reelected, defeating Marine Le Pen. Despite her attempts to clean up National Rally’s appearance, Marine is really just about as far-right as her father Jean-Marie. The French held their noses and voted for Macron, but the vast majority did not want him to have the extensive powers of the presidency. For the first time in the history of the Fifth Republic, which Charles de Gaulle founded in 1958, the president did not win a majority in the French national legislature.

Macron has tricked the French people

Macron and Le Pen squaring off in the last election demonstrated, the traditionally dominant parties of the center-right and the left have lost credibility. Macron replaced the socialists while Le Pen has defenestrated the Gaullists. Of course, Macron came to power first. He gave France the illusion that he was moderate, centrist and willing to listen to the public.

Once in office, it became clear Macron did not have the public’s interest in mind. He fell in popularity after revealing his pro-business, free-enterprise model for the government. Furthermore, Macron’s narcissistic personality began to reveal itself. His narcissisme pervers showed right from the start when he named his own political party — En Marche — curiously with the same abbreviation as his initials.

Extremely narcissistic personalities are often attracted to high office. Patrick Weil’s biography The Madman in the White House captured the increasing narcissism of US President Woodrow Wilson. In his latter days in the White House, Wilson refused to be confined by the constitutional constraints of his office. Weil concludes that excessive power distorts a person’s ability to govern democratically and correctly.

Today, France is in crisis because of an extreme concentration of power in the hands of the president. Like Wilson a century ago, Macron does not want to be confined in his exercise of power. This former minister in a socialist government has now done a deal with the far-right to push through a draconian immigration bill, breaking all political precedent in the Fifth Republic.

The Fifth Republic is not defective

Some, including Fair Observer’s Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh, argue that the Fifth Republic is dysfunctional. The president just has far too much power, and France today cannot be governed by a republic that Gaulle built in his image. The far right is now rising because the Fifth Republic is failing.

Weil does not think so. He believes that the French constitution does not need further change. The problems in France stem from narcissistic personalities who have become presidents and abused the power of the presidential office.

Related Reading

The World This Week: Another French Revolution

The solution for France is not a sixth republic but a return to the original text of the constitution of the Fifth Republic. Voters have to vote not for narcissists like Macron or Le Pen but for candidates who respect both the spirit and the letter of the constitution.

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° Talks: France in Crisis: Macron Now in Bed With Far-Right appeared first on Fair Observer.

In the mid-20th century, many African and Middle Eastern immigrants arrived as workers to rebuild France after World War II. First, they were mostly young men who came alone. The French administration intended for them to eventually return to their homelands. Yet they put down roots, and they were eventually able to bring their families to live with them. So, France possesses a large population of Muslim immigrants.

Much of this Muslim community has not fully integrated into French society. In December 2023, French authorities closed a Muslim high school in Lille, citing administrative problems and teachings incompatible with French values. Muslims feel alienated and marginalized by the authorities, and their relationship with police is often fractious. Urban riots in the summer of 2023 brought this issue to the fore. Many immigrants, old and new, also face high levels of poverty.

Related Reading

FO° Exclusive: Make Sense of the Hellish Rioting in France

Immigration has become a hot topic across Europe, with right-wing parties sounding the alarm against newcomers who they say do not share European, liberal or Christian values. France is no exception.

France has tried numerous times to lessen the flow of immigrants. Since the 1980s, it has passed a new immigration law nearly every year. These laws have been typically unhelpful, unsuccessfully attempting to deter immigrants by making the bureaucracy tough and cumbersome. All the same, there has been a steady increase in the amount of immigration into France. In 1982, 7.4% of people in France were immigrants. By 2022, that figure rose to 10.3%, or seven million people, as reported by INSEE. More than a third of those people have acquired French citizenship.

What is Macron’s new law?

On December 19, 2023, the French parliament passed a new immigration law.

In France’s semi-presidential system, the head of state does not necessarily control a majority in parliament. The president has enough authority to govern effectively from day to day, but needs support in parliament to pass new legislation. Currently, Macron lacks that support. His centrist Renaissance party does not control a majority in parliament, so it needs to join with either the Left or the Right to pass new legislation. The new immigration law was a compromise between Renaissance and the right-wing Rassemblement National.

Renaissance added provisions to the law that opened the possibility of work for immigrants in some specific economic sectors. (In doing so, Renaissance resisted the trend among Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries that has seen tougher work and immigration policies passed in the last few years. France needs immigrants to make up for labor shortages as its population ages.) Rassemblement National, on the other hand, secured the addition of provisions that restricted, for example, family reunification and social benefits for unemployed immigrants. 

Macron refered the law to the Constitutional Council. Upon review, the council decided not to strike the law down, but rather to split it by striking down some provisions and not others. Effectively, it scrapped most of the provisions supported by the Right and kept the government’s provisions.

The Constitutional Council made its decision on procedural rather than substantive grounds. This means that there is nothing to prevent the parliament from adopting the same provisions that were struck down in a later law. Immigrants in France thus rest uneasy, not knowing whether their status will be endangered again in the near future.

The French middle class is shrinking and insecure

Why are French voters becoming more diffident about immigration than they had been before? The answer lies in France’s changing social structures.

In France, as in much of the OECD, the economic position of the middle class has become increasingly precarious. Despite its positive effects, globalization has put downward pressure on wages in the Western world. In traditionally high-income, high-expense economies like France, even those who continue to work can now barely make ends meet. As deindustrialization set in, the French economy began to weaken. In 2000, manufacturing represented 19% of the national GDP as compared to 13% in 2022. Business bankruptcies have increased by 35% in France.  Generations of families were left unemployed. With jobs and wages now harder to get, middle-class French increasingly see migrants as competitors for scarce resources.

Native French workers are not extending solidarity to immigrants. They do not see immigrants as part of “us,” as fellow members of society to be helped, but rather as interlopers from outside of society who are a drain on its resources. They resent that the government helps them with the taxes that they pay, taxes which, in their minds, are collected to help “real” French people. Solidarity, a core part of France’s democratic values, is dying.

Loss of Western geostrategic importance

The middle class’s precarious economic position is not the only factor that is making Europeans uneasy. More broadly, the continent is feeling the effects of its shrinking geostrategic importance.

Just a century ago, Western European powers were the dominant and almost the sole actors on the world stage. Now, they have lost their ability to direct events occurring outside of their own continent. Occurrences in Africa or Asia which Europe is helpless to control can drive waves of immigration to its shores.

While France and the rest of Europe struggle with immigration policy issues, they face quite a different threat from another direction: an expansionist and nuclear-armed Russia, which has invaded its neighbor Ukraine.

The Russian invasion has caused a lot of uncertainty in Europe. EU leaders have continuously discussed and debated what is required to stand up to Russia or if Russia can even be defeated. The war in Ukraine not only presents a threat to Europe, but a threat to democracy itself.

In recent months, Macron has stated his refusal to rule out sending Western troops to Ukraine. According to Pascal Brice, a former French diplomat, Macron’s thought behind this is to show France’s common determination. Russia has to know Europe’s common determination to defeat Putin, especially because he is the only one who will use the nuclear threat against anyone who opposes him. Indeed, Macron has long called for a broader European defense system, notoriously remarking that NATO is “brain-dead” back in 2019.

In Brice’s estimation, it is time for Europe to get tough with Russia. Putin has shown himself to be a dictator, and the West cannot expect to have an amicable settlement with someone whose goals are the weakening of European unity and democracy itself. He must be defeated.

Peter Isackson, Fair Observer’s Chief Strategy Officer, disagrees. He believes that Russia and Europe need to develop a common framework in which to discuss their defense needs together, instead of adopting an excessively antagonistic relationship. If they had done so earlier, they could have potentially avoided the current invasion of Ukraine. Yet even now, negotiation is a viable pathway toward ending the war in Ukraine.

Brice calls for an end to the Putin regime. To Isackson, a leader doesn’t define the nation, the nation defines the person running it. He does not think that Russia will be different or better with a different leader. What is necessary is finding a way to live with Russia all the same.

[Mitchelle Lumumba and Liam Roman wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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° Talks: Where Is French Immigration Law Heading Now? appeared first on Fair Observer.

Cashmore defines celebrity culture as “our tendency to have our values, practices and habits affected by figures who have risen to prominence (some would say undue prominence because it’s not proportionate to their accomplishments).” Notice that celebrities are referred to as figures and not people. Cashmore makes the distinction because celebrities are more products of our imagination than they are the flesh-and-blood person behind the fame. By existing in our imagination, they are independent of time and space and can be anything we want them to be. 

But what separates a celebrity from an ordinary person? 

When asked if an ordinary person could become a celebrity, Cahsmore replied, “Not without the help of a legion of followers.” Despite many, many people trying to grow a following online, the vast majority fail at becoming a true celebrity. Every so often someone does manage to pull it off by doing something crazy but this fame is often fleeting. Not many have the staying power within our imaginations. 

The deciding factor of celebrity status is, ironically, we, the public. Anything can make someone a celebrity provided we find it interesting. Our perception of them makes them interesting. What makes a famous person a celebrity is the public: We turn them into celebrities. 

A normal person can become a celebrity in a short amount of time provided they get national attention. They simply have to occupy people’s minds (for example, winning the lottery or a reality TV show).

Before the year 2000, movies and TV were the established methods of gaining fame, but now we all carry phones with us. We essentially carry celebrities with us and in a moment’s notice can summon them for our entertainment

Some people, like Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian, caught onto this trend early. They realized that social media were not just a presence but a force. It doesn’t matter what you say or do as long as the media notice you. Paris Hilton was more than “famous for being famous”; she was famous for appearing. The media trailed her because we were interested in her.

Kim Kardashian saw this and realized she could make it better by using social media and she exploded in popularity. Kim started as an assistant for Paris, but eventually eclipsed her.

Nearly any kind of notoriety can transform into stardom. Oscar Pistorius, who was already famous to a degree as a paralympian, became infamous after shooting his girlfriend, Rea. This rocketed him from being known within the sports world to international stardom. Pistorius’s audience mushroomed because people who weren’t interested in running were intrigued by the murder trial. It’s a combination of our fascination with killing as well as how much we enjoy seeing the rise and fall of our celebrities.

Related Reading

What Makes a Child Murder Another Child?

Another key ingredient of being a celebrity is appearing to be relatable — this is key to the transformation into celebrity culture. It’s like “the larger-than-life characters have come down to earth,” Cashmore explains. Our affection for celebrities is rooted in our love of how ordinary they are.

How does celebrity culture affect us?

Celebrity culture is “inescapable” and “a defining aspect of culture today,” whether we like it or not. Cashmore clarifies, “The main way is that it affects the way we spend our money. We can’t untangle celebrity culture from consumer culture.”

Celebrity culture encourages us to buy things that we don’t need but things that we want. It exists not just to sell us specific products but instead to advertise a way of life in which we are rewarded for owning the commodities we see they have. While this encouragement may not be overt endorsements we do our best to mimic celebrities.

While Cashmore asserts that celebrity influence is often overestimated, there is a chance that this could change in the future. 

We live in a time where people who are famous not for their leadership or anything related to politics, can still earn a reputation (think Arnold Schwarzenegger or Donald Trump). It seems like simply being known is half the battle in politics. As long as you can provoke strong emotion, you’re in business. The worst thing that can happen to a celebrity is that people stop caring. 

Cashmore noted, “I wouldn’t put it past Kim Kardashian or Taylor Swift to someday make the transition to the political playing field.”

How long can we expect for Celebrity Culture to last? Cashmore reminds us that “a change is hardly visible on the horizon let alone an end. Celebrity culture is here to stay, it seems.”

[Beaudry Young wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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° Talks: Celebrity Culture: More than a Figment of our Imagination appeared first on Fair Observer.

Since 2003, Sudan has been in a state of civil war. In its latest phase, the fighting is carried on by two factions: the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary group which, though previously under the formal control of the national government, now wages war against it.

This relentless war has disrupted both the production and the importation of food in vast areas. Compounding the problem, it is almost impossible to bring humanitarian aid to the affected regions. 

What is happening in Sudan?

In 1989, a 30-year-long military dictatorship began led by Omar al-Bashir. As his junta came to power, it systematically ran the agricultural sector to the ground. There was little support for farmers and no provision of resources. This led the country to rely significantly on food imports.

Jump forward to 2003. Al-Bashir’s government began what can only be called a genocide in the Darfur region of western Sudan. This genocide against the non-Arab sedentary farmers by the Arab nomadic pastoralists continues to the present day.

In 2015, Vice President Hassabu Mohamed Abdalrahman encouraged the annihilation of the non-Arab farmers. In a series of events that echoed the Rwanda genocide, the Arab militia group Janjaweed (dubbed “devils on horseback”) carried out its genocidal mission by raiding non-Arab villages, destroying food stocks and poisoning wells. Ethnically targeted violence continues in Darfur today. The Janjaweed eventually evolved into the RSF. General Mohamed Hamdan “Hemedti” Dagalo, leader of the Janjaweed, continues to command the RSF. 

Hemedti’s militia is carrying out a ruthless war against the SAF. The RSF have made incursions in most of Sudan and seized four of the capitals of the five federal states that compose Darfur. The only holdout in the region is El Fasher, the capital of North Darfur, currently under seige by the RSF. The city is filled with refugees who fear for their lives lest RSF take the city.

Sudan’s neighbors and the African Union (AU) have begun to see the writing on the wall and are preparing to accommodate a Hemedti-led regime. Hemedti’s militia receives support and resources from the United Arab Emirates, while Egypt is on the side of the SAF. This civil war exacerbates the failure of security and diplomacy in the region. The UN Security Council will not authorize any intervention, despite the creation of a rapid deployment force between the AU and the UN.

With regional powers split, the real victims of the war are no more than a second thought. Caught in between the factions warring against each other are nine million internally displaced persons (IDPs). Additionally, one million refugees have fled to neighboring countries such as Chad, Egypt and South Sudan. These nations countries are rather inhospitable to the refugees. It is difficult for them to accommodate the newcomers, since they are to varying degrees struggling with instability themselves. They simply lack the resources, even if they had the will, to manage a refugee crisis of this magnitude.

Driven by desperation, some refugees are attempting the trans-Saharan land route across Libya  in a bid to make the perilous sea voyage to Europe.

The lack of humanitarian aid

The real casualty of the war in Sudan is the inability to deliver humanitarian aid, especially food, water and medicine. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), which runs a clinic in the Zamzam IDP camp in Darfur, recently reported that a large percentage of children in Sudan currently suffer from severe acute malnutrition. Due to the insecurity created by the war, agricultural activities have become impossible in most areas of Sudan for years, forcing people to rely on humanitarian aid and food programs.

Darfur is one of the most remote parts of the world. In order to reach the region, convoys of humanitarian aid need to disembark from Port Sudan, on the Red Sea, and cross the breadth of the country. Difficult in the best of times, this journey is all but impossible due to the fighting. The UN World Food Program (WFP) is now unable to deliver food to parts of Darfur.

In the Zamzam IDP camp, located about 14 kilometers south of El Fasher, there is almost no food and no access to clean water. The few humanitarian agencies that remain operational are unable to attain safe access to the sire. The WPF has warned of an upcoming catastrophe in the coming months. As per the report by MSF, a food gap or lean season is inevitable; the next harvest season is in November/December, and the circumstances will not mitigate the famine and lack of food on the ground created by the ongoing civil war. 

The Russia–Ukraine war has also exacerbated the situation. Sudan previously relied on cereal imports from the Black Sea. The European conflict has disrupted the supply lines connecting Sudan to European grain via the Red Sea.

What can the international community do?

Currently, there is very little, if any, human rights reporting in Darfur. The international community has largely abandoned efforts in this region. Getting food and medicine into Darfur and other locations in western Sudan is extremely difficult.

At present, MSF provides supplementary and therapeutic feeding to the most needy, without which they would be unable to survive. The only food going into the Zamzam IDP camp, a camp with 400,000 IDPs, is what Eric Reeves himself and his cooperators at Project Zamzam have been able to send. 

Project Zamzam provides monthly food distributions to the most needy individuals. This project and MSF are now the only international presence in the area. The project has also been able to rehabilitate seven wells that humanitarian groups had abandoned. It also aims to assist and rehabilitate women and girls who have suffered from sexual violence, which has been rampant in the region for over twenty years. More information about the sexual violence that has been going on in this region can be found here.

For more information about the conflict in Darfur, how to help, and how to contribute to Eric Reeve’s project, please visit his website.

Visit this Website: https://sudanreeves.org/

[Mitchelle Lumumba wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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° Talks: Starvation Now Threatens Millions of Displaced People in Sudan appeared first on Fair Observer.

Contrary to popular belief, not all of the immigrants entering the US do so illegally. Many migrants use legal immigration methods to enter the US, only to overstay their welcome as provisions time out. So the biggest question is not why so many people are crossing the borders. Rather, the big question is why current immigration policies are failing. The answer lies in the incentive for both Republicans and Democrats to keep the issue open for the parties’ own agendas.

The sudden flood proves things need to change

While it isn’t clear exactly why so many immigrants are making the journey, it is clear that elements of current immigration policy need to change. Neither President Joe Biden nor his predecessor Donald Trump seem to have made great progress in fixing the issue. Biden has fought to overturn strict Trump-era policies such as the Remain in Mexico policy and Title 42. Yet the Biden administration seems to have de facto opened the borders up wholesale, saturating the country with both legal and illegal immigrants. US cities and states are not prepared to deal with the influx.

Thus, the Republican party blames the inundated border on Biden. Yet the party, which controls the lower house of Congress, has blocked several bills and deals that could potentially change immigration policy. Why? Republicans want the issue to stay open because it gives them ammunition against the Biden administration. As long as the issue stays open, they can accuse Biden of creating chaos. At least until the coming presidential election in November of this year, the Republicans have little reason to close the show early.

The border is an issue that resonates with the voter bases of both parties. Many Democrats care deeply about immigration and want to see an administration that is welcoming to migrants and does not repeat the harsh scenes, like widespread child detention, they witnessed during the Trump years. Yet Biden is caught between pleasing his base on the one hand and the need to appear effective and in control on the other.

What’s the deal with the current deal?

One thing is clear: There is very little consensus on Capitol Hill on how to move forward. It is clear that immigration needs to change somehow, but no one has yet given the definitive answer as to how.

US immigration policy has had a long development. The 1924 Immigration Act set up a quota system for arrivals on the basis of national origin. The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act abolished this system, instead selecting immigrants on the basis of professional skills, education or family relationship to current US citizens. Immigration policies have shifted over the decades with the ever-changing political landscape. However, they now seem to have reached a state of stasis.

John McCain and Ted Kennedy collaborated on a bipartisan reform bill, the 2005 Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act. Yet it never became law. In recent decades, Democrats and Republicans alike have killed potential immigration deals. They are incentivized to keep the issue front, center, and far from conclusion. Manipulating the issue is a far better option for both parties. Today, Democrats hope to gain a larger voter base, and Republicans hope to undermine the Biden administration. The US is beginning to face the consequences of this two-party game. 

An immigration deal is currently making its way through Congress. It seems like the bill is practically gift-wrapped for Republicans. Because of the political pressure the Biden’s party is facing to act, Democrats are resigned to altering asylum and parole provisions in order to get a deal that will reduce the flow of people. Yet the bill continues to hit walls. Since the time of recording, a version of the bill died in the Senate. Yet Biden is continuing to urge Republicans to revive the legislative effort.

The stasis has generated both push and blowback on the state level. Texas in particular, along with its governor Greg Abbott, is the leading charge in state-level anger. Texas had begun busing migrants into Democrat-run cities. There is a sort of political genius in this plan. Texas has finally made the “migrant problem” an issue for the northern states that have denied the severity of the situation. Abbott declared a state of invasion, claiming that the vast number of illegal migrants has forced his hand.

Related Reading

Republican Governors’ Revolt Tests Biden’s Willpower Over Illegal Immigration

Twenty-five Republican governors signed a petition supporting his decision. A standoff in Shelby Park between Texas state militia and Border Patrol over border protection methods has put pressure on the Biden administration’s image. At time of writing, the standoff is still ongoing.

The outlook is beginning to look bleak

Republicans see this as a win-win situation. Either Biden will do something about immigration, or his government will need to punish Texas. Both choices will make the president look weak. Had he done something earlier, he would have retained some credibility. However, any “tough” stance on immigration he takes now would be a betrayal against his party and most notably against his platform. Republicans are keen on capitalizing on the issue to cripple Biden’s chances at reelection. 

Yet even if Biden does run on a tougher platform, Republicans would still have the upper hand. Trump’s strict immigration policies resonate with much of the population. To voters, it seems like he might have the answers to the border issue. But if Trump were to win, Democrats would no longer be interested in a deal. Without the fear of losing reelection pushing them to fast-forward the current bill, Democrats would begin to fight for more provisions.

In short, the US might not get a deal like the current one again. The clash over the border question will continue as long as a bill is on the table. Democrats claim dictators for the flood of immigrants. Republicans claim a weak administration. One thing is clear: There incentives and reasons why the status quo remains as it is. And as long as there are incentives, there will be stasis.

[Cheyenne Torres wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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° Talks: US Immigration Policy Has Now Reached a Complete Impasse appeared first on Fair Observer.

Hamas is battered but not defeated, having suffered extraordinary losses. Though real figures are unknown, Israel estimates that it has killed and captured half of Hamas’ population. It also confirms it has neutralized 75% of Hamas’ fighting force: 18 of 24 battalions. Casualties in Gaza, meanwhile, exceed 30,000.

Israel has heavily targeted Gaza’s underground tunnel system. Hamas uses this structure to house its fighters, command and control systems, leadership and hostages. The network is vulnerable but vast; Israel estimates it has destroyed half the tunnels. Nevertheless, Hamas can still use the remaining ones to shuttle its fighters from one end of the Gaza Strip to the other.

The diplomatic front has been active recently as well. Progress between the US, Qatar, Egypt and Israel looked promising early this month. Hamas proposed a promising counteroffer, one that would have provided a three-month suspension of fighting, a phased release of hostages and a move toward settlement. The countries agreed, sending US Secretary of State Antony Blinken to Jerusalem to present the offer to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He rejected Blinken’s plan on February 7, 2024. Hamas was asking too much, he decided, and Israel was not interested in negotiating a ceasefire. So the carnage continues.

Since October 7, 2023, the international community has been deeply concerned that the Israel–Hamas War could escalate, dragging more nations into the battle. This would see Hezbollah, a Lebanese militant group, threatening northern Israel and the West Bank with rocket fire. It would also prompt the involvement of the Houthi fighters in Yemen, as well as militia groups in eastern Syria and western Iraq.

Sporadic attacks have increased in number and lethality. One prominent example is the recent January 29 attack on the US outpost in northeastern Jordan, which killed three US soldiers. The US response has been vigorous, especially against militia groups in Iraq. A US strike killed a Kata’ib Hezbollah leader in Baghdad, infuriating the Iraqi Government.

So the war has indeed escalated. Fortunately, the combatants have been able to avoid the gravest worry most parties have: all-out war between Israeli and Hezbollah troops in northern Israel and southern Lebanon. Though they have had their skirmishes, neither side wants to cross the line and trigger a conflagration on par with the brutal 2006 Lebanon War.

Strategic goals

The Axis of Resistance, comprising Iran and its militant allies in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere, is unified by an overriding desire to remove the US from the Middle East. These actors also want to eliminate the State of Israel, which is more likely to happen if the US abandons it.

Excluding Iran, the Axis parties are ruthless fighting organizations, not governing bodies. They care little about human rights or their people’s needs. This is especially true of Hamas — they ruled Gaza for 17 years. During their tenure, they pilfered public resources to build their Israel-fighting force while the Gazans suffered. These groups may also be sustaining the violence so they can continue living off the spoils of war.

The disparate groups have not coordinated their military actions, as demonstrated on October 7. It would make sense for Hamas to take Israel by surprise and have the others act simultaneously, but they did not. None of the parties, including Iran, knew the attack’s timing. This delivered a heavy message: If Hamas does not keep the Axis parties informed, they will not assist in Hamas’ time of need. Perhaps this is why Hezbollah has not wholeheartedly engaged.

Geopolitical and economic risks

Yemen’s Houthi militia has accidentally globalized the conflict, specifically by expanding it to the Red Sea. It has attacked shipping vessels traveling through the Suez Canal and Bab-el-Mandeb, two major shipping routes. Striking a cargo ship with a drone is cheap and easy for Houthi fighters, but has a serious effect on the world economy.

When these attacks occur, shipping companies have to reroute ships. Cargo that would normally travel through Bab-el-Mandeb must now be rerouted around the Cape of Good Hope, which adds fuel, labor and insurance costs to the process. Increasing the shipping cost consequently increases the consumer cost, resulting in inflation. The marketplace cannot correct this.

Several populations in Europe and Asia, especially China, rely on Red Sea trading. This has seriously disrupted trade in Europe and Asia. North and Latin America can trade with Europe and Asia without the Suez Canal, but they are experiencing another problem: a drought in the Panama Canal. With the canal’s level lowered, operators must lessen the traffic passing through it, thus reducing trade. While the economic impact is currently minor, it will increase the longer this crisis lasts.

Europe will have a tough decade. Russian energy is now expensive, China is suffering from deflation, and the US has turned protectionist. On top of that, the Russo–Ukrainian War marches on with no end in sight. When conflicts increase costs to Europe’s economy and bottleneck the trade there, international confidence in that trade drops.

Instability in the face of the Israel–Hamas War is a growing concern around the globe. As these fears grip world leaders, conservative or autocratic figures often rise to “fix things.” When a country’s economy is deprived of critical inputs (ie oil or microchips), that country becomes aggressive, as seen with the two World Wars. Protectionism prompts this response, which can be destabilizing.

Is another great conflict on the way?

It is frightening to imagine the possibility of a new all-out war. Fortunately, the major parties know the consequences of another global war and will work to prevent it. Widescale nuclear bombardments would make Earth uninhabitable.

However, chaotic non-state actors like Hezbollah do not care about governance. They fight for the sake of causing destruction and lack the guard rails that established governments (e.g., the US, China and Russia) have.

Barring the US and its allies, all the adversaries here are ruled by autocrats. Rulers with absolute power are unpredictable and opportunistic. How can the US deal with autocrats, especially when it feels compelled to use its powers for its own interests?

What happens in our world is determined and exacerbated by the information space. An information war rages as every major player fights to spin a narrative. No one can control the space; anyone with Internet access can enter and spread all manner of disinformation. It is easy to fabricate the truth with AI. When people cannot decide what is correct, they fall back on their biases instead of doing due research. Social media exacerbates this, as the algorithms and filters there create echo chambers.

We must hope that the US can bring the Israel–Hamas War to an end, for the security needs of Israel and the humanitarian needs of Gaza. If left unabated, this bloodshed will breed unrest and further wound the world stage.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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° Talks: Israel’s Invasion of Gaza Will Not Be Over Quickly appeared first on Fair Observer.

PTI-supported candidates netted a large number of seats. At time of recording, they had won 102 seats in parliament (now 93). The number of seats required to form a majority is 169. Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League (PML) had won 73 (now 75). Former Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari’s Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) had won 54. The Jamaat-e-Islami ideological party, which has always pushed the Islamist agenda, lost all its seats.

Everything that occurs in Pakistan’s political scene does so under the watch of the corrupt GHQ. Was this election rigged? And can we expect from the new administration?

Is conspiracy at play?

In a fair election, the PTI would be the clear winner. The people overwhelmingly support Khan, seeing him as a challenger of the corrupt establishment. The public has lost faith in their irresponsible government and rejected radical parties.

Many voters believe the election was rigged. If it was, then it was done skillfully. The GHQ did not let the PTI take the majority of seats, which likely would have happened in a fair election. They afforded them less than a majority.

In Pakistan’s electoral process, the initial vote is counted and signed on a paper called Form 45 and the final vote on Form 47. Voters allege the signed document here was quite different from the final result. Thus, many cases are going to the Court of Appeals to contest the result.

Some people believe this situation is a shadow game between the US and China; that Khan is backed by China and the GHQ is following the US. As the expression goes, “Allah, Army and America” have guided Pakistan since independence.

This conspiracy theory may have some merit. While Khan was in power, he did not promote the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor Sharif had negotiated. There is no evidence linking Khan to China, as he has never strongly favored them but he certainly favors Beijing over Washington, DC.

Pakistan’s dire situation

Rampant corruption is only one of Pakistan’s terrible problems. The country is politically dysfunctional and economically broken. Employment is scarce, demoralizing young Pakistanis and making them seek opportunities elsewhere. Pakistan has bad relations with neighboring India and Afghanistan, as they have had years of conflict and cross-border terrorism.

To escape their economic crisis, Pakistan has once again gone to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for support. Thanks to their history as a frontline state in the Cold War, they will not get much funding from the IMF or the US. China’s debt relief may only be available in small doses, as their own economy is suffering under President Xi Jinping.

Because the government has failed to provide for its people, religiosity and radicalization are increasing across the nation. This opposition, surprisingly, is overwhelmingly coming from Punjabis. In many ways, Pakistan is basically Punjabian — the army, bureaucracy and business class are filled with people from the Punjab region of eastern Pakistan and northwestern India.

Pakistani youths are tired of corruption and want the government to improve the country’s standing with India. In fact, a recent poll found that 69% of Pakistani youths aged 18-34 favor better relations with India.

Imran, Nawaz and Bilawal

The GHQ opposes Imran Khan. The Muslim playboy and retired cricket champion was once their golden boy. That changed when he gained power in 2018, as he began questioning their orders. In June 2019, then-Director-General of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Asim Munir, presented Khan with proof of his wife’s corruption. Khan responded pettily by removing him from service and refusing to promote him. For this offense, the GHQ sought his removal.

In March 2022, Pakistani and US diplomats held a meeting. Khan took a secretive cipher document from this meeting and waved it in a public forum, claiming it was proof of a conspiracy against him. This illegal disclosure of state secrets was just one of his misdeeds; he had also abused his power to get private gains from public gifts and married Bushra Bibi against Islamic law. In October 2023, Khan was sentenced to 24 years in prison, and Bibi received 14.

Times and public opinion change. In 2018, then-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was an unpopular politician who could not do anything right. Now he and Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, son of the late prime minister Benazir Bhutto, are back in the public’s good graces.

Pakistan’s future

The next prime minister, whoever that may be, will determine Pakistan’s future. The nation’s new darling, Bhutto Zardari, was highly critical of India, calling their prime minister the “Butcher of Gujarat.” Yet the GHQ brought back Sharif, who wants to improve relations with India. A cabinet with both politicians would be incongruous. Are the GHQ for or against India?

If Pakistan is to correct itself, it must construct a coalition and have a civilian government stabilize the country. If Nawaz becomes the prime minister, he and his family may be able to effectively fix the economy. He will likely try to initiate regular trade with India.

As people say, the GHQ’s motto is “lose all wars but win all elections.” Pakistan’s hatred of India will not improve their economy. Someone in charge needs the courage to decide the state’s best interest — Indian trade is the correct answer. If the new government can get past their hostility, Pakistan might get a sorely needed change. Ending violence against Afghanistan and building trust with them would be another move toward prosperity.

Pakistan’s hyper-Islamic ideology is not enough to support its people’s needs. Once the new prime minister is chosen, we will have to see if a popular resistance movement emerges or another crisis erupts.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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° Talks: Pakistan’s New Election Might Have Been Rigged appeared first on Fair Observer.

Once upon a time in 1956, Russian tanks rolled into Budapest to squash an anti-Soviet rebellion. Yet Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán is now one of Russia’s only supporters within the EU. An opportunist, he intends to profit from the conflict.

Orbán has cooked up a new kind of authoritarianism and fascism, transforming Hungary into an illiberal state. Until 2020, no state had fallen from the democratic values necessary to be a member of the EU. Hungary is the first to break that norm. If the EU does not take steps to reform and discourage democratic backsliding, it may see a resurgence of politics that belong 100 years in the past.

Reformation is a necessity

The essence of EU integration is to overcome nationalist sentiment and dismantle barriers. Yet countries like Hungary are still a contributing part of the EU, and countries like Serbia are already in the queue to join. Serbia is a highly significant nation in the Balkans, but, like Hungary, it is regressing. The EU needs to respond by reforming its institutions so that a few bad apples do not spoil the bunch.

We can take an example from the history of the EU. Back in 2005, voters in France and the Netherlands rejected the proposed European Constitution. The constitution would have replaced the requirement for unanimity with a qualified majority process in many policy areas.

After some time of reflection, European leaders then introduced the Treaty of Lisbon. This treaty was less ambitious, dropping the project of establishing a new constitution for Europe and instead amending the pre-existing treaties. Still, it succeeded in introducing qualified majority voting in many areas. In order to pass a measure in these areas, a 55% majority of the member states representing at least 65% majority of the population of the union is needed, rather than a unanimous agreement of member states.

In 2005, European leaders listened to the concerns of citizens and sought ways to make the union work for them. That same response is needed now. In fact, it was needed as soon as Brexit happened in 2016. Clearly, the current EU framework is not supporting the needs of the member states.

A new EU reformation would bring enlargement of the union and a firmer foreign policy. It would also would reduce the ability for countries like Hungary to veto decisions.

Wrinkles within reformation

Many opponents of EU enlargement consider the union to be too large already. However, qualified majority makes it less problematic to bring in new members, as a single state could not veto European decisions in the relevant areas.

The EU is occupied, not merely with expansion, but with securing democracy in regions such as the Balkans which still follow WWII-era nationalism. 

Opponents citing possible fiscal problems follow the same line of thinking. They argue that bringing the Euro to new member states with lower GDP than others would cause major fiscal tensions. The EU, however, does not immediately introduce the Euro to new member states. There are established criteria that need to be reached. Expanding the Eurozone can wait; what is more important is supporting democracy by expanding the union.

Still, the EU does eventually need to expand fiscally. This brings with it the risk of centralizing too much decision-making power in Brussels, disconnected from the voters in member states. How will the union keep the administration in Brussels democratically accountable? 

There already is a body for holding executives accountable for every penny spent — the European Parliament. It is directly elected by European citizens. Yet citizens seem not to realize that this system of checks and balances is in place. Why? They don’t care about the parliamentary elections.

The problem doesn’t lie in disengagement or pure disinterest. The problem is that, currently, EU elections are flawed. At the time of voting, most countries are unaware of the number of seats they will receive in parliament. Therefore, the party already in power is the only candidate to vote for.

Voting reformation is absolutely necessary to keep member states working together to dismantle nationalism. Reformed European elections would involve not only methods ways of voting, but also transnational voting. Importance cannot be given to singular nations; voting reformation must stress the importance of supranationality with regional rather than national actors. Putting emphasis on regional actors and dismantling the idea of a nation-state is crucial in battling nationalism. 

With multilateralism on the rise, nation-states alone cannot play a decisive role in the world. Only on a supranational, regional level can multi-level governance have an impact. Despite the nation being the bedrock of personal identity for individuals for centuries, nation as identity is no longer responsive to the needs of people or the world in this modern age. 

Inactiveness and willingness to ignore integration cements populist views. Regional cooperation above strict-bordered nation-states is the answer to democratic regression. If we become tolerant of the intolerant, we will lose democracy.

[The Institute for the Danube Region and Central Europe is a partner of Fair Observer.]

[Cheyenne Torres wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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° Talks: Make Sense of the New Central Europe and the EU appeared first on Fair Observer.

Switzerland has been neutral for so long that neutrality has become part of its identity. It is what makes the country unique, giving Switzerland a unique vantage point in world affairs. To find out more, we asked Swiss diplomat and author Thomas Greminger the question: “How does Switzerland see the world?”

Of course, in many ways, the world doesn’t look so different from the high Swiss Alps as elsewhere. International norms seem to be crumbling. Russia has brought back hard-power politics and invaded its neighbor, Ukraine, with no legal justification. China is eyeing Taiwan and staking out the South China Sea as its private lake — much to the chagrin of its neighbors who share this sea. War has broken out again in the Middle East, with Israel invading Gaza and missiles flying everywhere from Yemen to Pakistan. The world is chaotic indeed. There is much wisdom in the Swiss policy of staying out of conflict.

The US has played its part, and so have others

Many Swiss observers lay the blame for this chaos at the feet of the US. The global hegemon has not done a good job of managing affairs as of late. Donald Trump, the former president and the Republican frontrunner for the presidential ticket, introduced much instability into the international system. His unpredictable and erratic foreign policy left both allies and foes guessing. Today, countries from the Middle East to East Asia are increasingly worried that they will have to rely on their own devices instead of the US. They are preparing for conflict rather than trusting in a tranquil, American-backed world order. This preparation has made nations more suspicious and more reactive, making the world more volatile.

As nations pull up the drawbridges, they are economically disengaging from each other. Nearshoring, friendshoring and reshoring are the watchwords of the day. Trade between China and the West is under strain as Washington and Beijing impose tit-for-tat tariffs in an ongoing trade war. Financial interconnectivity between the developed world and the developing world is under pressure. 

Even as trade declines, China’s economic growth is flagging. Like Germany, Switzerland is feeling the pinch as China enters a deflationary period and Chinese demand for foreign goods consequently drops. Fortunately, Switzerland is more diversified than Germany and not as reliant on exports to China as its northern neighbor. Therefore, the Swiss economy is not suffering as much as the German one.

Related Reading

FO° Exclusive: China’s Worsening Deflation Now Spells Big Trouble

Not only the Chinese economy but also the Latin American economies are in the doldrums. Much of Africa is suffering and military coups are overthrowing democratic governments in many countries. Some of these coups have popular support. Even Asian economies, with the exception of India, Vietnam and a handful of others, are no longer growing that fast. Switzerland, with a highly developed financial industry, has been deeply invested in developing economies across the world. For now, the only thing this small country can do is batten down the hatches, continue to diversify and hope for more favorable conditions in the future.

Swiss observers are worried, too, about the state of their own continent. Democratic norms are weakening in Europe. In the Netherlands, the nationalist, anti-Muslim politician Geert Wilders took the lion’s share of votes in the November 2023 elections. In Germany, the far-right Alternative for Germany is on the rise. And Georgia Meloni, the far-right prime minister of Italy, hails from a party with post-fascist roots. The chatter in Austria, Switzerland’s neighbor to the east, is that the populist Freedom Party is looking strong. Austrians go to the polls in June. In Slovakia, Robert Fico has begun his assault on democratic institutions, attempting to bring the mechanisms of the state under his party’s control. In Hungary, Viktor Orbán has already accomplished this feat, turning Hungary into an illiberal democracy.

Related Reading

Robert Fico Returns: Will Slovakia Become the New Hungary?

The world may not quite be coming apart at the seams, but Switzerland must proceed cautiously if it does not want to become isolated in its own neighborhood.

How Switzerland is getting on in a dangerous world

The Swiss, of course, don’t have to worry about being invaded like the Ukrainians or the Taiwanese. Switzerland is armed to its teeth, and this mountainous country is a natural fortress — dotted with bunkers for good measure. But even the Swiss cannot live in the world alone. The country has deepened its relations with the EU and even with NATO. In the past, Switzerland failed to find a solution to engaging with the EU that balanced integration with Swiss independence. But recent global unrest has driven Bern and Brussels closer together.

Switzerland has participated in European sanctions against Russia because Swiss neutrality does not necessarily exclude participating in international sanctions. Switzerland’s neutrality policy took current legal shape in 1993 after the end of the Cold War and allows for sanctions. The real novelty in Switzerland’s foreign policy is that it has begun to cooperate with like-minded nations in security. In 2023, Swiss defense minister Viola Amherd achieved a historic first by participating in a meeting of NATO’s decision-making body, the North Atlantic Council. Switzerland may not be abandoning neutrality, but it is certainly moving much closer to Europe and the US than ever before.

Still, Switzerland is not turning its back on Russia or other non-Western-aligned powers. Switzerland prides itself on being a place where officials and experts from deeply opposed nations can meet and work together. The country is, for example, one of the last places in the world where US and Russian policymakers can still discuss nuclear weapons. Arctic powers, including the US, Canada and Russia, meet and speak here. In an increasingly divided and suspicious world, neutral Switzerland’s importance is increasing.

Switzerland is not immune to the unrest

Many look upon neutral and prosperous Switzerland as an island of stability. In many ways, it is so indeed. Swiss democracy has been resilient and moderate. It is a federal, semi-direct democracy that gives its voters a real voice in how their local, regional and national governments are run. The application of this principle of subsidiarity is a rarity and makes Switzerland unique.

Yet many Swiss citizens feel that the system is not being run in their interest. They see Switzerland’s many advantages being used to enrich a small elite, rather than the common people. Prices are running high and few own houses or can buy them. Many are resentful and are turning to populism. The Swiss People’s Party has grown stronger and poses a threat to Switzerland’s liberal democratic status quo.

Switzerland must navigate the territory carefully. As it copes with the modern world, this idyllic mountain country must avoid compromising its traditions of neutrality and Swiss citizens’ personal freedoms. The relatively new Swiss law, Measures for Protection against Terrorism, has many worried that the government may begin compromising the rights to privacy or free expression. Yet, for now, Switzerland seems to have crafted a legal solution that adequately balances security with these values.

In an uncertain world, Switzerland must strive to draw on the best of its political heritage, trudge forward and stay the course in hope of better days 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° Talks: Making Sense of the World Through a Swiss Lens appeared first on Fair Observer.

Successful primaries frighten Maduro

Under Maduro, Venezuela experienced hyperinflation. In 2018, the annual inflation rate reached a jaw-dropping 63,374.08%. More than 60% of Venezuelans live on the “Maduro Diet,” a colloquial term for the disastrous level of poverty caused by Maduro’s policies. Riots in 2014 and a mass exodus of citizens demonstrate Venezuelans’ frustration with the Maduro government.

María Corina Machado has emerged as the winner of the recent primaries to emerge as Maduro’s challenger. She is charismatic, energetic and a real challenge to the Venezuelan caudillo. After years of suffering, Venezuelans desire change and, in a free and fair election, Machado is likely to trounce Maduro.

Therefore, the repressive Maduro regime has banned Machado and her party from running in the elections. In October 2023, hopes for a relatively fair election were reignited. The government and the opposition held talks in Barbados. They signed a pact to hold fair elections, which would lead to the easing of sanctions that have put the Maduro government under increasing pressure in recent years. The strongman was cynical while signing the pact because the opposition was in disarray at the time. Since then, Machado has unified the opposition and Maduro’s star has waned considerably.

Worryingly for Maduro, almost 2.5 million Venezuelan citizens voted in the opposition primaries despite significant obstacles from the government. Machado won with a whopping 93.5% of the votes. In contrast, note that, as per many opinion polls, Maduro’s popularity has sunk to a measly 9%. Naturally, Machado now poses a real threat to Maduro’s reign. She is a leader with popular support at a time when voters crave a radical change in government. With Machado’s relentless rise, Maduro feels insecure. It is a cliché that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel and Maduro is proving to be no exception. His threats of military intervention in the Essequibo region are a last-ditch effort to boost his flagging popularity and regain control in Venezuela.

Nostalgia for oil diplomacy prompts Maduro to play with fire

Venezuela’s claim for Essequibo goes back a long way. The 1899 Paris Tribunal granted Guyana (then a part of the British Empire) control over the Essequibo territory. It wasn’t until Guyana became independent in 1966 that it signed the Geneva Agreement with Venezuela. As per this agreement, the two countries were to resolve the dispute over Essequibo peacefully. Now that Guyana has struck oil, Venezuela wants to acquire the oil-rich territory.

Maduro’s referendum on December 3, 2023 aimed to whip up patriotic frenzy in Venezuela for the reconquest of Essequibo. He hopes that possession of Essequibo will bring back the golden age of his mentor and predecessor Hugo Chávez. In the heyday of Chávez, bumper oil prices gave Venezuela the cash to emerge as one of the leading nations in Latin America.

Today, Venezuela lacks the money, expertise and managerial talent to refine, produce and export oil. Even if Maduro’s troops conquered Essequibo, Venezuela would not be able to exploit the oil. Hence, Maduro’s referendum is largely symbolic and hurts, not helps, Venezuela.

Venezuela has now recognized the Guyanese within the Essequibo region as Venezuelans who can get their own identity cards. In international law, Guyana is an independent and sovereign nation. Venezuelan military invasion of Essequibo would violate Guyana’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. 

Oil companies from many countries are drilling Guyanese oil. If Venezuela lays claim to Essequibo, these companies face vast losses and their home countries lose access to our age’s liquid gold. The US, China and other nations could intervene. Latin American neighbors do not want war on their continent. Reportedly, Brazil has been mobilizing its military to intervene. Venezuela is clearly playing with fire and could get badly burnt.

[Cheyenne Torres wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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° Talks: Make Sense of the Crazy Venezuelan Crisis appeared first on Fair Observer.

In this hung parliament, Alberto Núñez Feijóo, the leader of the Popular Party, tried to cobble together a coalition. He failed. Sánchez, a crafty political operator, smelled blood and seized his chance. On November 16, he pulled the rabbit out of the hat and became prime minister again.

In order to do so, Sánchez had to make a compromise. In Spain’s fragmented political landscape, either major party generally needs the support of minor parties to achieve a parliamentary majority. Like in Israel, the major political forces of the center-left and center-right are too fiercely opposed to work together. So, a grand coalition à la Germany was not an option. Instead, Sánchez had to draw on the support of far-left parties that have formed a platform called Sumar, which includes the Communist Party.

But the far left is not the only minority political force Sánchez needed to achieve a parliamentary majority and form the government. The wily Sánchez had to make a deal with Catalan nationalist parties. Some of these parties want greater autonomy for Catalonia, Spain’s richest region, and a few want outright independence. The Spanish right is so strongly nationalist that it could never work together with secessionists. For the left, however, although they do not support Catalan nationalism, working with secessionists is an option.

In 2017, Catalonia illegally declared independence by referendum. Spanish authorities arrested politicians who had organized it. The Spanish state is currently prosecuting many of them for misappropriating public funds to pay for the vote. Like many Catalan leaders, Carles Puigdemont, leader of Together for Catalonia, one of the two largest independence parties, fled Spain. He has been living in exile ever since. In order to get the Catalan nationalists’ support, Sánchez has promised legal amnesty to the leaders facing prosecution or in exile.

Has Sánchez’s gamble paid off?

Sánchez is a risk-taker and a consummate hardball political player. As a young politician, he broke up through the ranks of the Socialist party even though the old guard did not like him. He went from town to town canvassing until he had enough votes to force his way in. In 2018, as opposition leader, Sánchez championed an unprecedented no-confidence vote which brought down the Popular Party government headed by Mariano Rajoy. In early 2023, Sánchez’s approval ratings as prime minister were low, and the Popular Party’s fortunes in opinion polls were rising. But Sánchez cleverly declared an early election, catching his conservative rivals off-guard. Now, he is making a deal with secessionists in order to keep power. This has enraged the right and unsettled many Socialists. Yet, though his methods are questionable, they have worked so far.

Although Sánchez and the Catalan nationalists have struck a deal, the latter are not forming part of Sánchez’s coalition government. Instead, they will simply abstain from confidence votes. This allows the Socialists and their ally, Sumar, to govern by themselves, although they are a minority in parliament.

Typically, a minority government like this is a very unstable arrangement. The stakeholders have diverging interests, and, without a formal coalition agreement, any one of them could break the deal and walk away. But Sánchez’s arrangement is different. It will hold, because there is simply no other option for its members. Sánchez knows that he cannot govern Spain without the Catalan parties’ help. And the Catalan parties, as well as Sumar, know that they would have no say if the Popular Party succeeded. So, Sánchez is their least worst option.

So, in the short term, Spain seems to be safe from political chaos. But Sánchez is playing with fire. Pardoning secessionists may be very destructive in the long term.

What does this mean for the rest of the world?

Spain can be an anomalous country. It is a truism that every nation is different. But it bears repeating. Many observers have sought to draw comparisons between Spain’s political turmoil and that of Argentina, a former Spanish colony. In Argentina, far-right libertarian candidate Javier Milei won the presidential election despite being a political outsider. It’s easy to project these anxieties onto Spain, which also has a far-right populist movement, Vox. Yet the two cases could not be more different in terms of the mechanics.

In Argentina, like in the United States, individual presidential candidates contend for popular support. The winner takes all, since the president, who is directly elected, governs. Milei barely had a party at all. He won on his personal popularity and unique platform. Spain’s situation is much more typically European. The prime minister governs as the representative of a coalition in parliament. Each party’s political platform is firmly established. Here, the parties are jockeying for position by making deals with other parties, rather than competing in a contest of candidates. So we can read very little into superficial similarities between the two Spanish-speaking nations; what happens in Buenos Aires is by no means what will happen in Madrid.

With regard to Spain’s foreign relations, very little is likely to change. Sánchez is pro-US and pro-NATO. With regard to Spain’s relationship with the EU, he will continue to maintain the status quo. The EU is not an issue on which the Socialists and Popular Party differ. Instead of involving itself in the disputes that plague Europe’s eastern flank, Spain is more interested in expanding its influence in North Africa. So, while the developments within Spain have been dramatic, the rest of the world is largely insulated from them.

For now, things will be quiet. What is coming in the future, as Spain’s political ecosystem continues to evolve, is anyone’s guess.

[Anton Schauble wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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° Talks: Spain’s Sánchez Shows How to Make Victory Out of Defeat appeared first on Fair Observer.